IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 213 STATE OF HARYAN OM PAL @OMPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. Present : Mr Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik and Ms. Amisha Rana for Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 1. This appeal is filed by the State of Haryana, challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 18.09.2018, whereby, the writ petition filed by direction had been issued to the second respondent the experience certificate of the P-10), so that respondent No.1/petitioner c process of PGT Sanskrit, pursuant to advertisement dated 28.06.2016. 2. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged on the ground that in terms of the advertisement, respondent No.1/petitioner did not possess requisite qualification and therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, cannot be sustain 3. The advertisement, pursuant to which had applied, is Annexure P specified in the advertisement consists of teaching experienc IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. Date of decision: STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Versus @OMPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik and Ms. Amisha Rana for the appellants. Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (oral) This appeal is filed by the State of Haryana, challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 18.09.2018, whereby, the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 direction had been issued to the second respondent the experience certificate of the petitioner therein 10), so that respondent No.1/petitioner could process of PGT Sanskrit, pursuant to advertisement dated 28.06.2016. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged on the ground that in terms of the advertisement, respondent No.1/petitioner did not requisite qualification and therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, cannot be sustained. The advertisement, pursuant to which had applied, is Annexure P-9. The qualification for the specified in the advertisement which apart from education consists of teaching experience for the post of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH No.908 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.08.2025 …. Appellants Versus @OMPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS …. Respondents ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA ROHIT KAPOOR Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik and Ms. Amisha Rana, Advocates Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. This appeal is filed by the State of Haryana, challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 18.09.2018, respondent No.1 has been allowed and a direction had been issued to the second respondent in the writ, to countersign petitioner therein dated 01.06.2016 (Annexure ould participate in the selection process of PGT Sanskrit, pursuant to advertisement dated 28.06.2016. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged on the ground that in terms of the advertisement, respondent No.1/petitioner did not requisite qualification and therefore, the direction issued by the learned The advertisement, pursuant to which respondent No.1-petitioner 9. The qualification for the said post has been which apart from educational qualification also the post of PGT of the relevant subject. This appeal is filed by the State of Haryana, challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 18.09.2018, has been allowed and a in the writ, to countersign dated 01.06.2016 (Annexure participate in the selection The judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged on the ground that in terms of the advertisement, respondent No.1/petitioner did not requisite qualification and therefore, the direction issued by the learned petitioner post has been qualification also . Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.908 of 2019 The particular provision dealing with teaching experience, as per advertisement, reads as under: “TEACHING EXPERIENCE only after acquiring the essential details of salary of the concerned post and the experience must be countersigned by the Director, Secondary Education of the concerned State even for CBSE/Central Schools & Navodaya Vidhalaya. Teaching experience must be for the po the relevant subject.” 4. According to teaching experience which has also been authenticated by the authorities. Further it is stated that the Assistant Director had earlier authenticated t teaching experience, but later on, he cancelled 5. The teaching experience certificate dated 01.06.2016 P-10) records that Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in the Institution since 13. recorded that respondent No.1 XII. This certificate was initially authenticated by the Block Education Officer and the Officer of the CBSE Board. The Assistant Director also verified the said certificate, but later cancelled it on 24.06.2016. It is thi certificate and non experience, which led to 6. We have perused the experience certificate, which clearly reveals that the substantive appointment of of TGT (Sanskrit). The essential requirement, as per the advertisement, was of possessing teaching experience for the post of PGT in the relevant subject. TGT is a post inferior to PGT in the relevant subject. Me respondent No.1 LPA No.908 of 2019 (O&M) The particular provision dealing with teaching experience, as per advertisement, reads as under:- TEACHING EXPERIENCE:- Experience wherever applicable will be considered, only after acquiring the essential details of salary of the concerned post and the experience must be countersigned by