Simmi v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Others

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.

1.k Through this intra Court appeal, the appellant has challenged the  judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed by  a  learned  Single Judge of this Court, vide which, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine.

2.k The  outlined  facts  emanating  from  the  record  are  that  the appellant filed a Civil Writ Petition No.21294 of 2024 seeking quashing of order dated 28.07.2024 through which the appellant's candidature for the post  of  TGT  (Fine  Arts),  (Rest  of  Haryana  cadre),  in  response  to advertisement 2/2023 dated 21.02.2023 was rejected on account of her being over-aged.  The  appellant  in  the  said  writ  petition  pleaded  that  she  was entitled for age relaxation in the upper age limit to the extent of service SANDEEP KUMAR 1

rendered by her as a teacher on an equivalent post in a privately managed Government Aided School in terms of paragraph 8.1 of the advertisement dated 21.02.2023. The case set up by the appellant was that after considering the appellant's candidature for the post of TGT Fine Arts a relaxation of five years on account of her being a legally divorced woman was granted by the respondent-Commission but still she was declared overage by two years, two months and eight days which was in violation of the afore referred paragraph

8.1  of  the  advertisement  as  the  appellant  was  entitled  to  further  age relaxation based on her teaching experience in a recognized institution. Her writ  petition  was  dismissed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge,  through  the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2024.

3.k Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant worked as Assistant Block Research Coordinator under the Haryana School Shiksha  Priyojna  Parishad  (for  short  –  HSSPP)  and  is  working  in Government Senior Secondary School, Sector 19, Panchkula. She is thus having experience of 13 years and 09 months and her experience certificate issued by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Sector 19, Panchkula,  which  was  duly  counter-signed  by  the  District  Programmer Coordinator,  Samagrah  Shiksha,  Panchkula  was  not  considered  by  the learned  Single  Judge.  He  further  contends  that  prior  to  joining  the respondent-State the appellant had also worked as a Fine Arts Teacher in Satluj Public School, Sector 4, Panchkula and Drawing Teacher in Manav Mangal School, Sector 11, Panchkula and the certificates to this effect were duly attached with her writ petition and that the respondent-Department had SANDEEP KUMAR 2

been deputing trained graduate teachers for being posted as Assistant Block Resource Coordinator in the cluster. In this regard, he referred to the order dated  21.12.2010  issued  by  the  Director  Secondary  Education,  Haryana, Chandigarh  (Annexure  P-6).  By  referring  to  paragraph  8.1  (ix)  of  the advertisement,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  argued  that  the  age prescribed  for  the  post  of  TGT  was  18-42  years  on  the  last  date  of submission of the application i.e. 15.03.2023 and the date of birth of the appellant  is  18.08.1975.  Therefore,  on  the  date  of  submission  of  her application form, the appellant was 47 years, 6 months and 25 days. As per paragraph 8 of the advertisement the appellant was entitled for five years relaxation in age being a legally divorced woman and was also entitled to another relaxation in age equal to the number of completed years of service but this fact was not considered by the learned Single Judge.

4.k Per contra, learned State counsel by referring to the letter dated

08.11.2024 issued on behalf of the District Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha, Panchkula, addressed to the Advocate General, Haryana (which is ordered to be taken on the record) submits that the appellant neither worked as a regular teacher in any school nor any time table was ever allotted to her in any school. As per her job profile she only performed her duties as a mentor  to  the  teaching  staff  under  her  cluster  and  guided  them  for  the betterment of the students by visiting the allotted schools in her cluster.

5.k We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on the record.

6.k A  bare  perusal  of  the  record  would  show  that  the  appellant SANDEEP KUMAR 3

would be entitled for further age relaxation in terms of paragraph 8 of the advertisement based upon teaching experience on an equivalent post in a privately  managed  Government  Aided  School  or  recognized  school  or Government School in the State of Haryana provided that the experience certificate in this regard was issued by the Head of the Institute and verified by  the  BEO/BEEO  as  also  counter-signed  by  the  DEO/DEEO  of  the concerned  District  but  in  the  present  case,  the  appellant's  experience certificates were not counter-signed by the competent authority(s) which was an essential requirement. We have also examined these certificates and find that the observations made by the learned Single Judge are correct as these certificates have not been counter-signed by the competent authority. Even the  certificate  issued  by  the  Principal,  Government  Senior  Secondary School,  Sector  19,  Panchkula  (Annexure  P-3)  depicts  that  the  same  was issued by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Sector 19, Panchkula  by  referring  the  appellant  as  Assistant  Block  Resource Coordinator (ABRC) in HSSPP at Cluster GSSS, Sector 19, Panchkula from

07.08.2009 to till date.

