High Court Directs Appointment Of Teacher Rejected By Punjab Govt For Acquiring Teaching Experience From Outside State, Says Action Violates Article 14
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the appointment of a Punjab Government teacher who was rejected on the ground that the essential experience required was gained by him from teaching outside the State.It was stated that a candidate who was qualified for the post of Head Teacher in Punjab was denied appointment because she had obtained the essential experience required for the...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the appointment of a Punjab Government teacher who was rejected on the ground that the essential experience required was gained by him from teaching outside the State.
It was stated that a candidate who was qualified for the post of Head Teacher in Punjab was denied appointment because she had obtained the essential experience required for the post from a Haryana Government School. The Punjab Government claimed that a "State Government School" under Punjab Civil Services Rules would mean Punjab Government School only.
Discouraging the "sons of soil policy", Justice Aman Chaudhary said, "Limiting the scope of the advertisement to a particular State is a way of fostering and strengthening narrow parochial loyalties to that State, or in other words the 'sons of the soil' policy, which was explained in and cautioned against by the Supreme Court. Appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections by unfettered discretion being vested in the authorities."
The Court said that the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner on the premise of her having worked in a government school, beyond the territorial boundaries of Punjab was perverse and illegal with no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The judge said that appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope for arbitrary selections by unfettered discretion being vested in the authorities.
Jyoti Bala, the petitioner, had cleared a written exam and interview for the post of head teacher in a Punjab Government but her appointment was denied.
Bala argued that the Punjab State Elementary Education (Teaching Cadre) Group C Service Rules, 2018 and the advertisement, did not state that the experience should be only from a school in the State of Punjab and on a regular basis.
It was submitted that the experience certificates of the petitioner demonstrated that she has worked as a Guest Teacher for almost 6 years in Haryana, regarding which, the Head Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Dhobarian (Sirsa), had clarified that the subjects of regular teacher and guest teacher were the same.
On the other hand, State counsel opposed the petition by stating that the word 'State Government schools' would mean Punjab Government Schools, and it had been decided that the teaching experience acquired from another State was not to be considered for this purpose, and candidates who worked as 'Guest Teacher' were not eligible for recruitment as well.
After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to the qualifications and experience required as per the Rules.
"It transpires that the Rule making authority had in its wisdom sought to enlarge the scope and ambit of the participation by opening the doors of candidacy to those employed in the Central Government schools, that would ipso facto imply to those spread across the nation. Reading in conjunction with the above, the word 'State' incorporated therewith, would expressis verbis reveal that the Rule envisaged that the service for the experience to be taken into consideration of those desirous of being appointed can be from the government schools beyond the territory of its own State," the Court observed.
The judge arrived at the conclusion that the term 'Guest faculty' was a misnomer, and an employee working in a stopgap arrangement, be it part-time, contractual, guest etc, was in effect 'ad hoc' employment.
In the light of the above, the Court held that the action of the respondent-State, on both counts, to be palpably arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
While allowing the plea the Court directed the respondents to appoint Jyoti Bala, subject to the merit position in the selection and said that she would be entitled to notional seniority, pay fixation etc, but not actual monetary benefits.
B.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 95
Title: Jyoti Bala v. State of Punjab and others