IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: December 8, 2010 1. C.W.P. No. 18565 of 2010 Suman Tiwari and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents 2. C.W.P. No. 21901 of 2010 Sanjeev Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, (in CWP No. 18565 of 2010) Mr. Shish Pal Laler, Advocate, (in CWP No. 21901 of 2010) for the petitioner(s). 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 18565 and 21901 of 2010 involving common questions of law and facts. Challenge in these petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is to the amendment made in the statutory rules known as the Haryana Primary Education (Group-C) District Cadre Service Rules, 1994, vide impugned notification dated 24.7.2008. CWP Nos. 18565 and 21901 of 2010 Further challenge has been made to the advertisement dated 13.8.2009, prescribing passing of the ‘State Teachers’ Eligibility Test’ as an essential condition for recruitment of teachers of all categories. Still further a prayer has been made for directing the official respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment against the posts which have been advertised vide advertisement dated 13.8.2009 without imposing the condition of having passed the ‘Eligibility Test’. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) we find that the matter is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) while dealing with a bunch of petitions raising the same controversy, has already upheld the amendment made in the statutory rules vide notification dated 24.7.2008, by passing a detailed judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 17449 of 2008, decided on 29.11.2010) and dismissed those petitions. Therefore, for the parity of reasoning these petitions would also meet the same result being squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Vijay Kumar’s case (supra). Accordingly, these petitions fail and the same are dismissed in terms of the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Vijay Kumar (supra). A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 8, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2