7.k Learned counsel for the appellant raised a sole argument that since the appellant worked as a teacher and was having requisite experience of teaching for the post she was entitled to appointment after grant of further age relaxation. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that her experience as Assistant Block Resource Coordinator in the HSSPP could not have  been  considered  for  the  purpose  of  relaxation  since  there  was  no material  on  record  that  while  serving  of  the  said  post  the  appellant's SANDEEP KUMAR 4

e>pe"ience 5as on an e8#i+a ent post of .,..

¶8.(e  "e e+ant  pa"a/"ap(  of  t(e  a'+e"tisement  a"e  "ep"o'#ce' (e"ein 3e o5: "8. Relaxation in Age: As per Haryana Govt. Instructions No. 22/06/2021-IGS-III, dated 25th March, 2022, benefit of relaxation in upper age limit, applicable to various categories, is as follows:

(1) Where the upper age limit is 42 years without any relaxation in age the same shall not exceed 52 years for the applicants who are entitled to get the benefit of relaxation in age of one or more categories under various circumstances mentioned below:- Sr. No. Categories where No. of years of relaxation relaxation is admissible

(i)-(iv) xxx xxx

(v) Widowed оr legally 5 years' relaxation in divorced women; age.

(vi)-(viii) xxx xxx

(ix) Persons who have Relaxation in age equal already worked or to the number of presently working completed years only on on equivalent post on adhoc/contract/wo adhoc/contract/work-rk-charged/daily charged/ daily wages wages basis in any basis excluding the Department period of break, if any, Board/Corporation including any other age of Haryana relaxation admissible, if Government any, subject to maximum including age of 52 years and also Government-aided subject to the condition institutions under that if once a person has Haryana been appointed on Government. regular basis in any Department/ Board/ Corporation etc. of Haryana Government with the benefit of

relaxation in age he will not be entitled to avail the same again for any subsequent appointment. Note 1 - xxxx xxxx Note 2 - xxxx xxxx Note 3-The experience certificate(s) of equivalent post issued by the Appointing Authority of respective Department/ Board/ Corporation/ Government aided Institutions only shall be valid. Before grant of benefit of relaxation in age, the experience certificate(s) shall be got verified by the HPSC/HSSC from the concerned Appointing Authority(ties).

8.1 Teachers working in privately managed Govt. Aided Schools, recognised schools and Government Schools of Haryana State shall be given age relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of service rendered by them as a teacher subject to a maximum of 5 years once for his/her appointment as per directions of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh dated 06.01.2015 passed in CWP No.20110 of 2014, Som Nath Vs. State of Haryana & others and for such working teachers, upper age relaxation certificate from Head of the Institute is mandatory and must be verified by BEO/BEEO & counter-signed by District Education Officer/District Elementary Education Officer of the concerned district even for CBSE/Central Schools and Navodaya Vidhalaya vide Department 07.09.2022. Letter No.15/32-2020TGTR&A(I) dated 07.09.2022."

¶2Afte" e>aminin/ t(e afo"e=8#ote' te"ms of t(e a'+e"tisement* 5e a"e of t(e +ie5 t(at t(e appe ant (as a "ea'% 3een /"ante' '#e 3enefit of a/e "e a>ation on acco#nt of 3ein/ a  e/a % 'i+o"ce' 5oman an' 5as not SANDEEP KUMAR 6

entitled for any further relaxation since her experience as an Assistant Block Research Coordinator cannot be considered to be teaching experience on an equivalent  post  of  TGT  especially  when  the  Principal-cum-Cluster  Head who issued the letter dated 08.11.2024 it has nowhere mentioned therein that the appellant never worked as a regular teacher in any school.

10.k Her  job  profile  was  only  to  guide  the  teaching  staff  for  the betterment of students by visiting the allotted school in her cluster.

11.k In view of the afore discussion, we are not inclined to interfere and consequently, the present intra Court appeal is dismissed.

12.k All  pending  miscellaneous  application(s),  if  any,  also  stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)        (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE              JUDGE

26.11.2024 sandeep

SANDEEP KUMAR 7

114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.11.2024 Simmi .....Appellant Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Sahil Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G. Haryana. * * * * *