Regarding HTET exemption and experience as a College Lecturer-Court decision

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 14695 of 2012
       Date of Decision : 2.8.2012
Aruna Mehta
Petitioner .......
Versus
Haryana School Teachers Selection Board and another
Respondents .....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate, for,
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court by putting-forth her
grievance that her candidature has been rejected on the ground that she does
not possess the qualification of having passed Haryana Teachers Eligibility
Test (in short 'HTET')/State Teachers Eligibility Test (in short 'STET') in the
subject of Psychology and her experience as a College Lecturer has not been
taken into consideration for granting her exemption from passing
HTET/STET.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner possesses the educational qualifications required under the
advertisement for appointment to the post of Post Graduate TeacherCWP No. 14695 of 2012 -2-
(Psychology). Under the Haryana State Education Lecturers School Cadre
(Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 (in short '1998 Rules'), which were applicable
earlier, there was no sanctioned post of Lecturer in Psychology in the
education department. With the coming into force of the Haryana State
Education School Cadre (Group 'B') Service Rules, 2012 (in short '2012
Rules') cadre of Post Graduate Teachers (in short 'PGT') in Psychology stands
created. Petitioner possesses the educational qualifications for appointment to
the post, but does not possess the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET.
In the advertisement dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure-P-2) itself while prescribing
eligibility which mandated certificate of having qualified STET/HTET of
respective subject for the post applied, Note 2 was inserted which provided for
one time exemption of HTET/STET. As per this note, candidates who have
worked for minimum four years till 11.4.2012 and was continuing as such was
exempted from qualifying the HTET/STET, but was required to qualify the
same not later than 1.4.2015, failing which their services were to be
terminated automatically.
Since the petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor in
Psychology in Jeevan Chanan Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Assandh, she applied
for the post of PGT (Psychology) claiming exemption from passing of the
HTET. She was called for verification/scrutiny of documents-cum-interview
to be held on 25.7.2012 at Canal Rest House, Rohtak before Committee
constituted for the said purpose. An objection was raised with regard to the
experience certificate of the petitioner on the ground that she has teaching
experience of graduate classes and has worked in college, whereas as per the
advertisement, the candidate who has worked in a Government School,
Privately Managed Government Aided School and Recognized Schools wasCWP No. 14695 of 2012 -3-
only eligible for grant of exemption on the basis of experience of four years
prior to 11.4.2012. The candidature of the petitioner was therefore rejected on
this ground and an endorsement was put on the roll number (Annexure-P-13)
which was issued to the petitioner for appearing before the Committee. This,
the counsel for the petitioner, contends is not in accordance with the said
advertisement.
Further reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Altaf
Versus U.P. Public Service Commission, 2008 (14) SCC 139 to contend that
when the advertisement does not specify about the experience whether it must
be on which post, the same cannot be made the basis for rejecting the
candidature of a candidate by adding to the advertisement.
Another argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that
the petitioner has qualified the National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET)
examination for eligibility for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the
subject of Psychology conducted by the University Grant Commission. She
possesses the requisite qualifications apart from having passed the B.Ed.
examination for appointment to the post she has applied for. Since the
petitioner has qualified the National Eligibility Test (in short 'NET')
conducted by the UGC and therefore, having passed the higher test cannot be
deprived of the right to participate in the selection merely because she has not
passed the HTET/STET. The petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post
of Lecturer in the Colleges and since she possesses the higher qualification,
non-possession of the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET cannot be
an impediment in appointment of the petitioner as a PGT teacher and holding
her ineligible for the said post. The qualification of NET should be taken asCWP No. 14695 of 2012 -4-
equivalent to HTET/STET, thus rendering her eligible for appointment to the
post applied for.
His further submission is that since the subject of Psychology has
been introduced now, there can be no candidate who would have experience
as PGT (Psychology) and therefore, this clause in the advertisement is
redundant. Prayer has thus been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to consider the petitioner eligible for appointment to
the post of PGT (Psychology) and set aside the rejection of her candidature by
the respondents.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.
