DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was selected/appointed as Lecturer in Physical Education in S.D.Mahila Mahavidyalya, Hansi as she was fulfilling the eligibility criteria and found to be meritorious by the Selection Committee. Respondent No.4 Rajni Saini filed a CWP No.13743 of 2008 before this Court to challenge selection of the petitioner by raising a contention that the teaching experience of the petitioner was wrongly considered as it was prior to the period of acquiring qualification of the Lecturer. The said petition was disposed of with the direction to the concerned authority to take decision, in accordance with law on the grievance of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of one month of making representation. In view of direction issued by this Court, the case of respondent No.4 was considered by the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana and it was found that the interview for the post of Lecturer in physical education conducted by the Selection Committee was void and cannot be considered to be justified. The interview conducted by the Selection Committee on 20.11.2007 was ordered to be cancelled vide order dated 13.10.2008. The petitioner was informed and her selection as Lecturer was cancelled vide order dated 3.11.2008 and was relieved from her duty on that day itself. The cancellation of selection/appointment is subject matter of challenge in the present petition by raising various grounds.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and the same is violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was having the requisite experience and marks were awarded by considering that experience and it cannot be said in any manner that the marks for that experience should not have been granted. The experience was not specified in the advertisement and subsequently it cannot be questioned in any manner. Learned counsel also submits that experience of the petitioner was prior to her attaining requisite qualification of M.Phil. with UGC NET examination, whereas, it has wrongly been held that experience acquired prior to acquiring prescribed qualification cannot be considered, as neither it was under the rules nor it was specified in the advertisement. The experience of the petitioner was of teaching in the College and same was rightly considered. Learned counsel also submits that even in the criteria, it was not clear as to whether the experience gained prior to acquiring of qualification of M.Phil. and UGC test was to be counted or not. The petitioner has already joined service after issuance of appointment letter and a right had accrued to her but her appointment has been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing whatsoever. Learned counsel has also relied upon judgments in Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. etc. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. etc. 2000(1) SLR 303, A.K.Raghumani Singh and others v. Gopal Chandra Nath and others 2000(2) SCT 465, Mahesh Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and others 2009(1) RSJ 431, Daljit Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board 2001(2) SCT 444, Lakhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others 2010(2) RSJ 244, S.P.Dubey and etc. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others 2003(2) SCT 725, State of H.P. and anr. V. Piar Chand & Anr. 2004(2) SLR 469, Dr.S Kathiroli and another v. Government of India and others 2011(8) MLJ 1028 in support of his contentions. Written statement has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 which is on record. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per provisions of Rule 7 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 2006 recommendation of Selection Committee in respect of private college was to be approved by the Vice Chancellor and the Director but the same was not approved due to the direction issued by this Court in CWP No.13743 of 2008. It was found that the petitioner was awarded 10 marks for teaching experience for the period prior to the acquiring qualification of M.Phil./NET by her. Learned counsel also submits that it was a void selection and no opportunity of hearing was required. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgments rendered in Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. etc. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. etc. 2000(1) SLR 303, Indian Airlines Ltd. and others v. S. Gopalakrishnan 2001(1) RSJ 455, Anil Kumar v. Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. Chandigarh 1992(3) SCT 552 and P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India 1984(2) SCC 141 in support of his contentions.
(3.) HEARD arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file.;