Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) TWO connected writ petitions bearing No. CWP No. 14078 of 2012 (Sonia Gupta v. State of Haryana and others) and CWP No. 8794 of 2012 (Poonam Saini v. State of Haryan and others) are proposed to be decided together by this common order, as both the writ petitions raised similar questions of law and facts. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP No. 14078 of 2012. Respondent -management issued an advertisement in 'The Tribune' dated 11.7.2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates, with a view to fill up one post of Social Study teacher on regular basis. Qualifications and grade were advertised as per Haryana Government Rules for private aided schools. The qualification prescribed under the Rules were, B.A. with B.T/B.Ed. from a recognised university or B.A. Education (four years course) from a recognised university. In addition to English in B.A. or B.A. Education, a combination of at least two subjects out of the following: - (1) History (2) Political Science (3) Economics (4) Geography (5) Sociology was required.
(2.) PURSUANT to the above said advertisement having been issued by respondent No. 3, petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, claiming themselves to be fully eligible candidates, applied for the said post of Social Study teacher. Interviews were fixed on 16.8.2011. Interviews were to be conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee, including nominee of the State. However, nominee of the State intimated the respondent -management that owing to some other official engagements, he would not be in a position to make it on 16.8.2011 to attend the interview as member of the Selection Committee. He requested the management to postpone the interview for the very next date i.e. 17.8.2011. It is undisputed between the parties that all the candidates came on 17.8.2011 as well and were interviewed by the Selection Committee. As per the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, petitioner was placed at No. 1 of the merit list, whereas respondent No. 4 was placed at 2nd in the merit list. However, a complaint was made by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 2 and pursuant to that complaint an enquiry was ordered by respondent No. 2. Finally, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 26.3.2012 (Annexure P -4), declining approval to the selection made by the Selection Committee, primarily for two reasons. Firstly, respondent No. 2 pointed out that the Deputy Director, who was supposed to attend the interview on 16.8.2011 as State nominee, did not seek the permission of the competent authority for attending the interview on 17.8.2011. Secondly, it was pointed out that petitioner was not eligible, as she has not qualified State Teacher Eligibility Test ('STET' for short) from the State of Haryana, as required for appointment to the post of Social Study teacher. Hence, this writ petition at the hands of the petitioner.
(3.) NOTICE of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, whereas a separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4.;