Petitioner has applied in pursuance to an advertisement published
on 7.6.2012 according to which, possession of qualification of passing
HTET/STET is essential. Petitioner admittedly does not possess the said
qualification and it is contended that since she has passed the NET conducted
by the UGC, which is a much tougher test than HTET held by the Board of
School Education, Bhiwani and therefore, she should be treated as eligible for
appointment to the said post. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted as the requirement for the post of PGT and that of a
College Lecturer is totally different and so are the requirement of passing the
NET and HTET. Since the posts are different, so eligibility conditions, nature
and requirement of the posts vary. One set of qualification although may be
tougher, as asserted by the counsel for the petitioner, would not entitle a
candidate for being declared eligible if the requirement of the advertisement
for the post is different which has been prescribed by the employer who is best
suited to determine the eligibility and qualifications.CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -5-
This Court, while dealing with the claim made in a writ petition
that the petitioner possesses equivalent/higher qualification to the one
advertised for filling up of the posts and thus should be declared eligible for
appointment, in CWP No. 6704 of 2011 titled as Narender Kumar and
another Versus Haryana Public Service Commission, decided on
24.4.2011, relying upon various judgments passed by this Court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, culled out the principles which are to be followed by
the Courts while dealing with such situations. The relevant portion of the said
judgment reads as follows :-
“ From the above judgments it is clear that (i) the
employer has a prerogative to prescribe the qualification for
a particular post or service which is either prescribed under
the rules and if not, depending upon the needs and
requirement of the post, the employer can accordingly
prescribe the same, if such a qualification has been
prescribed and has been advertised the employer can insist
upon strict adherence thereto. (ii) If the employer prescribes
the essential qualification for appointment to a particular
post and where it is not mentioned about the eligibility of the
equivalent course to the prescribed qualifications either in
the statutory rules or in the advertisement, absence of such a
clause clearly indicates that the employer did not desire to
appoint a person possessing equivalent qualification. (iii) A
Court should not generally delve into determining as to
whether a particular qualification is an exact equivalent to
the one prescribed in the advertisement/statutory rules and
leave the same to the employer to determine. (iv) Insistence
on the advertisement, qualifications is also essential for the
reason that if there is any deviation from the qualifications
mentioned in the advertisement it would give rise to a
grievance for all those who had same or even betterCWP No

CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -6-
qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had
not applied for the post because they did not possess the
qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. This would
amount to a fraud on public as public posts are to be filled in
accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India and any violation thereof cannot permitted by the
Court nor can the Court be a party to such illegal process of
appointment.
In the light of the above, challenge of the
petitioners to the order of rejection of their candidature
cannot be accepted.”
In the light of the above, the contention as raised by the counsel
for the petitioner that the NET passed by the petitioner from UGC should be
treated as equivalent to HTET/STET cannot be accepted.
As regards the experience of the petitioner as a college Lecturer
whether it has to be counted or not for the purpose of grant of exemption from
qualifying HTET/STET as a one time measure has been considered by this
Court in a similar circumstance wherein the teacher who had been teaching
the primary classes and has sought benefit of the experience on the said post
for seeking exemption under the advertisement in question and this Court in
CWP No. 14666 of 2012 titled as Kamlesh Versus State of Haryana and
another, decided on 2.8.2012 has held as follows :-
“ Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
the requirement of the advertisement, petitioner fulfills
the requirement as note 2 thereof only states that for
exemption of passing HTET/STET, experience required
is as a teacher in the school and it is not mentioned that it
should be against Post Graduate Teacher's post.
Petitioner has an experience of primary teacher from
1.9.1997 to 30.6.2011 and from 1.7.2011 till date as aCWP No. 14695 of 2012 -7-
Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Studies). The action of
the respondents in not interviewing the petitioner and
rejecting her candidature is not sustainable and therefore,
press for direction to the respondents to consider the
petitioner as an eligible candidate and interview her for
the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sociology).
A perusal of the eligibility conditions Clause
(b) thereof, the certificate of having qualified
HTET/STET was to be of the respective subject for the
post applied. The exemption as per Note 2 for possessing
the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET was also
to be granted to the candidates who have worked for
minimum of four years till 11.4.2012, which obviously
means on the post for which they have applied for.
Experience on a post on the basis of which exemption is
being sought in the basic eligibility condition cannot be
of some other post although may be as a teacher. It has
thus got to be on the post of a Post Graduate Teacher and
that too in the respective subject for the post applied.
Note 2 cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in
conjunction with Clause (b) of eligibility condition
common to all posts. The contention thus raised by the
counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.”
Petitioner was required to possess the experience of a Post
Graduate Teacher in the subject for which the application stands submitted
and should be in service and working on the post applied for not only on
11.4.2012 but also on the date when application is submitted.
The next contention which has been raised by the counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria as per rules and the
corrigendum issued therein and in the light of the transitional provision,
petitioner should be held eligible for appointment to the post of PGTCWP No. 14695 of 2012 -8-
(Psychology) has been considered in a similar case by this Court in CWP No.
