E-Paper
ETT teachers’ recruitment: Will not proceed with the selection process, Punjab tells HC
The undertaking was given as the high court said that one of the primary issues raised in the petitions challenging this recruitment process was whether the selection criteria could be changed after the issuance of the advertisement
The Punjab government has told the high court that it would not proceed with the selection process of 5,994 ETT teachers.
The undertaking was given as the high court said that one of the primary issues raised in the petitions challenging this recruitment process was whether the selection criteria could be changed after the issuance of the advertisement. The high court said it would be worthwhile to await the pronouncement by the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, which is examining whether the selection criteria could be changed after the issuance of the advertisement.
Earlier, it was brought to the notice of the court that in Tej Parkash Pathak and others vs Rajasthan high court and others, the issue was referred by the Supreme Court to be authoritatively decided by a larger bench. In pursuance to the reference, a constitutional bench has already heard the matter on July 18, and the judgment has been reserved, it was informed.
The bench of justice Deepak Sibal and justice Sukhvinder Kaur were hearing a batch of petitions filed in March 2023 challenging various aspects of the recruitment process.
The advertisement for 5,994 posts was issued on October 12, 2022. However, the government came out with a corrigendum on December 1 making some changes in the criterion, which are under challenge in these petitions.
As per the plea, the state government notified Punjab Civil Services General and Common of Service First Amendment Rules 2022 on October 2022, whereby the passing of the Punjabi qualifying test was made mandatory for the group C posts. The notification also does not give relaxation for reserved category posts. The rules came into force the same day, and subsequently, in December 1 corrigendum, the government made this rule applicable to these posts also.
The petitioners have argued that this condition has been added after the selection process has been initiated. Hence, the action is arbitrary and illegal. “The sanctity of binding force of advertisement has not been adhered to. The condition of advertisement could not be changed once the process has started and forms dully filled,” one of the petitioners’ counsel, Vikas Chatrath, had argued.
The pleas also argue the condition has been made mandatory for appointment to Group C posts while exempting A, B and D categories without any “intelligible differentia” and rationale to be achieved. The questions have also been raised about how qualifying marks of 50% in respect of the general category have been made applicable to the reserved category as well without appreciating that the relaxation is being provided to the reserved category candidates for essential education qualification and age etc. Now, the hearing stands deferred for November 14.
