CWP Nos.13531 v. State of Punjab & Ors.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta,Mr.BPS Virk, Mr.Rajinder Singla, Mr.Aminder Singh, Mr.Peeush Gagneja,Mr.Manohar Dadwal, Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.P.C.Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab Permod Kohli, J. In view of the common questions of facts and law, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. All the writ petitions, except CWP Nos.14274 and 13531 of 2009 were heard on 6.4.2010 whereas above referred two writ petitions were heard on 8th and 9th April,2010, respectively and reserved to be disposed of alongwith the original bunch of writ petitions. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are working as volunteers for running Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) for teaching children in the villages. The EGS Centres were opened under the Employment Guarantee Scheme sponsored by the Government of India under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Programme. State Council of Education Research and Training Punjab, Chandigarh issued a public notice inviting applications to CWP Nos.13531, 17355, 12463, 12525, 13717, 13801, 14704, 4 12289 and 14702 of 2009 identify eligible persons for admission to D.Ed course (subsequently clarified as ETT Course). The eligibility conditions prescribed in the said public notice were as under:- “1.That the applicant must have passed 10+2 or equivalent examination.

2.That the applicant must have passed the Punjabi examination upto 10th class.

3.On the date of submitting the application dt.

25.7.2008 the age of the applicant may not be below than 18 years and should not be more than 42 years.

4.That the applicant must have taught for two years in the Education Guarantee Scheme Centres (EGS Centres) as EGS Volunteers run by Punjab State.” The last date for submission of application was 25th July, 2008. It is stated that the petitioners being eligible submitted their applications within the prescribed time. Aforesaid public notice was followed by another public notice (AnnexureP-4) seeking information and identity for eligfible candidates for admission to ETT course. This public notice was in modification of the earlier public notice. Following modifications were notified:- “1.That maximum age of 42 years mentioned in the earlier advertisement in Eligibility column no. A is being removed.

2. The D.Ed published in the earlier advertisement CWP Nos.13531, 17355, 12463, 12525, 13717, 13801, 14704, 5 12289 and 14702 of 2009 may be read as E.T.T.

3.Rest of the instructions will remain same as published in the advertisement dt. 16.7.08.

4.This advertisement is only for the purpose to gather the information of the identity of the eligible persons.

5.Applications should reach by 2.2.09 through registered post before the Principal, Distt. Education and Social Welfare Institutions.

6.The application who have already submitted their application in reference to the advertisement, they should not to resubmit the same and those candidates who could not submit their applications by 25.7.08, they can now submit the applications.” Another public notice was issued by the SCERT, Punjab dated

23.7.2009 in continuation to earlier advertisement dated 16.7.2008 and

23.1.2009 whereby condition of having 50% marks in 10+2 in General Category and 45% marks for Scheduled Caste Category was laid down. It was also prescribed that the EGS volunteers, applicants should have passed Punjabi upto 10th Class and experience certificate/ percentage of marks would be considered during the counseling which was notified to be held on 25th July, 2009. The petitioners through their EGS Teacher Union, Punjab submitted their representation to the Director objecting to the condition of 50% marks for General and 45% marks for the reserved category candidates in the public notice dated 23.7.2009. In the meanwhile, another public notice dated 17.8.2009 was issued in continuation to earlier three public CWP Nos.13531, 17355, 12463, 12525, 13717, 13801, 14704, 6 12289 and 14702 of 2009 notices dated 16.7.2008, 23.1.2009 and 23.7.2009, respectively reiterating the eligibility conditions of 50% marks for General Category and45% marks for reserved categories in10+2 examination. Even the candidates who passed in the first counseling and who had not passed Punjabi till 2.2.2009 and also the candidates who had not deposited the fee and are willing to deposit the fee were further called for counseling on 19.8.2009. The petitioners have challenged the public notice dated 23.7.2009, 17.8.2009 whereby the condition of 50% and45% marks for General and Reserved Categories, respectively was introduced as eligibility for admission to ETT course. The contention of the petitioners is that by issuing corrigendum/subsequent public notices, the original advertisement notice is sought to be amended which is impermissible in law. The State has filed a detailed reply. It is stated that the original public notices dated 16.7.2008 and 23.1.2009 were in fact not the advertisement notices. These notices were issued only for collection of information to identify eligible candidates from EGS volunteers. It is further stated that the public notices dated

