AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court praying for quashing of the action of the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board -respondent No.3, vide which the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification of Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) on the cut off date, i.e., 08.12.2012 and have obtained the same in January, 2013.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that vide notice dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure P -4), respondent -Board has extended the time for submission of the applications. In pursuance to this, the eligibility conditions have also to be taken on the last date of receipt of the applications and since the last date for receipt of the applications has been extended, therefore, the candidates who had attained the eligibility till the last date of submission of such applications in pursuance to the notice dated 08.03.2013, would also become eligible for consideration for appointment against the posts advertised vide Advertisement No.2/2012. Since the petitioners had obtained their requisite qualification of D.Ed. in January, 2013 which is prior to 23.03.2013, they should have been treated eligible by the respondents. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioners are eligible for consideration for appointment because of the extension of the last date of receipt of the applications and, therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners cannot sustain. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Navneet Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, 2008(4) RSJ 671, wherein it was held that if the last date of submission of the applications is extended, the eligibility conditions would also be taken on the said date and not the prior date, which was fixed in the initial advertisement. His further submission is that since the last date for submission of the applications has been extended for candidates who had passed their HTET in 2013 as also for the candidates who had attained four years experience but were not in service on 11.04.2012, which condition has been quashed by this Court, the same benefit should be granted to the petitioners. On this basis, prayer has been made for allowing the present writ petition by setting -aside the action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.
(3.) A perusal of the notice dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure P -4), which primarily is the document on which petitioners rely on, itself speaks about the eligibility condition. The heading of the same reads as under: - " NOTICE (Reference to Adv.2/2012 for the post of PRTs) only for candidate having four years teaching experience as on 11.4.2012 and eligible on 8.12.2012. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21.12.2012 in CWP No.15929 of 2012 -Shivani Gupta and ors Vs. State of Haryana and ors and other connected LPAs/CWPs wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the condition mentioned in note 3 of the advertisement 2/2012 is contrary to the Service Rules upto the extent that "candidate must be in service as PRT on 11.4.2012 and in position on the date of applying". ;