Punjab and Haryana High Court cancels selection process for ETT positions: the Tribune India

0


Tribune press service

Chandigarh, November 16

Almost 18 months after the publication of an announcement for the appointment of Elementary Trained Teachers (ETTs) for border areas, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana overturned and canceled the entire selection process , including the provisional merit list for the recruitment of 2,364 posts.

The CH also set aside the announcement dated March 6, 2020, containing the contested selection criteria.

“Impossible to ignore the rules of non-compliance with the rules of service”

This court knows that canceling the ad can cause difficulties for aspirants. But, it cannot be ignored that in the event that the selection initiated in defiance of the rules of service is allowed to achieve the finality, the same will perpetuate the illegality. Judge Mahabir Singh Sindhu, HC

Judge Mahabir Singh Sindhu’s ruling came on a slew of petitions against the state and other sponsors by Daljit Kaur and other petitioners. The bench was informed that the selection criteria mentioned in the advertisement to award additional points to applicants on the basis of a higher qualification i.e. graduation, were not legally permitted .

It was also alleged that the initial selection criteria had been arbitrarily modified by public notice dated November 11, 2020. Among other things, a weighting of one mark per year of work experience, up to a maximum of 10 points, was also awarded in favor of Education Providers / Education Volunteers, EGS Volunteers, IEA Volunteers and Special Training Resource Volunteers despite the fact that such a provision did not exist in the service rules.

The applicants were represented by counsel Vikas Chatrath, Karanvir Hooda, Harkesh Manuja, Har Avtar Singh Saini and Amit Shukla. Judge Sindhu ruled that weighting through additional scores ranging from 2 to 5 was incorporated into the selection criteria for the ad, which “performed outside the mandatory provisions of the relevant service rules.”

Appointments to posts were to be made on the basis of the recommendations of a “council”, but this was not constituted. Rather, the recruiting director was the final authority to make recommendations without there being any jurisdiction to do so under the service rules.


Share.

Comments are closed.