12914 of 2012 titled as Rakesh Makol and others Versus State of Haryana
and another, decided on 13.7.2012, wherein it was held as follows :-
“ Prior to notification dated 11.04.2012, vide
which Government of Haryana notified the Haryana State
Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as '2012 Rules'), the Rules governing
the field were the Haryana State Education Lecturer School
Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred
to as '1998 Rules'), according to which, qualifications
prescribed for the post of Lecturer were as follows:-
“i) M.A./M.Sc (in relevant subject) with at least 50% marks
from a recognized University.
ii) Knowledge of Hindi Up to Matric standard.”
With the coming into force of the 2012 Rules, now
the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) is known as Post
Graduate Teacher in the respective subject. The
qualification prescribed is mentioned in Column No. (3) of
Appendix-B under Rule 7 of 2012 Rules, which reads as
follows:-
“i) M.Sc Physics / Applied Physics / Nuclear Physics /
Electronics Physics with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from
a recognized University And
ii) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/BA/MA with Hindi
as one of the subject And
iii) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher
Eligibility Test (HTET) School Teachers Eligibility Test
(STET).
iv) Consistent good academic record.”
While comparing the two sets of Rules i.e. 1998
Rules and 2012 Rules, it comes out that now under the
applicable Rules, B.Ed., Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or
10+2/BA/MA with Hindi as one of the subjects from a

CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -9-
recognized university and certificate of having qualified
HTET/STET as also consistent good academic record
basically stand added. Thus, there is a change in the
qualifications now, although the basic qualification of Post
Graduate degree in relevant subject has been retained but
additions have been made thereto. Advertisement dated
07.06.2012 was issued by the Board, wherein on-line
applications were invited for recruitment for the PGT in
various subjects. Some conditions were kept common for all
posts, which read as follows:-
“COMMON TO ALL POSTS
Eligibility (a) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or
10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the
subject.
(b) Certificate of having qualified Haryana
Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET)/School
Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) of
respective subject for the post applied,
conducted by Board of School
Education Haryana, Bhiwani/One time
exemption of HTET.
(c) Consistent good academic record.
(d) Essential qualification (EQ) is given with
each post.
Age:- 18-40 years, relaxation as given in
special instructions. For Teachers upper
age relaxation.
Pay Scale:- Rs. 9300-34800 plus grade pay Rs. 4800/-
Fee:- The rate of fee is Rs. 500/- for General
candidates and Rs. 125/- for SC/BC/ESM/PHC
candidates of Haryana State. The fee should be
deposited in any branch of State Bank of India
under code/account number 32307173537 forCWP No. 14695 of 2012 -10-
reserved category of Haryana State and
32306718279 for General Category.”
Notes 1 and 2 at the end of the advertisement, which relate
to clause (b) and (c) under the heading 'eligibility', read as
follows:-
“Note 1: Consistent good academic record implying that out
of the lower qualification i.e. Matric/10+2/Graduation than
requisite minimum qualification, one must secure at least
50% marks in two lower exams and 45% marks in third
lower exam. If there are only two lower exams, than one
must secure at least 50% marks in one exam and 45% marks
in another.
Note 2: A one time exemption of HTET/STET has been
granted to the candidates who have worked for minimum 4
years till 11.04.2012 in privately managed Govt. Aided
Schools, Recognized Schools and Govt. Schools. Candidate
must be in service on 11.04.2012 in addition to being in
position on the date of applying for the said post. They will
have to qualify HTET not later than 1
st
April 2015 otherwise
their services will be terminated automatically.
Qualification/eligibility conditions and certificates will be
determined with regard to last date fixed for submission of
online applications also called as closing date given in the
advertisement.”
Corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-5) was
issued consequent upon amendment of the 2012 Rules and
the Mewat District School Education (Group-B) Service
Rules, 2012 vide notification dated 02.07.2012 which
modified the advertisement partially, which reads as
follows:-
“2. Under heading “COMMON TO ALL POSTSEligibility” point (c) Consistent good academic record and
Note-1 shall be omitted.CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -11-
3. Under heading “COMMON TO ALL POSTSEligibility” after point (b) the following point C (i) and (ii)
shall be inserted, namely:-
(c) (i) The candidates who have worked as teachers for a
minimum four years till 11.04.2012 in privately managed
Government aided schools, Recognized Schools and
Government Schools and must be in service on 11.04.2012,
in addition to being in position on the date of applying for
the said post, are exempted to acquire qualifications of
passing HTET/STET and B.Ed. as one time measure.
