CWP-6665-2025(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 112 JAI PARKASH MALIK STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Rahul Deswal for Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA CM-6716-CWP For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Rules 82, 83, 163 as well as Appendix ‘A’ of Rules, 2003, and P-16, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case The petition has been filed quashing the order dated request for reinstatement as School Principal with effect from 31.12.20 been rejected. 2. Learned counsel contends that S. Master/TGT Hindi with effect from 03.08.1978 and worked third respondent/School post of Principal on selected. The Management thereafter sought approval 2025(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Decided On: JAI PARKASH MALIK Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) CWP-2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Rules 82, 83, 163 as well as Appendix ‘A’ of and B.Ed. marksheet are taken on record , subject to all just exceptions. The petition has been filed, inter alia quashing the order dated 10.01.2025, Annexure P for reinstatement as School Principal with effect from 31.12.20 Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was appointed TGT Hindi with effect from 03.08.1978 and worked third respondent/School upto 1988. The School Management advertised the post of Principal on 22.06.2005, he applied in response thereto and was selected. The Management thereafter sought approval IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6665-2025(O&M) Decided On: 06.05.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Rules 82, 83, 163 as well as Appendix ‘A’ of the Haryana School Education taken on record as Annexures P-15 and inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari , Annexure P-14, whereby the petitioner’s for reinstatement as School Principal with effect from 31.12.2005, has the petitioner was appointed as S. TGT Hindi with effect from 03.08.1978 and worked as such in the . The School Management advertised the applied in response thereto and was selected. The Management thereafter sought approval for appointment from For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Haryana School Education and certiorari petitioner’s 5, has S. in the . The School Management advertised the applied in response thereto and was from Aman Dua 2025.05.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-6665-2025(O&M) the second respondent/Director, Secondary Education 23.08.2005, and after appointment letter as School Principal 30.12.2005. It is claimed that h vide order dated 30.12.2005 petitioner’s appointment, leading to withdrawal of communication dated 31.12.2005 order dated 03.04.2024 and a fresh order 2.1. Learned counsel not sustainable as the petitioner, secondary and senior secondary classes with the permission of District Education Officer (DEO) School. He has confidential letter Management to the second respondent fulfills eligibility criteria for the post of Principal have been considered ineligible for the post impugned order 3. Heard. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s request has been declined qualifications Education Rules, 2003 (i) (ii) 2025(O&M) -2- the second respondent/Director, Secondary Education , and after grant of approval appointment letter as School Principal was issued to the petitioner on t is claimed that he joined as such vide order dated 30.12.2005, the Director withdrew petitioner’s appointment, leading to withdrawal of communication dated 31.12.2005. Pursuant to direction by this Court vide 03.04.2024, passed in CWP-10337 and a fresh order, dated 10.01.2025, was passed which is under challenge. Learned counsel further contends that the ground of rejection is not sustainable as the petitioner, though working as S. S. Master was secondary and senior secondary classes with the permission of District Education Officer (DEO) as there was no sanctioned post School. He has also worked as shift incharge confidential letter, dated 23.08.2005, sent Management to the second respondent it has been stated s eligibility criteria for the post of Principal have been considered ineligible for the post which is the basis of impugned order. Heard. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s request has been declined on the ground that he did not fulfill the essential for the post of Principal as laid down Education Rules, 2003, which are as under: (i) M.A./M.Sc./M.Com Second Division (ii) B.T./B.Ed. or its equivalent the second respondent/Director, Secondary Education, vide letter dated grant of approval vide letter dated 28.12.2005, was issued to the petitioner on as such on the same date. However, the Director withdrew the approval of petitioner’s appointment, leading to withdrawal of the appointment letter vide . Pursuant to direction by this Court vide 10337-2007, the petitioner was heard passed which is under challenge. further contends that the ground of rejection is though working as S. S. Master was teaching secondary and senior secondary classes with the permission of District as there was no sanctioned post of PGT in the incharge under two shifts system. In a by the President of School it has been stated that the petitioner s eligibility criteria for the post of Principal. Accordingly, he could not which is the basis of passing the A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s on the ground that he did not fulfill the essential laid down in the Haryana School M.A./M.Sc./M.Com Second Division B.T./B.Ed. or its equivalent , vide letter dated , was issued to the petitioner on However, of vide . Pursuant to direction by this Court vide , the petitioner was heard further contends that the ground of rejection is teaching secondary and senior secondary classes with the permission of District in the In a by the President of School petitioner could not passing the A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s on the ground that he did not fulfill the essential School Aman Dua 2025.05.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-6665-2025(O&M) Eight years teaching experience after B.T./B.Ed. Out of which two years’ experience should be in an administrative capacity as H teaching experience. Apparently, a candidate eight years teaching experience experience should School. The petitioner does not possess experience as he has never work shift incharge under two shifts experience as requirement of administrative experience has been done away of Lecturer with eight years record to establish that the petitioner because he was assigned time, would not make him to the impugned order dated 5. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present petition and it stands dismissed 06.05.2025 Ad 2025(O&M) -3- Eight years teaching experience after B.T./B.Ed. Out of which two years’ experience should be in an administrative capacity as Head of High/Middle School. In case of Lecturer, eight years teaching experience. a candidate for the post in question eight years teaching experience after B.T./B.Ed experience should be in an administrative capacity as Head of High/Middle . The petitioner does not possess experience as he has never worked as Head of High/Middle School shift incharge under two shifts system, is not akin to experience as administrative head of High/Middle School requirement of administrative experience has been done away of Lecturer with eight years teaching experience record to establish that the petitioner was ever appointed as Lecturer. M because he was assigned secondary and senior secondary , would not make him Lecturer. Accordingly, no exception can be taken to the impugned order dated 10.01.2025. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present petition and it stands dismissed in limine. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Eight years teaching experience after B.T./B.Ed. Out of which two years’ experience should be in an administrative capacity as ead of High/Middle School. In case of Lecturer, eight years for the post in question is required to have minimum B.T./B.Ed., out of which two years’ be in an administrative capacity as Head of High/Middle . The petitioner does not possess the requisite administrative as Head of High/Middle School. Being is not akin to having two years ead of High/Middle School. This essential requirement of administrative experience has been done away only in the case experience. There is no material on was ever appointed as Lecturer. Merely secondary and senior secondary classes for some Accordingly, no exception can be taken In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Eight years teaching experience after B.T./B.Ed. Out of which two years’ experience should be in an administrative capacity as ead of High/Middle School. In case of Lecturer, eight years required to have minimum , out of which two years’ be in an administrative capacity as Head of High/Middle the requisite administrative . Being two years . This essential the case . There is no material on erely for some Accordingly, no exception can be taken In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present Aman Dua 2025.05.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document