the Director, Secondary Education of the concerned State even for CBSE/Central Schools & Navodaya Vidhalaya. Teaching experience must be for the po the relevant subject.” According to respondent No.1-petitioner teaching experience which has also been authenticated by the authorities. Further it is stated that the Assistant Director had earlier authenticated t teaching experience, but later on, he cancelled the same The teaching experience certificate dated 01.06.2016 records that respondent No.1-petitioner Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in the Institution since 13. respondent No.1-petitioner was also taking PGT classes of IX to XII. This certificate was initially authenticated by the Block Education Officer and the Officer of the CBSE Board. The Assistant Director also verified the said certificate, but later cancelled it on 24.06.2016. It is thi certificate and non-consideration of respondent No.1 which led to his filing of the writ petition. We have perused the experience certificate, which clearly reveals that the substantive appointment of respondent No.1 of TGT (Sanskrit). The essential requirement, as per the advertisement, was of possessing teaching experience for the post of PGT in the relevant subject. post inferior to PGT in the relevant subject. Me respondent No.1-petitioner was certified by the institution to have h -2- The particular provision dealing with teaching experience, as per Experience wherever applicable will be considered, only after acquiring the essential qualification along with details of salary of the concerned post and the experience must be countersigned by the Director, Secondary Education of the concerned State even for CBSE/Central Schools & Navodaya Vidhalaya. Teaching experience must be for the post of PGT of petitioner, he does possess such teaching experience which has also been authenticated by the authorities. Further it is stated that the Assistant Director had earlier authenticated the the same. The teaching experience certificate dated 01.06.2016 (Annexure petitioner has been working as Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in the Institution since 13.04.2005. It was also also taking PGT classes of IX to XII. This certificate was initially authenticated by the Block Education Officer and the Officer of the CBSE Board. The Assistant Director also verified the said certificate, but later cancelled it on 24.06.2016. It is this cancellation of respondent No.1-petitioner’s teaching filing of the writ petition. We have perused the experience certificate, which clearly reveals respondent No.1-petitioner was on the post of TGT (Sanskrit). The essential requirement, as per the advertisement, was of possessing teaching experience for the post of PGT in the relevant subject. post inferior to PGT in the relevant subject. Merely because ed by the institution to have hold classes The particular provision dealing with teaching experience, as per , he does possess such teaching experience which has also been authenticated by the authorities. he Annexure has been working as Trained 04.2005. It was also also taking PGT classes of IX to XII. This certificate was initially authenticated by the Block Education Officer and the Officer of the CBSE Board. The Assistant Director also verified the s cancellation of ’s teaching We have perused the experience certificate, which clearly reveals was on the post of TGT (Sanskrit). The essential requirement, as per the advertisement, was of possessing teaching experience for the post of PGT in the relevant subject. rely because ld classes Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.908 of 2019 of class IX to XII, would not mean that his appointment would become that of a PGT Sanskrit teacher. 7. In such circumstances, the experience certificate relied upon by respondent No.1 considering his Judge to accord consideration to the therefore, cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. order passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. The appeal with the observation that the candidature of only be considered bereft of experience certificate 8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. AUGUST 19, 2025 Jyoti-IV LPA No.908 of 2019 (O&M) of class IX to XII, would not mean that his appointment would become that of a PGT Sanskrit teacher. In such circumstances, the experience certificate relied upon by respondent No.1-petitioner could not have been taken into consideration for his candidature. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge to accord consideration to the experience certificate dated 01.06.2016, therefore, cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. order passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. The appeal with the observation that the candidature of respondent No only be considered bereft of experience certificate Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA (ROHIT KAPOOR AUGUST 19, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- of class IX to XII, would not mean that his appointment would become that of In such circumstances, the experience certificate relied upon by could not have been taken into consideration for candidature. The direction issued by the learned Single experience certificate dated 01.06.2016, therefore, cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. The appeal is disposed of respondent No.1-petitioner can only be considered bereft of experience certificate. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No of class IX to XII, would not mean that his appointment would become that of ) Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document