AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to permit her to participate in the interview for the post of Primary Teacher for which a call letter was issued to her and the interview was fixed for 13.12.2012, but her candidature has been rejected on the ground that she had passed her qualifying examination, i.e., Diploma in Education after the cut off date, i.e., 08.12.2012.
(2.) IT has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that since the candidates, who had passed their HTET Examination in the year 2013 have been permitted by way of an interim order passed by this Court to participate in the selection process and have been interviewed provisionally, the same would amount to extending the last date of receipt of applications, which has an impact automatically for extending the eligibility condition with regard to the educational qualifications as well and, therefore, non -conduct of interview of the petitioner despite she having passed her Diploma in Education in January, 2013 cannot be sustained. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.839 of 2014 (Ms.Monika Versus State of Haryana & others), decided on 20.01.2014, wherein it has been held as follows: - '' ''Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for quashing the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 (Annexure P -5), which requires qualification of Diploma in Elementary Teachers Training Course prior to the cut off date as an eligibility condition for a candidate to apply for the post of Primary Teacher. Challenge is also posed to the notice dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P -7), whereby, according to the petitioner, relaxation has been given by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board -respondent No.3 (for short ''the Board '') in the educational qualifications for the post of Primary Teacher by making eligible such candidates, who have passed the HTET/STET in the year 2013, which would amount to discrimination and deserve to be set -aside. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had taken admission in Elementary Teacher Training Course for the Session 2009 -11 from the J&K State Board of School Education. The petitioner was declared successful by passing her course and the detail marks certificate was issued to her on 08.01.2013. Petitioner, although has passed her HTET Examination in the year 2011, but has been rendered ineligible because of late declaration of the result, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible nor can she be penalised for the same. His further contention is that the candidates, who had passed HTET/STET Test in the year 2013, have also been provisionally interviewed by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board -respondent No.3 and, therefore, if such a relaxation has been granted to the HTET/STET candidates for participation in the selection, why should such a benefit be not granted to the petitioner, whose result has been declared in January, 2013. He, therefore, prays that the condition as imposed in the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 deserves to be quashed. He further submits that the regularization granted by the Board making the HTET/STET candidates eligible, who have passed the same in the year 2013, amounts to varying the eligibility conditions as laid down in advertisement which is impermissible in law and, therefore, deserves to be set -aside. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case. For making appointment to any post, there has to be certain minimum required qualifications. In the present case, the qualifications have been provided under the statutory rules. The said conditions, thus, cannot be waived. As regards the cut off date for eligibility of a candidate, the same is also required to be prescribed so that there is finality to a process of selection and, therefore, fixing of cut off date for receipt of the applications, i.e., 08.12.2012 by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary. Unfortunately for the petitioner, detail marks certificate of the qualification, i.e., Elementary Teacher Training Course was issued on 08.01.2013, which is after the last date of receipt of applications. There is no evidence/documents on record to show that the result of the petitioner was declared on or prior to 08.12.2012. The petitioner is, thus, ineligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher.
(3.) THE next contention as has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the candidates, who have cleared their HTET test in 2013, have been allowed to participate in the selection process by the respondents, although the condition of passing the HTET test was also incorporated in the advertisement, which was 08.11.2012 and the last date being 08.12.2012, the same benefit be extended to the petitioner, this plea of the counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that such an action taken by the respondent -Board is in pursuance to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, where keeping in view the fact that HTET test in year 2012 was not held, the Division Bench, on provisional basis, permitted the candidates, who had passed the HTET test held in the year 2013 to participate in the interview. This action taken by the respondents is not of their own but as per the directions issued by this Court.;