The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that no action be taken pursuant to the final result declared for recruitment to the post of PGT Computer Science in Haryana, pending consideration of a challenge to the qualifications prescribed for the post.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also issued notice of motion to the state of Haryana and other respondents for November 19 after the petitioners contended that the qualification prescribed under the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012, for PGT Computer Science was lower than that prescribed under the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Regulations, 2014.
“In the meantime, no action pursuant to the declaration of the final result dated August 12 shall be taken,” Justice Brar ordered.
Rajesh Kumar and another petitioner, through counsel Tejpal Singh Dhull, contended that the NCTE Regulations, 2014, prescribed “post-graduation with at least 50 per cent marks or its equivalent from a recognised university, along with B.Ed. from an NCTE-recognized institution” as the essential qualification for teachers at the senior secondary/intermediate level.
Appearing before Justice Brar’s Bench, Dhull contended that the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012, did not prescribe post-graduation for PGT Computer Science, although a postgraduate qualification was prescribed for PGTs in other subjects.
Dhull contended that the NCTE was a statutory body constituted under the NCTE Act, 1993, which “specifically occupies the field with regard to prescribing the minimum qualifications and standards for teachers”, and that “the regulations framed by the NCTE are binding in the matter of recruitment of teachers.”
He further submitted that the NCTE Regulations had been framed in the context of and pursuant to the statutory mandate of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. As such, the State Rules could not prescribe a qualification lower than the minimum qualification prescribed under the NCTE Regulations.
The petitioners also referred to the NCTE Regulations, 2001, submitting that the NCTE had earlier prescribed “Master’s Degree in the relevant subject along with B.Ed. or its equivalent” as the educational qualification for PGTs.
They contended that despite this prescription, the respondents retained the qualification prescribed under the 2012 Rules while issuing an advertisement dated February 5 for PGT Computer Science.
The petitioners further submitted that they had repeatedly represented to the respondents on the issue and that an expert committee constituted by the respondents had recommended upgrading the qualification for PGT Computer Science in consonance with the NCTE guidelines, with the minimum qualification being increased to post-graduation.
The petitioners submitted that the Supreme Court had directed that “no teacher shall be appointed/absorbed unless such candidate possesses the requisite qualification prescribed under the NCTE Act, 1993.”
The petitioners also relied on an order passed by the High Court in a batch of other petitions.
According to them, the issue regarding amendment of the relevant Rules had been recorded as being “under active consideration”, with liberty granted to the petitioners to avail themselves of an appropriate remedy if, before finalisation of the process, any post was advertised, causing prejudice to them.
The petitioners submitted that despite the orders and without taking a decision on amending the Rules, the respondents proceeded with the selection process, declared the final result on August 12 and moved towards appointing candidates under the advertisement.
The state counsel accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and sought time to file a reply. The Court directed that the reply, if any, be filed in the Registry at least three days before the next date of hearing, with an advance copy to the opposing counsel.
