Facts
The petitioners applied pursuant to HKRNL advertisements dated 06.10.2022, 07.10.2022 and 09.10.2022 for posts including TGT Sanskrit, TGT Social Studies and PGT History. They possessed HTET certificates dated 02.12.2011, were shortlisted, furnished consent through the online portal and were allocated districts/stations, but appointment letters were not issued.
Source reference: pp. 2–3By communications/SMS dated 03.12.2022, their candidature was rejected on the ground that their HTET/STET certificates had expired after seven years under the then-prevailing criteria.
Source reference: pp. 2–3The petitioners had earlier challenged the rejection in Rakesh Rani v. Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited, CWP-29517-2022, which was disposed of on 23.12.2022 with liberty to approach the State authorities.
Source reference: p. 4They relied on the NCTE notification dated 09.06.2021, which extended the validity of TET certificates for life with effect from 11.02.2011, and on Mamta Devi v. State of Haryana, CWP-25154-2023, decided on 12.08.2026, which held that restricting the benefit to advertisements issued after 06.08.2024 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
Source reference: pp. 3–5During hearing, the petitioners confined their prayer to treating the writ petition as a comprehensive representation and directing the competent authorities to decide it by a reasoned order.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
Whether the petitioners’ candidature could be rejected solely because their HTET/STET certificates had exceeded the earlier seven-year validity period, in light of the NCTE notification dated 09.06.2021 extending validity for life with effect from 11.02.2011.
Source reference: pp. 3–5Whether the petitioners were entitled to consideration of their candidature under the law declared in Mamta Devi v. State of Haryana, notwithstanding that the relevant advertisements were issued in October 2022.
Source reference: pp. 4–5Whether the writ petition should be treated as a comprehensive representation and the competent authorities directed to determine the petitioners’ entitlement by a reasoned and speaking order.
Source reference: pp. 5–6Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs and directions for enforcement of legal rights.
Source reference: no citationThe NCTE notification dated 09.06.2021 amended the applicable TET guidelines by extending the validity of TET qualifying certificates for life, with effect from 11.02.2011, and contemplated revalidation or fresh issuance of certificates that had lapsed after seven years.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The High Court’s decision in Mamta Devi v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-25154-2023, held that the NCTE notification applied in Haryana and that limiting its benefit to advertisements issued after the State order dated 06.08.2024 created an artificial and constitutionally impermissible distinction, offending Articles 14 and 16.
Source reference: pp. 4–5The Court also acted on the principle that a competent administrative authority must consider a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
Source reference: pp. 5–6Reasoning
The petitioners’ rejection was based on the pre-existing seven-year validity criterion, although the NCTE had, before the October 2022 advertisements, extended TET validity for life with retrospective effect from 11.02.2011.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The subsequent State order dated 06.08.2024 restricted the benefit prospectively, but that distinction had been held unconstitutional in Mamta Devi.
Source reference: p. 5However, the Court did not adjudicate the petitioners’ substantive entitlement.
Source reference: no citationSince the petitioners limited their prayer and the State raised no objection, the Court considered it appropriate to remit the matter to the competent authorities for examination in light of the NCTE notification, Mamta Devi, and the documents on record.
Source reference: pp. 5–6Holding
The writ petition was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/competent authority were directed to treat the petition as a comprehensive representation, consider and decide it in accordance with law and in light of the NCTE notification dated 09.06.2021 and the judgment in Mamta Devi, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
Source reference: p. 6The decision was to be communicated to the petitioners forthwith.
Source reference: p. 6If found entitled, the petitioners were directed to be granted the relief in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Shashi Kant Mishra And OthersvsThe State Of Haryana And Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
