Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 780 (HP)

KUSUM LATA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-09-09

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner passed her 10+2 examination from the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in the year 1995. She passed Pre-School Teacher Education Diploma course from the DAV Institute of Correspondence Education, New Delhi in the academic session 1995-97. She got her name registered in the Employment Exchange, Nadaun on 4.3.1998. The name of the petitioner was sponsored for the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher during the year 1998. She appeared in the interview; however, she was not selected. She was again called for interview vide call letter dated 29.10.2002. She was not appointed to the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher. 2. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that two years diploma obtained by the petitioner is equivalent to Junior Basic Trained Teacher course. He then contended that the course in question already stand recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 23.4.1994. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the diploma obtained by the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be treated at par with the Junior Basic Trained Teacher course. According to him, the petitioner was only eligible for the post of Nursery Teacher on the basis of her qualification. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 4. It is true that the petitioner has obtained two years diploma from the DAV Institute of Correspondence Education, New Delhi. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure MA-1 Appendix-1. A bare perusal of the norms and standards for Pre-School Teacher Education Programme leading to Certificate in Education (C. Ed) reveals that the teachers, who obtain this diploma have to teach in pre-schools like ICDS, ECE Centres, Balwadis and Day-care Centres run by voluntary organizations, pre-primary schools run by governmental and non-governmental agencies (Montessori, Kindergarten, Nursery Schools). The Teachers who obtain Junior Basic Trained Teacher diplomas are supposed to teach at primary level. In view of this, the diploma obtained by the petitioner cannot be treated at par with the Junior Basic Trained Teacher course. Annexure A-7 dated 23.4.1994 only talks about recognizing the pre-school diploma. The Teachers who obtain Junior Basic Trained Teacher diplomas are supposed to teach at primary level. In view of this, the diploma obtained by the petitioner cannot be treated at par with the Junior Basic Trained Teacher course. Annexure A-7 dated 23.4.1994 only talks about recognizing the pre-school diploma. The petitioner cannot take advantage of this letter dated 23.4.1994 for being appointed to the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher. 5. The respondent-State was called during the course of hearing to give exact status whether the diploma obtained by the petitioner stands recognized equivalent to Junior Basic Trained Teacher Course or not. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions supplied to him vide communications dated 9.12.2008 and 5.3.2009. A bare perusal of these two communications suggests that the diploma obtained by the petitioner has not been treated equivalent to the Junior Basic Trained Teacher course. The petitioner on the basis of these two letters can seek employment only as Nursery Teacher. However, vide notification dated 13.7.1997, the cadre of Nursery Teacher has been declared as ‘dying cadre’. The State Government was also directed to file supplementary affidavit on 16.7.2009. It also reiterates the stand which has already been conveyed by the State Government while imparting instructions to Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General. The respondent-State has clarified that expression ‘JBT’ in the reply has been used inadvertently. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.