- (1.) The petitioners in this writ petition have passed their Elementary Teachers Training Course (herein referred to as ETT Course) from the Department of Education, Chandigarh. This department is recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education. An advertisement was issued on 4.12.2001 inviting applications for 3311 posts of J.B.T. teachers. The qualifications required for appointment to the post as per the advertisement are as hereunder :- "1. Qualifications for E.T.T. pass candidates :- i) Matric/10+2 passed from recognized Board or University. ii) Candidate should have passed Punjabi upto Matric level. 2. Professional Qualification : i) the candidates should have passed 2 years Elementary Teachers Training course from State of Punjab or from Union Territory, Chandigarh or from any other State or Union Territory. This course should have been recognized by the Government of Punjab. In addition to above, candidates who possess the following qualifications and are petitioners and non-petitioners in the civil writ petition No. 16436 of 1998 Kuldip Kaur versus State of Punjab and CWP No. 15581/1998 Harpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and other civil writ petitions on the subject which were decided on 25.2.2000 could also apply. These candidates get relaxation in the upper age limit as per decision of the court." The petitioners who are residents of the State of Punjab applied for being considered for appointment against these posts. However, they were not called for interview merely on the ground that they have passed their ETT Course from the Department of Education, Union Territory, Chandigarh and not from an institution situated in the State of Punjab.
(2.) Aggrieved against this action of the respondent-State in not calling them for interview, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. They have claimed that the respondents should be directed to interview them and thereafter they should be considered for appointment as JBT teachers as per their merit.
(3.) The respondent-State has filed a reply wherein it has been contended that the State Government has not recognized ETT Course passed by a candidate from Union Territory, Chandigarh as equivalent to the ETT Course in the State of Punjab and hence petitioners are not eligible to be considered for appointment. We have heard Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Punjab. Shri Rajiv Atma Ram has contended that in Dr. Manisha Gupta and another v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 1908 of 2002, decided on 27.2.2003, this very controversy has already been adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court. In that writ petition, the petitioners who had passed their ETT Course from Union Territory, Chandigarh were considered eligible during the process of selection. Appointment letters were issued to them but they were not permitted to join on the ground that they have qualified the ETT Course from the Union Territory, Chandigarh. After noticing the recruitment rules, the Division Bench concluded that the petitioners were eligible in terms of the recruitment rules of the advertisement. Against the said judgment, the State of Punjab had preferred a Petition for Special Leave. The said petition was also dismissed on 27.9.2004. The relevant observations are as hereunder :- "In order to examine the merits or otherwise of the submissions raised before us, we consider it appropriate to refer to the relevant rules at the very outset. The prescribed qualification for J.B.T./E.T.T. Teachers under the Punjab State Education reads as under : "4. Junior Basic Trained Teacher/ Elementary Trained Teacher 100% Direct Appointment i) Matric/10+2" ii) Trained Elementary Teachers Training two years course from Punjab State or any other State or U.T. declared equivalent and recognised by the Punjab Govt." On the basis of the above rules, the respondents have issued an advertisement for employing 3311 teachers, as already noticed. The said advertisement contained the following clause in regard to qualifications : "xx xx xx xx 2. Candidates must have passed Punjabi of matric level. Prof. Qualifications : The candidate must have passed Elementary Teachers Training two years course from Punjab State or Union Territory, Chandigarh or from any State or U.T. which is recognised by the Punjab State. 3. Besides this, for these posts those petitioners or non-petitioners having following qualifications regarding whom CWP No. 16436 of 1998 Kuldeep Kaur versus Punjab State and Civil Writ Petition No. 15581 of 1998 Harpreet Kaur versus Punjab State and others concerned Civil Writ Petitioners, which were decided on 25.02.2000, can apply. These persons shall be given upper age relaxation as per orders of the Court." The candidature of an applicant, therefore, has to be considered in terms of the above clause. A plain reading of the above clause clearly suggests that it can be split into the following categories : (a) the applicants who have passed their E.T.T. two years course from the State of Punjab ; (b) the applicants, who have done that course from Union Territory, Chandigarh ; and (c) from any State of Union Territory, which is recognised by the State of Punjab. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the expression "which is recognised by the Punjab State" would be applicable to all the above three clauses and not only to clause (a) and (b) supra. In other words, to satisfy the condition of eligibility, the applicant who has done E.T.T. Course from Chandigarh shall also have to satisfy the condition that such Course is recognised by the State of Punjab. We are of the considered view that such interpretation would patently frustrate the very purpose and object sought to be achieved by the clauses inserted in the advertisement, afore-noticed. The expression must be read as ad jure jesus only to from any other State or Union Territory, but has no relevancy to the earlier part of the rule, as the intent of the rule making authority to provide such classifications is clear on the bare reading of the rule. To wipe out such intention by interpretation suggested on behalf of the State would amount to doing complete violation of the settled rules of interpretation. The above interpretation of the clauses would be fully supported even