In CWP-13397-2022-PUNJ HC- P&H HC upholds deletion of Rule 134A of Haryana School Education Rules, 2003
Justices Ravi Shanker Jha & Arun Palli [15-11-2022]

Read Order: Jayant Kumar (Minor) v. State of Haryana and Others

Monika Rahar 

Chandigarh, November 29,2022: While dealing with a petition wherein the petitioner called in question the deletion of Rule 134A of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 on the ground that it was not laid before the House of the State Legislature seeking prior approval (as required by Section 24 of the Haryana School Education Act, 1995), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has upheld the State Gazette Notification publishing such deletion.

The Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli held, “A bare perusal of the aforesaid [Section 24 (3) of 1995 Act] Section makes it clear that the provision for laying of the Rules before the House of the State Legislature is not a provision requiring prior laying but it specifically and clearly states that the Rule has to be laid before the House of the State Legislature as soon as may be after it is made”. 

Further, the Bench also added, “In such circumstances, as the provision of the Statute is directory and not mandatory and does not require prior laying of the Rule, it is evident that the notification dated 28.03.2022 (P-4) deleting the provision of Rule 134A from the Rules of 2003 has come into force from the date it has publication and as on date, Rule 134A does not exist on the Statute book”. 

The Court was dealing with a petition seeking directions to the Respondents to issue the Schedule for admission in Class 2nd to Class 8th under Rule 134A of the Rules of 2003 (amended in 2013) for the academic session 2022-2023. 

It was the petitioner’s submission that Rule 134A was incorporated in the Rules of 2003, making provision for reservation in admission to schools for poor meritorious students to the extent of 25%, which was subsequently reduced to 10%. It was further submitted that this beneficial provision was introduced by the State Legislature in the exercise of its Rule making power under Section 24 of the Act of 1995.

Further, the petitioner submitted that in accordance with the provision of Section 24 (3) of the Act of 1995, prior approval of the House of the State Legislature is necessary and mandatory for bringing into existence any amendment in the Rules of 2003. He submitted that Rule 134A of the Rules of 2003 was deleted and omitted by a March 2022 notification published in the Haryana Government Gazette without it being laid before the House of the State Legislature seeking prior approval. Therefore, the Counsel argued that the omission of Rule 134A of the Rules of 2003 did not come into force, and in such circumstances, since Rule 134A still continued to be in existence, the relief prayed for by the petitioner should be granted. 

After hearing the parties, the Court made reference to the provision of Section 24 (3) of the Act of 1995 to observe that the provision for laying of the Rules before the House of the State Legislature is not a provision requiring prior laying but it specifically and clearly states that the Rule has to be laid before the House of the State Legislature as soon as may be after it is made. 

“Language of the provision is clear and when confronted with the same, learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the aforesaid provision stipulates and provides for laying of the Rule before the House of the State Legislature as soon as may be after it is made”, the Court observed. 

In such circumstances, the Court held that since the provision of the Statute is directory and not mandatory and does not require the prior laying of the Rule, it is evident that the notification of March 2022, deleting the provision of Rule 134A from the Rules of 2003 has come into force from the date it was published and as on date, Rule 134A does not exist on the Statute book. 

Thus, while dismissing the petition, the Court held,“In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, prayer made by the petitioner to the effect that the respondents may be directed to issue the Schedule for admission by applying Rule 134A of the Rules of 2003 is misconceived and cannot be allowed.”