(c) (ii) A person who has passed STET/HTET without the
qualification of B.Ed. before the date i.e. 11.04.2012 of
notification of Service Rules concerned, shall also be
considered eligible for the post of PGT as one time measure
in the first recruitment.
4. Transitional provision:- Person fulfilling conditions of
qualifications as per old Rules of Haryana State Education
Lecturer School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998 shall
also eligible for recruitment as a one time measure.
Provided that such person shall have to qualify the Haryana
Teachers Eligibility Test (HTET) and B.Ed. by 1st April,
2015 and if he fails to do so, his appointment shall stand
terminated automatically without giving any further notice.
The relevant subject combinations in relevant posts
are as under:-
Under heading “POSTS EXCEPT DISTRICT
MEWAT” and POSTS FOR DISTRICT MEWAT
ONLY (MWT), Essential Qualification (E.Q.) for PGT
mentioned at Category No. 1, 4, 14, 17, 19, 22, 32 and 35 of
the above said Advt. may be read as under, as one time
measure:-
Cat. No. 1 & 19: PGT Mathematics
E.Q. M.A./M.Sc. Math/Mathematics Statistics with
at least 50% marks form a recognized university.CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -12-
Cat. No. 4 & 22:PGT Biology
E.Q. M.Sc. Biology or Zoology or Botany or Bio-Science
or Bio-Chemistry or Genetics or Micro-Biology or
Plant Psychology or Bio-Technology with at least
50% marks from a recognized University.
Cat. No. 14 & 32:PGT Political Science
E.Q. M.A. Political Science or Public Administration with
at least 50% marks from a recognized University.
Cat. No. 17 & 35: PGT History
E.Q. M.A. History or Ancient Indian History and Culture
or Culture and Archaeology with at least 50% marks
from a recognized University.
5. xxx xxx xxx xxx
6. xxx xxx xxx xxx
7. All other terms and conditions of the Advertisement
No. 1/2012 dated 6.6.2012 for the post of PGT will
remain same.
8. xxx xxx xxx xxx
9. xxx xxx xxx xxx”
In the light of para-4 of the Transitional Provision,
petitioners pray their eligibility for competing for the post of
PGT as per the advertisement published on 07.06.2012. A
perusal of the above para-4 'Transitional Provision' would
show that it has to be read as a whole and this Transitional
Provision is limited to only four categories of PGT posts i.e.
Mathematics, Biology, Political Science and History as in
Clause 7, it is clearly mentioned that all other terms and
conditions of the advertisement for the PGT will remain the
same. The same clarification has been issued which has
been termed as 'interpretation of transitional provision'
dated 05.07.2012 (Annexure P-6). Thus, for a candidate to
be eligible for applying to the post of PGT in pursuance to
the advertisement dated 06.06.2012 published on
07.06.2012, the conditions, as provided for under theCWP No. 14695 of 2012 -13-
heading “Common to all posts”, will have to be fulfilled and
this Transitional provision is only applicable in the category
of posts, as specified in corrigendum dated 03.07.2012. As
is apparent from the corrigendum dated 03.07.2012, the
same has been brought about and has been necessitated in
the light of amendment in the statutory Rules governing the
service, which came into force vide notification dated
02.07.2012. Since corrigendum incorporates the provisions

as contained in the amended statutory Rules, in the absence
of challenge to the statutory Rules, the claim of the
petitioners, as made in the present writ petition, cannot
sustain.
A contention has been raised by the counsel for the
petitioners that relaxation has been granted by the
respondents in exercise of Rule 17, which is unjust,
unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. This contention of the counsel for the
petitioners may have some force when it is seen in the light
of the initially notified 2012 Rules, on the basis of which,
advertisement was published on 07.06.2012 as vide this
advertisement in Notes 1 and 2, such relaxation was granted
but with the amendment of the statutory Rules vide
notification dated 02.07.2012 and thereafter, issuance of the
corrigendum dated 03.07.2012, the sting of the argument of
the counsel for the petitioners stands blunted. It appears that
there has been no relaxation granted by the respondents, as
the corrigendum, which has been issued on 03.07.2012, is in
accordance with the amendment brought about in the
statutory Rules and the exemption, so granted, being a part
of the statutory Rules cannot be said to be a relaxation
granted by the Government under Rule 17 of the 2012
Rules.”CWP No. 14695 of 2012

In view of the above, the rejection of the candidature of the
petitioner being in accordance with the terms and conditions of advertisement
cannot be said to be not in accordance with law.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands
dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
2.8.2012
sjks




www.teacherharyana.blogspot.com (Recruitment , vacancy , job , news)