by the earlier practice of the State itself. It is not disputed before us and, in fact, stand admitted in the pleadings of the parties is that earlier on 2nd of April, 2001, 7230 posts of E.T.T. teachers were advertised by the State of Punjab and a corrigendum thereto was issued which specifically provided that the persons who had done E.T.T. Course from Chandigarh would be eligible to be appointed in various parts of the State. This practice appears to have been also adopted in relation to the advertisement of 4th December, 2001. This practice of the State in the past had given a clear impression to the candidates at large that applicants/candidates, who have done their E.T.T. Course from Chandigarh were eligible and would be appointed to the post in question. This was put into practice by issuance of letters of appointment to the candidates including the petitioners. The action of the respondents in acting contrary to the spirits of the rule is not even supported by the plea of public interest. Whereas on the one hand, it would be unjust and unfair to permit the respondents to dispense with the services of the petitioners in the above manner, and the action of the respondents would also suffer from the vice of discrimination. They have given appointment to the candidates who have done their E.T.T. Course from Chandigarh but had sought appointment in Ropar and Patiala district. In fact, the petitioners have specifically pleaded and placed an appointment letter on record to show that one applicant has been appointed in district Sangrur. The cumulative effect of this reasoning and conduct of the respondents is that the action of the respondents is not sustainable. Today during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State has produced an order dated 21st March, 2003, which reads as under :- "The Governor of Punjab is pleased not to recognise the E.T.T. Course of U.T. Chandigarh as equivalent to the E.T.T. Course of Punjab State." This has further worsened the stand taken by the State. We are surprised to read the language of the letter which suggests as if the Governor of the State of Punjab has personally passed that order. While admittedly, the file from which this order emanates has not even been put up to the Governor formally in its normal course of business. We do not consider it necessary to go into the ancillary question arising therefrom. Suffice it to say that even the directive of that letter must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. Consequently it cannot divert the right which the petitioners have acquired in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Daljit Singh Narula and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 1979 1 SLR 420. Moreover, the advertisement nowhere offends the recruitment rules, referred to above. The contention of the learned counsel for the State that such appointments are violative of the rules and as such no right much less legal right accrued in favour of the petitioners. This argument is self-destructive inasmuch as in the counter-affidavit and even in the additional affidavit dated 04.07.2003, no such suggestion has been made. At this stage, we must notice that we were compelled to pass the order requiring presence of the concerned officer of the State Government. In pursuance of the directions, Mrs. Tejinder Kaur, Principal Secretary School Education, Punjab, appeared and we passed the following order : "Mrs. Tejinder Kaur, Principal Secretary, School Education, Punjab is present in Court, in furtherance to the earlier orders passed by the Court. Her presence was necessitated, in view of the contradictory practice adopted by the government in relation to the appointment to the post in question as well as vague affidavits being filed from time to time. The last affidavit was filed on 04.07.2003, which again was vague and it was nowhere stated that there was any mistake committed by any person in regard to issuance of letters of appointment to the persons/applicants, who had done their E.T.T. Course from Union Territory, Chandigarh and were requesting for posting in Ropar, Fatehgarh Sahib and Patiala i.e. the three districts adjacent to the Chandigarh. She has no record to show that any mistake was traced out, responsibility was fixed, or any action taken against the erring officials/officers. She has clearly stated that even in the year 2000, same advertisement was issued containing specific clause in relation to applicants, who had done their E.T.T. Course from Chandigarh and they required their appointments in these areas and were so appointed. This practice appears to have been adopted till 2001 but probably erroneously. She has also stated that so far no action has been taken in this regard by the concerned department. We have noticed this stand of the government as it is necessary for the purpose of determining the necessary question involved in the present case with clarity and definiteness, which has stated in Court today, while finally disposing of the writ petition." In view of the specific stand even now taken, we are of the considered view that the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to join their duties in pursuance of their appointment letters is not sustainable, as the State is not correct in its action/submission that the E.T.T. qualification acquired by the petitioners from Chandigarh was not in consonance with the advertisement issued on 4th December, 2001. Consequently, we allow this writ petition and command the respondents to permit the petitioners to join their respective place of posting as mentioned in their appointment letters dated 07.12.2001 and 26.12.2001 Annexure P/5 and P/7 respectively. The order shall be complied within two weeks from today. Parties are left to bear their own costs. At this stage, it is not disputed before us, of course, without prejudice to the rights of the State, that the seniority and appointment of the petitioners will be governed by the order of merit prepared by the Selection Committee at the relevant time." Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has not been able to distinguish this case from the one decided in Dr. Manisha Gupta's petition . The controversy in our opinion is completely covered by the aforesaid decision and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.;