Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1681 (PNJ)

Jagsit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-09-17

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of advertisement Annexure P. 14 making Elementary Teachers Training (ETT) qualification from Chandigarh to be ineligible for appointment of ETT teachers in Punjab. 2. Case of the petitioners is that ETT qualification from UT Chandigarh was duly recogoised by the Punjab Government for recruitment of JBT/ETT teachers but vide advertisement Annexure P. 14, qualification has been restricted to those who have passed two years ETT from Punjab. 3. Contention raised is that ETT qualification from UT Chandigarh stands on same footing as ETT qualification from Punjab and, therefore, restricting eligibility only to candidates who had passed from Punjab State, was discriminatory. It was also submitted that the advertisement was against the Punjab State Education Class III (Primary Schools Cadre) Service Rules, 1997 (for short the 1997 Rules). It was also submitted that ETT course was regulated under the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) and in a judgment of this Court dated 22.7.2003 (Ms. Manisha Gupta and another v. State of Punjab, and others), Annexures P. 16, it was laid down that ETT qualification from UT Chandigarh was valid for recruitment in the State of Punjab. 4. In the reply filed, stand taken is that the 1997 Rules were not applicable as the advertisement was for filling up posts under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on contract basis. As regards the judgment in Manisha Gupta (supra), it is stated that the matter was pending before the Honble Supreme Court. In a subsequent affidavit, it has been stated that SLP was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 27.9.2004. 5. In further affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, notification dated 19.12.2005 issued by the State of Punjab has been filed as Annexure P.19, to the effect that ETT Diploma course of UT Chandigarh was equivalent to ETT course of Punjab State provided the holders of such diploma course passed Punjabi as one of the languages. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In view of notification dated 19.12.2005, Annexure P. 19, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that candidates who had passed Punjabi as one of the languages, ought to be treated as eligible even if they had passed ETT course from UT Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the State could not dispute this part of the claim. 7. 6. In view of notification dated 19.12.2005, Annexure P. 19, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that candidates who had passed Punjabi as one of the languages, ought to be treated as eligible even if they had passed ETT course from UT Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the State could not dispute this part of the claim. 7. Accordingly, we hold that candidates, who have passed ETT diploma course of UT Chandigarh will be treated at par with those obtaining ETT course from Punjab if they have passed Punjabi as one of the languages. The writ petition is disposed of.