Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioners, who were the applicants for recruitment to the post of Elementary Trained Teacher (‘ETT’), the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma* and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ., opined that in the present case, the authorities introduced a pre-requisite qualification for passing Punjabi language test. Since all the candidates were expected to have passed Punjabi language in the matriculate examination, testing them on the said language in a selection process could not be said as changing the rule. Further, the marks obtained in Punjabi language were not the part of preparation of merit list for the main selection. Thus, the Court opined that there was no change in the rules of the game after the selection process had started.
The Court opined that while conducting a pre-qualifying test for Punjabi language, the respondents could not be allowed to take separate exam for the subject of Punjabi and Punjabiath, as that would amount to localizing and excluding the persons who do not belong to Punjab from participating in the selection process. Respondents had failed to consider the difference between Punjab and Punjabi language. Accordingly, the Court upheld the amendment in Rule 17 of 2022 Rules, and revised letter dated 01-12-2022, and set aside the syllabus of Paper-1 for Punjabi language and the consequential exam of Punjabi language.
Background
Since, all the writ petitions raised a common question of law, therefore they were taken up together for adjudication.
In the present case, petitioners in all the writ petitions were the applicants for recruitment to the post of ETT, for which an advertisement was issued on 12-10-2022. The last date for submission of application form was 10-11-2022. As per initial advertisement, the educational qualification required for the post of ETT, was that a candidate should have done graduation with minimum 50% marks and 45% marks for general and reserved categories respectively, and two years Elementary Teacher Training Course or two years diploma in Elementary Education from a recognized university/institution and should have passed Punjab State Teachers Eligibility Test-Paper 1.
On 28-10-2022, Government of Punjab notified the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) First Amendment Rules 2022 (‘2022 Rules’), whereby requirement of qualifying test of Punjabi equivalent to Matriculation standard with at least 50% marks was made mandatory for appointment to any post of Group-C. Thereafter, on 01-12-2022, respondents issued a revised letter, incorporating the condition introduced in 2022 Rules, which required all the aspirants to pass Punjabi qualifying test with minimum 50% marks for all Group-C posts.
Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners challenged the notification dated 28-10-2022 on various grounds and challenged the revised letter dated 01-12-2022. Petitioner challenged the amendment made to Rule 17 of 2022 Rules, incorporating the condition of passing qualifying test in Punjabi language as mandatory for appointment to any post of Group-C with 50% minimum marks for all. Petitioner submitted that the amendment could not sustain as there was no relaxation granted to reserved category candidates for qualifying exam. Petitioner further submitted that there was neither any rational nor intelligible differentia to be achieved by introducing the qualifying test for Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts.
Petitioner further challenged the selection and appointment process on the ground that the rules of the game have been sought to be changed in between, after the advertisement was issued. It was submitted that the requirement of passing Punjabi qualifying test could not have been added to the advertisement as the amendment was introduced on 28-10-2022 and therefore, the posts which had been advertised on 12-10-2022, could not be governed by the said amendment and the revised letter dated 01-12-2022 was a corrigendum, which ran contrary to 2022 Rules.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that in the present case, respondents issued a revised letter notifying all the candidates who applied under the advertisement, about incorporation of the amended Rule 17 of 2022 Rules, providing the candidates to appear for additional examination of Punjabi language as a pre-requisite for selection. Thus, it did not affect the candidates who were to participate in the selection process, and participation in the pre-requisite qualification only made them qualified to participate in the selection process. The Court opined that there was no change in the selection process as the marks of Punjabi language were not included in the main selection, nor it changed the inter-se merit of the candidates. Hence, it could not be considered as an introduction of additional qualification for the selection as it was a condition laid down for participation.
The Court opined that due to huge number of applicants, the selecting body might resort to a screening test. In the present case, the authorities introduced a pre-requisite qualification for passing Punjabi language test. Since all the candidates were expected to have passed Punjabi language in the matriculate examination, testing them on the said language in a selection process could not be said as changing the rule. Further, the marks obtained in Punjabi language were not the part of preparation of merit list for the main selection. Thus, the Court opined that there was no change in the rules of the game after the selection process had started.
The Court relied on Naresh Chand Aggarwal v. Institute of Chartered Accountant of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 114, and opined that requirement of passing in Punjabi Language in State of Punjab for Group ‘C’ posts could not be said to be unconstitutional. The language of Punjabi had been included in Eighth Schedule of the Constitution and the same was a language of the State of Punjab. Therefore, the State of Punjab was entitled to require its employees to have knowledge of Punjabi language for day-to-day activities and functioning in the government offices. Thus, the Court opined that a requirement of passing in Punjabi had a nexus to the purpose which was sought to be achieved.
The Court further noted the syllabus of the Punjabi (Paper-A) of the ETT, and opined that it reflected that the examination of Punjabi language had been incorporated by respondents to understand all the Punjabi culture, religion, history of Punjab, whereas the paper of Punjabi language could have been limited to the subject language, grammar and script aspects alone. Therefore, Paper-1 of Punjabi conducted for recruitment of ETT was contrary to the provisions of amendment made in Rule 17 of the 2022 Rules and violated the Punjabi Official Language (Amendment) Act, 2008.
The Court opined that while conducting a pre-qualifying test for Punjabi language, the respondents could not be allowed to take separate exam for the subject of Punjabi and Punjabiath, as that would amount to localizing and excluding the persons who do not belong to Punjab from participating in the selection process. The Court opined that respondents had failed to consider the difference between Punjab and Punjabi language and thus, the examination conducted by the respondents based on the syllabus, was contrary to the provisions and, therefore, the same was liable to be struck down.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the amendment in Rule 17 of 2022 Rules, and revised letter dated 01-12-2022, and set aside the syllabus of Paper-1 for Punjabi language as also the consequential exam of Punjabi language. The Court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh Punjabi language examination based on knowledge of Punjabi alone. The said test might be conducted for all the candidates within a period of three months and further selection process under the advertisement might be continued and concluded at the earliest within six months.
[Parvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 3193, decided on 30-04-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, Abhishek Singh, Advocate and Tanya Sehgal, Advocate; Alka Chatrath, Advocate and Nikhil Singh, Advocate; Himani Kapila, Advocate,
For the Respondents: R.S. Pandher, Sr. DAG, Punjab; Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Abhishek Premi, Advocate and H.S. Saini, Advocates; Jatinderpal Singh and Ankush Thakral, Advocates.
For the Applicant: Kriteka Sheokand, Advocate.
