Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Age Relaxation to Teachers, Holds One-Time Measure Applies Per Candidate Not Per Advertisement
Case Name: Som Nath v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CWP No. 20110 of 2014
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petitions filed by candidates seeking relaxation in upper age limit for appointment as Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs), holding that the phrase “one-time measure” under Rule 5 of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012, applies with reference to the candidate and not merely to the first advertisement after the Rules were framed. Justice Rajesh Bindal ruled that it would be unduly harsh and contrary to the legislative intent to restrict age relaxation to only one recruitment cycle, especially when many eligible teachers working in recognized or aided schools were deprived of regular appointments due to prolonged ad hoc recruitments.
Summary: The petitioners, including Som Nath, challenged Advertisement No. 1/2014 dated August 30, 2014, issued by the Haryana School Education Department for recruitment of PGTs, alleging that it violated Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules by denying upper age relaxation to teachers who had served in government-aided, recognized, and government schools. Rule 5 permitted age relaxation up to five years corresponding to the period of teaching service but limited it as a “one-time measure.” The petitioners, being otherwise qualified, were denied online submission of applications for being marginally overage. They contended that the relaxation must be available once in a teacher’s lifetime, not once for the department.
The State argued that the relaxation was a one-time benefit applicable only to the first recruitment following the 2012 Rules. However, Justice Bindal, after examining the statutory provision, rejected this narrow interpretation, observing that the term “one-time measure” must be construed in context with the individual candidate’s opportunity for recruitment. The Court noted that recruitment had been irregular in the State for several years, resulting in many teachers crossing the upper age limit despite continuous service in recognized schools. The intent of the Rule, the Court held, was to extend a humane and fair opportunity to such teachers, recognizing their experience as valuable.
Justice Bindal also found the advertisement arbitrary, as the same authority had issued Advertisement No. 2/2014 the same day with a provision granting identical relaxation for other subjects. He directed the State to correct the inconsistency by issuing a corrigendum and extending equal opportunity to all similarly situated candidates.
Decision: Allowing the petitions, the High Court directed the State to grant eligible candidates age relaxation as per Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules, up to a maximum of five years, corresponding to their teaching experience in government-aided or recognized schools. The State was further directed to issue a corrigendum reopening the application process only for such candidates who could not apply earlier due to the disputed restriction. All eligibility was to be determined as on the original closing date of the advertisement.