Punjabi Language Exam Can't Test Individual's "Punjabiath": High Court Sets Aside Syllabus Prescribing State's Culture, History In ETT Syllabus

Observing that the state "failed to consider the difference between Punjab and Punjabi language", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the syllabus of Punjabi language for Elementary Trained Teacher (ETT) recruitment exam.

The Court noted that the examination of Punjabi language has been incorporated by the respondents in a manner to mean understanding 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.

While setting aside the syllabus, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sudeepti Sharma said, "While conducting a pre-qualifying test for Punjabi language, the respondents cannot be allowed to take an 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 was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the change of syllabus after the advertisement for the post of ETT by the Punjab Government.

After the advertisement for the recruitment was issued the State Government notified the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) First Amendment Rules 2022, on 28.10.2022 ('the Rules of 2022'), 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, a revised letter was issued and the 'Punjabi language' was also added in the syllabus of the written exam.

The plea challenged the rule whereby the eligibility criteria of qualifying Punjabi equivalent to Matriculation standard with at least 50% marks and "punjabi language" paper in the exam.

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that "rules of the game when the game has already started."

"We are unable to accept the contentions of the petitioners. The power of issuing advertisement and power of making amendment in the advertisement is available with the employer," it said.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the corrigendum could not have been issued after the last date of submission of application forms resulting in depriving candidates from participation or changing the rule of selection, is found to be without any basis, the Court said.

In Federal Form Of Govt. Punjab Would Be Entitled To Require Its Employee To Have Knowledge Of Punjabi Language 

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the rule according to which 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.

"If we test the rule on anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, we find that requirement of passing of Punjabi Language in the State of Punjab for Group 'C' posts, cannot be said to be unconstitutional," the Court held.

"The language of Punjabi has been included in the list of languages in 8th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Since, the same is a language of the State of Punjab, in a federal form of government, the State of Punjab would be entitled to require its employees to have knowledge of Punjabi language for the purpose of day to day activities and functioning in the government offices and if for the said purpose, a pre-qualifying test with 50% marks across the board is laid down, the same cannot be said to be in any manner, to go contrary to the Constitution," it added.

Syllabus Of Punjabi Language Contrary To Punjabi Official Language (Amendment) Act, 2008

 The Court noted that the syllabus for Paper-A as declared and placed on record, reflects that the examination of Punjabi language has been incorporated by the respondents in a manner to mean understanding 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.

Thus, the Paper-1 of Punjabi conducted for recruitment of ETT goes contrary to the provisions of the amendment made in Rule 17 of the Rules, 2022 and also is in violation of the Punjabi Official Language (Amendment) Act, 2008, the bench opined.

The bench said that, "While conducting a pre-qualifying test for Punjabi language, the respondents cannot be allowed to take an 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 said that the he examination conducted by the respondents based on the syllabus as above, "is found to be contrary to the provisions and, therefore, the same is liable to be struck down as the same is beyond competence of the Rule. The respondents have failed to consider the difference between Punjab and Punjabi language and to the said extent, the contentions raised by the petitioners have also not been answered by the respondents."

Consequently, the Court upheld the amendment whereby having qualification of Punjabi language  at a matriculation level was compulsory but set aside the syllabus for Punjabi language as also the consequential exam of Punjabi language and directed the respondents "to conduct a fresh Punjabi language examination based on knowledge of Punjabi alone."

While disposing of the plea, the Court said, "the test may be conducted for all the candidates now within a period of three months."

Further selection process under the advertisement may be continued and concluded thereafter at the earliest within a period of six months, it added.

Advocates Vikas Chatrath, Abhishek Singh and Tanya Sehgal for the petitioner (s) (in CWP Nos. 6819, 17495 and 18897 of 2023)

Advocates Alka Chatrath, Advocate and Nikhil Singh for the petitioner (s) (in CWP No. 16091 of 2023)

Advocate Himani Kapila for the petitioner (s) in CWP-26974-2024.

 R.S.Pandher, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji  with Advocates Abhishek Premi and  H.S.Saini for respondent Nos. 5 to 10.

Jatinderpal Singh and Mr. Ankush Thakral, Advocates for respondent No.11.

Kriteka Sheokand, Advocate for the applicant (in CM-5460-CWP-2024).

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 142

Title: Parvinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.