CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has restrained the Punjab government from issuing appointment letters for the post of Elementary Teacher Training (ETT) teachers in the state without its permission.
The HC, however, made it clear that the counselling process regarding the selection may continue.
The HC has passed these orders while observing some contraventions of statutory rules in the selection criteria adopted for these posts.
“The state counsel is to take complete instructions as regards the weightage contemplated for higher qualifications in the advertisement for preparation of the final merit and which prima facie runs contrary to the mandate of the statutory rule...In the meanwhile, it is directed that the counselling process may continue but appointment letters shall not be issued without leave of this court," it said.
Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa of the HC has passed these orders while hearing Daljit Kaur and others.
The matter has now been fixed for May 20 for further hearing.
The petitioners have questioned the advertisement dated March 6, 2020 issued by the Punjab government inviting applications for filling up several posts of ETT teachers.
A total of 2364 candidates were to be selected through this selection process.
Clause 3 of the advertisement provided 'Mode of Selection' explaining that a written test objective type of 100 marks shall be conducted and the final merit list shall be prepared on the basis of the written test and after adding marks for higher qualification
The post in question is governed by the Punjab State Elementary Education (Teaching Cadre) Border Area Group 'C' Service Rules 2018.
An amendment to the rules was carried out through notification dated February 26, 2020 providing,“ No person shall be appointed to the service by way of direct recruitment unless he qualifies in the competitive test as specified by the director from time to time.
The final selection of candidates shall be on the basis of their merit in the said written examination.
There shall be no marks for viva voce or interview.
Thus the main grouse of the petitioners was against the clause of the advertisement that provides different criteria to determine the higher qualification for the candidates.
The counsel for the petitioners, advocate Vikas Chatrath, argued that the language employed in the statutory rule is unambiguous and to the effect that the final selection of candidates shall be on the basis of their merit in the written examination and there shall be no marks for viva voce or interview.