HC directs Haryana to recruit 4 it had rejected for JBT post
- Election LIVE: BJP's third candidate list out, Ram Kripal to contest from Patliputra against Lalu's daughter
- Show us the money, Supreme Court says, refuses bail to Subrata Roy
- December 16 gangrape: Delhi High Court upholds death to four convicts
- Minority panel removed my riot report against Modi: Ex-Secy
- Prospects dim, Congress finding it hard to get many of its MPs to run for Lok Sabha
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday directed the Haryana government to consider four applicants, it had deemed inelegible in 2009, for the post of JBT teachers. Daya Ram and others had filed the petition stating that the state had wrongfully considered them as ineligible for the post.
The court of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa also directed that the petitioners shall be given appointments to the post of JBT teacher with effect from the date any candidate, junior to them in the merit list determined by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, may have been appointed.
"Upon such appointment having been effected, the petitioners are also held entitled to all other consequential benefits in the nature of seniority, continuity of service, among others, but they shall not be granted the actual arrears of salary for such period," Justice Dhindsa held.
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission had issued an advertisement dated August 13, 2009, advertising 9,647 posts of JBT teachers. Of the advertised posts, 223 were reserved for ex-serviceman in the general category and 53 were reserved for ex-Serviceman BC (B) (Male) category. While three petitioners belonged to the ex-serviceman general category, one was of the ex- serviceman BC (B) category. All the petitioners had applied for the post and were interviewed by the Commission. The petitioners were duly selected and the candidates possessing lower merit to the petitioners were appointed as JBT teachers in the month of January, 2011.
The judgment read that the state government had even though conceded that the petitioners had been duly selected, took a stand that the qualifications possessed by the petitioners were not equivalent to the ones stipulated in the advertisement.