NEERAJ KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ..... Respondents
REVIEW PETITION (C) No. 154 OF 2022
IN
CIVIL APPEAL No. 7031 OF 2021
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8670 of 2007 )
The judgment pertains to a recruitment process that began in 2006 and has faced several legal challenges. Initially, the Punjab & Haryana High Court declared that the Diploma in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University was equivalent to the one offered by the Haryana Industrial Training Department. However, a later judgment by the court overturned this decision, stating that the equivalence of qualifications should be determined by the recruiting authority, which is the state.
Review petitions were filed by 404 candidates who held Diplomas in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University and were affected by the finding of non-equivalence. These petitions were granted, and the matter was reheard extensively. The recruitment process involved 816 posts of Art & Craft Teachers in Haryana, and eligibility criteria included a Diploma in Art & Craft from the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department.
There was a dispute regarding the recognition of the Diploma in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University. The Director of School Education, Haryana, issued a letter stating that only the Diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department was recognized for the Art & Craft Teacher position. This communication was challenged in writ petitions, leading to the earlier decision recognizing the Kurukshetra University diploma. However, the recent judgment overturned this decision.
During the recruitment process, some candidates who had obtained Diplomas from Kurukshetra University filed writ petitions, and they were provisionally allowed to participate in the selection conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. However, a judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court later quashed the selection process, and this decision was upheld by a Division Bench.
After the judgment overturning the earlier decision, a fresh selection was conducted, resulting in a selection list of 820 candidates. Out of these, 613 selected candidates and 54 waitlisted candidates held Diplomas from Kurukshetra University. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission recommended the appointment of only 153 candidates out of the 820, as the remaining 667 candidates possessed Diplomas from Kurukshetra University.
Subsequently, a batch of writ petitions was filed again, and the High Court directed the authorities to complete the selection process within a specific timeframe, subject to the outcome of the review petitions pending before the Supreme Court. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission recommended 178 candidates for appointment who held Diplomas from the Haryana Industrial Training Department or other institutions. This resulted in 331 appointments, leaving 485 vacancies out of the initially notified 816 posts.
Additional applications were filed by candidates similarly situated to the review petitioners, seeking to protect their interests. The court allowed these applications, bringing the applicants on record. However, candidates who did not pass the selection examination or interview and did not appear on the selection list were not granted intervention in the review petitions.
The court noted that the government of Haryana is now willing to accept the Diploma in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University as an equivalent qualification to the one from the Haryana Industrial Training Department. This acceptance was communicated through letters between the Director of Elementary Education, Haryana, and the Kurukshetra University. As a result, the court determined that the 667 candidates with Diplomas from Kurukshetra University in the selection list could be considered for appointment without affecting the 178 candidates who were conditionally appointed earlier. The appointments should be made against the remaining 663 vacant positions, and the seniority of the previously appointed candidates should not be disturbed.
The court directed the authorities to complete the entire process within two months from the date of the judgment and limited the appointments to the vacant posts notified under Advertisement No. 6/2006. The judgment emphasized the need for expeditious action given the long delay and the fact that some appointees had already served for a significant period.
July 3, 2023.