The UT education department yet to comply with the recent directive by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had termed the department's hiring process in 2007as patently illegal, to draw up a new merit list after deducting the marks in the descriptive test.
The court had on January 31 ruled that five marks assigned in the descriptive test for recruitment criteria by the department in 2009 was illegal and contravened the conditions of the latter's advertisement for 536 posts of teachers published on August 5, 2007.
The court gave two weeks to the education department to revise the merit list by excluding five marks and act in compliance with the conditions in the advertisement put out in 2007.
According to reports, the department has already missed the two-week deadline set by the court to comply with its order.
Speaking to HT last week, DPI (schools) Kamlesh Kumar said the department was thinking of filing an application in the high court to seek a month's time to implement the judgment.
However, there is still no clarity whether the department has moved such an application in the court or not. Despite repeated attempts Kumar could not be contacted on the phone. A text message also evoked no response.
The judement assumes significance since the court ruled the department's move to revise the recruitment criteria was illegal. 15-20 serving teachers might lose their jobs in case the court's order is implemented.
A teacher who asked not to be quoted said the department must follow the proper shortlisting criteria as laid down in its 2007 advertisement while drawing up the fresh merit list.
He said as per the 2007 advertisement, the candidates were first to be shortlisted on the basis of an objective (multiple choice) paper and then a subjective paper (competency test) was to be checked only for those candidates short listed in the objective exam.
The selection was based on a condition that only those candidates would be through for further selection, who score a minimum of 30% marks in the subjective paper. What is important to note here is that the marks obtained in the subjective paper were not to be counted for the final merit.
He added that there are several serving teachers in the department with less than 30% marks required to clear the subjective test, but they managed to get the job because of the revised criteria. "These factors must be considered while revising the list, he said.
Meanwhile, Arpana Mahajan, a terminated teacher whose case led to this judgement, moved an application in the high court to seek her reappointment in the department. The high court in this judgement had set aside her termination.