Recruitments To Posts Of Over 2300 Elementary Trained Teachers In Punjab Set Aside By Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court last week set aside the entire selection process for recruitment to the posts of 2,364 Elementary Trained Teachers (ETT) 18 months after advertisement to that effect was issued by the State Government.

The Bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the selection criteria along with the ongoing process for the appointment of 2,364 ETT meant for the border area.

The Court noted that the impugned selection criteria specified in the advertisement granting weightage of 05 marks (maximum) for higher qualification was inherently flawed with incurable illegality.

Further, stressing that the Court was very well conscious that quashing of the advertisement may cause great hardship to the candidates aspiring for appointment (s) against the posts in question, but at the same time, the Court added, it cannot be ignored that in case the selection process initiated in disregard of the service rules is allowed to attain finality, the same shall perpetuate the illegality.

Background of the Case

Initially, the Director of Recruitment issued the advertisement on March 6, 2020, inviting applications for recruitment against 1664 posts of ETTs, and the last date for registration of online applications was fixed as March 23, 2020.

Subsequently, vide corrigendum dated June 23, 2020, the number of posts were increased to 2364 and the last date for submission of applications was also extended to July 9, 2020; however, other terms & conditions of the advertisement remained the same.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the final selection of the candidate(s) could be on the basis of their merit list in the written examination and provisions of Rule 6 (4) are mandatory in nature.

Therefore, it was contended that the selection criteria mentioned in the advertisement dated March 6, 2020, for awarding additional marks to the candidates on the basis of higher qualification i.e. graduation was not legally permissible.

In response to this, the Counsel for the State argued that there had been past practice for grant of weightage on account of higher educational qualifications and as such, a specific clause to that effect was incorporated in the advertisement dated March 6, 2020, and thus, granting of maximum 05 marks on the basis of higher qualification i.e. Graduation is claimed to be justified. 

It was also contended that all the petitioners duly participated in the selection process but remained unsuccessful and therefore, now they cannot be permitted to challenge the criteria or selection process for recruitment of the posts in question while alleging the violation of service rules.

Court's observations 

Perusing the service rules, the Court noted that the final selection of the candidates for the posts in question has to be made solely on the basis of their merit in the written test to be specified by the Director Elementary Education and there is nothing more; nothing less.

In this regard, the Court observed thus:

"After insertion of sub-rule 4 to rule 6, it is very clear that selection criteria for making an appointment to the posts in question shall be by way of the competitive test. Thus, in the present case, there was no gap or ambiguity at all to be supplemented while granting additional 05 marks (maximum) for higher qualification i.e. Graduation at the time of issuing the advertisement dated 06.03.2020. Therefore, the impugned criteria specified by the Recruitment Directorate in the advertisement virtually amounts to amending the service rules and that is not permissible in view of the settled law that the selection body has no power or authority to amend the selection criteria laid down under the service rules."

In view of the above, the Court held that there remains no doubt that the impugned selection criteria while granting additional marks for higher qualification (Graduation) is not in accordance with law; rather the same is totally illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory being contrary to the imperatives contained under rule 6(4).

As a result thereof, the Court ruled the impugned selection criteria is legally indefensible and violative of articles 14 & 16 of the constitution.

The Court also noted that in view of the dicta under rule 4, appointments to the posts in question have to be made on the basis of recommendations by the "Board", however, the Board had not been constituted in terms of rule 2 (1) and rather the Director Recruitment has been made the final authority for making recommendations without there being any competency to that effect under service rules; 

Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed and the advertisement dated March 06, 2020, containing the impugned selection criteria along with the entire selection process, including provisional merit list for recruitment to the posts of 2364 ETT were quashed and set aside.

Click here To Download Order/Judgment

Read Order/Judgment