23.7.2009 and 17.8.2009 though issued by way of Corrigendum, but in fact the public notices laid down the qualifications for admission for Elementary Teacher Training. Further stand of the State is that the eligibility conditions have been laid down by the NCTE, the apex body which regulates the imparting of ETT and other Teacher Training Courses in the country. The State has also placed on record Annexure R-1 which is Appendix 2 of the norms and standards for Elementary Teacher Programme issued by the NCTE. Under paragraph 3.2 of the said notification, the qualifications for admission to B.Ed Course are prescribed. The condition reads as under:- CWP Nos.13531, 17355, 12463, 12525, 13717, 13801, 14704, 7 12289 and 14702 of 2009 “3.2 Eligibility

3.2.2 Candidate with at least 50% marks in the seniority secondary.

3.2.2 The reservation for SC/ST/OBC and other categories shall be as per the rules of the Central Government/State Government, whichever is applicable. There shall be relaxation of 5% marks in favour of SC/ST/OBC and other categories of candidates.” Though the State relied upon the norms prescribed by the NCTE, however, the NCTE was not a party to the petition. Vide inter-locutory order dated 20.10.2009 passed in some of the writ petitions including CWPNo.12463 of 2009, NCTE was impleaded as party respondent and asked to file its reply. NCTE has also filed its reply supporting the stand of the State as regard the eligibility prescribed for admission to the course. It is stated that under 2005 Regulation and norms and standard for Elementary Teacher Programme, the eligibility prescribed was at least 45% marks in the Sr.Secondary or its equivalent examination. However, these regulations were substituted by 2007 regulations wherein the minimum marks prescribed were at least 50% in the Sr. Secondary Examination with relaxation of 5% marks in case of Reserved Categories. In view of the above stand of the NCTE, the eligibility prescribed by the State vide its notifications dated 23.7.2009 and 17.8.2009 cannot be said to be illegal. It is also relevant to notice that the first two public notices dated 16.7.2008 and 23.1.2009 specifically mention about the information to identify the eligible candidates. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid public notice reads as CWP Nos.13531, 17355, 12463, 12525, 13717, 13801, 14704, 8 12289 and 14702 of 2009 under:- “The eligibility and identity for eligible candidates for admission to ETT Course”. It is evident that public notice dated 23.7.2009 prescribes the minimum percentage for General and Reserved Categories. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon two judgments of this Court. In the case of Subhash Chandra vs. The Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and another, 1997(3) RSJ 346, it has been held that the admission brochure cannot be permitted to be amended or altered at the subsequent stage. A similar view has been held in the case of Munish Khanduja vs. Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar and others, 2002(3) RSJ 463. In the present case, the question is of the eligibility. The first two public notices relied upon by the petitioners are in fact not the complete brochure for admission. The subsequent condition in the aforesaid notices is regarding the information in respect of the eligibility of the EGS Volunteers. These notices were followed by two public notices laying down the eligibility as per the norms laid down by the NCTE. It is also pertinent to note that as per the reply filed by the NCTE, these eligibility conditions have been laid down by the statutory regulations framed by the NCTE. The statutory condition laid down cannot be dispensed with. These conditions have to be followed being essential eligibility for admission to the course. These petitions were filed for admission to the Course during the session 2009-2010. It is more than one year. Otherwise also at this belated stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. In CWP Nos.12525 and 13713 of 2009, the petitioners have also placed on record a public notice CWP Nos.13531, 17355, 12463, 12525, 13717, 13801, 14704, 9 12289 and 14702 of 2009 dated 26.2.2010 wherein the EGS volunteers have been given special chance to improve the percentage. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to improve their percentage and they may be permitted to do so. Suffice it to say that if the petitioners are entitled to improve their percentage in terms of the aforementioned public notice, they are at liberty to do so. On improvement of their percentage, they will otherwise become eligible to apply and seek admission to the Course. However, this is possible only for future admissions. The Current Academic Session commenced more than one year back and thus, the petitioners are not entitled to seek any benefit of this public notice at this stage. In view of the above, I find no merit in these writ petitions. Dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be placed on record on each concerned file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 30 .6. 2010 MFK Note:Whether to be referred to reporter or not:YES/NO