Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes selection process for ETT posts

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 16

Nearly 18 months after an advertisement was issued for the appointment of the Elementary Trained Teachers (ETT) meant for border areas, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside and quashed the entire selection process, including provisional merit list for carrying out recruitment to 2,364 posts.

The HC has also set aside the ad dated March 6, 2020, containing the impugned selection criteria.

‘Can’t ignore Disregard of Service rules’

This court knows that quashing the ad may cause hardship to aspirants. But, it can’t be ignored that in case the selection initiated in disregard of the service rules is allowed to attain finality, the same shall perpetuate the illegality. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, HC

The ruling by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu came on a bunch of petitions against the state and other respondents by Daljit Kaur and other petitioners. The Bench, was told that the selection criteria mentioned in the ad for awarding additional marks to the candidates on the basis of higher qualification i.e. graduation, wasn’t legally permissible.

It was also contended that the initial selection criteria was changed in an arbitrary manner vide public notice dated November 11, 2020. Among other things, weightage of one mark against each year of work experience, up to maximum 10 marks, was also granted in favour of education providers/education volunteers, EGS volunteers, AIE volunteers and special training resource volunteers despite the fact that there was no such provision under the service rules.

The petitioners were represented by counsels Vikas Chatrath, Karanvir Hooda, Harkesh Manuja, Har Avtar Singh Saini and Amit Shukla. Justice Sindhu ruled the weightage by the way of additional marks ranging from 2 to 5 was incorporated under the selection criteria in the ad, which was “running de hors the mandatory provisions of the relevant service rules”.

The appointments to the posts were to be made on the basis of recommendations by a “board”, but it was not constituted. Rather the Recruitment Director was made the final authority for making recommendations without there being any competency to that effect under the service rules.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.