HC upholds age relaxation rights of Haryana teachers, quashes candidature rejection

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that teachers entitled to age relaxation under Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012, cannot be denied the benefit merely because they do not have experience on an "equivalent post" as required under a recruitment advertisement.

The court quashed the rejection of the petitioners' candidature and directed the authorities to reconsider their cases by granting them the statutory age relaxation.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that "where there is any inconsistency between the terms of an advertisement and the governing statutory rules, the statutory rules must prevail" and "any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription."

The dispute arose from Clause 10(ix) of the Haryana Public Service Commission's advertisement dated July 23, 2024, which granted age relaxation only to candidates having experience on an "equivalent post" on an ad hoc, contract, work-charged or daily-wage basis.

The petitioners contended that this additional condition was contrary to Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules, which granted eligible teachers age relaxation to the extent of their teaching service, subject to a maximum of five years, without requiring experience on an equivalent post.

The Bench noted that the advertisement itself stipulated that recruitment would be made "strictly in accordance with the relevant Service Rules" as amended from time to time, while also incorporating the impugned requirement of experience on an equivalent post for one category of age relaxation.

Justice Brar held that the petitioner, who had been serving as a Primary Teacher in a Government school since May 2, 2017, "falls within the ambit of the said Rule and must be given the benefit of age relaxation on the basis of her experience as a Primary Teacher."

The Bench ruled that rejection of her candidature for not possessing experience on an equivalent post was "illegal and contrary to Rule 5." The court further held that "the term 'equivalent post' has not been used in Rule 5 and cannot be read into the provision to restrict its scope and applicability," since doing so "would defeat the very purpose and object of the Rule."

Rejecting the State's reliance on Government Instructions dated March 25, 2022, the court observed that "executive or administrative instructions cannot amend or override statutory rules, nor can any such instructions be issued in derogation of the statutory framework." It reiterated that "instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant them."

Allowing all the connected writ petitions, Justice Brar quashed the impugned orders rejecting the petitioners' candidature for not possessing experience on an "equivalent post". “The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners after extending to them the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit in accordance with Rule 5… However, such benefit shall be admissible only if the petitioners have not previously availed the said one-time relaxation for securing appointment against a regular post.