- (1.) I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents Sri N. D. Rai and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that for whatever reasons, the respondents were compelled to take the decision not to treat Buniyadi Prashik-shan Praman Patra Parisha in short (B. P. P. P. P.) training certificate equivalent to B. T. C. Certificate. The fact remains that the decision taken by them is clearly against the law laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC2027suresh Poland others v. State of Haryana and others. On the strength of this decision it was urged that the respondents were not justified in virtually derecognising the certificate of C. P. Ed with retrospective effect. The learned counsel is not in a position to repel the quite convincing and valid sub mission made on behalf of the petitioners. In Suresh Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others, a question arose as to whether certificate course in Physical Education issued by Shri Hanuman Vayayam Prasaran Mandal Amrawati, Maharashtra, which had been recognised by Government of Haryana in the year 1975 for appointment to the post of Physical Instructor in Haryana could he de-recognised to the detriment of the stu dents, who had obtained such certificate by rendering them futile. The Apex Court held that the Haryana State could not take away the benefit of the recognition of the certificate aforesaid and render them futile by de-recognising the said certificate during the pendency of the course. It was directed that the State Government shall recognise the certificate obtained by the petitioners and other similarly situate per sons as a result of completing the certifi cate course for the purpose of appoint ment of Physical Training Instructor in Government Schools in Haryana. How ever, it was observed that if any persons has joined certificate course after 9-1-1995, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the orders passed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. The decision of Suresh Pal's case is squarely applies to the facts of the present case. There was no justification for the respondents to have de-recognised the B. P. P. P. P. Training Certificate of the present petitioners or for what matter of other candidates who have obtained the said certificate prior to the amendment in the Rules dated 6-8-1997 or the circular letter dated 11/13-8-97 issued by the State Government. The B. P. P. P. P. certificate of training continued to be recognised equivalent to B. T. C. certificate in respect of those candidates who have obtained the same prior to 6-9-1997 on which date the Rules were amended.
(3.) THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed. THE impugned order dated 11/13-8-1997 issued by the State Government and the advertisement dated 24-12-1998 are hereby quashed to the extend to restrain those person who had obtained B. P. P. P. P. certificate of training prior to 6-8-97. It is further directed that the petitioners as well as other similarly cir cumstances candidates, who have ob tained B. P. P. P. P. certificate of training prior to 6- 8-1997 shall be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior/senior Basic Schools. Petition allowed. .;