LAWS(P&H)-1994-9-133

MADAN GOPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On September 21, 1994
MADAN GOPAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this joint petition, petitioners Madan Gopal, Azad Singh, Anand Parkash and Shiv Kumar Shastri have prayed that the respondents be directed to consider their claim for appointment on the posts of Sanskrit teachers advertised by Annexure P.1.

(2.) Petitioners have stated that each one of them has passed Matric from the Haryana School Education Board, Shastri examination from the Maharashi Dayanad University, Rohtak, and B.Ed. with Sanskrit from the same University. They have also passed M.A. in Sanskrit. In pursuance of advertisement Annexure P.1 issued by the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short 'the S.S.S. Board') on 22.3.1994, each of the petitioners applied for the post of Sanskrit teacher. The respondent-Board treated the petitioners ineligible and accordingly rejected their candidature. Petitioners have pleaded that they possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Sanskrit teacher because each one of them has passed Shastri examination and has also passed B.Ed. course from the M.D. University, Rohtak, with Sanskrit. Reference has been made by the petitioners to the instructions issued by the Government vide Annexure P.2 showing that persons possessing higher qualifications than the minimum qualifications prescribed for a post will be deemed to be eligible for that post. Their further plea is that after passing Shastri examination there is one year's training of Shiksha Shastri conducted by Rashtriya Sanskrit Sanasthan, New Delhi, and such training is recognised by the Haryana Government. Petitioners have stated that the respondents have without any legal justification deprived them of their right to be considered for appointment as Sanskrit teachers. They have further pleaded that the action of the respondents amount to discrimination resulting in violation of their fundamental right of equality before law.

(3.) No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent and, therefore, the averments made in the petition will have to be treated as correct.