Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 417 (HP)

BASTI RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2010-03-08

KULDIP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing of order dated 2.1.1995 (wrongly mentioned as 2.1.1994) Annexure A-8 vide which representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary( Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the grounds that petitioner does not fulfill the academic qualifications for the post in question, as such, there is no justification for releasing the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. He has also prayed that a direction be given to respondents No.1 and 2 to grant pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 to the petitioner from the date when he became eligible and entitled for the grant of pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. In alternative, he has prayed for grant of said pay scale to petitioner when it was granted to respondent No.3 with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Tabla Instructor on 25.11.1960. The petitioner was qualified for the appointment of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Fine Arts or Commercial Arts. The petitioner had passed eight years Degree Course in Music in the year 1981. The said degree is known as ‘Sangeet Parveen’ or M. Music. He has relied copy of Degree Annexure A-1 for this purpose. The rules governing the appointment of Lecturers are Annexure A-2. The petitioner is eligible for the post of Lecturer as per the rules and is entitled for the grant of pay scale of Lecturer which has been granted to respondent No.3. The petitioner was deputed to conduct practical examinations in Music for the classes from PUC/ B.A.(III) of Himachal Pradesh University. The petitioner taught Music classes in Govt. Degree College, Sanjauli, Govt. Degree College Chaura Maidan and was paid honorarium. The petitioner was better qualified in comparison to respondent No.3 who has already been given pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. The petitioner was appointed as Table Instructor in the year 1960 whereas the respondent 3 was appointed as Studio Artist on 9.12.1970. 3. The petitioner had filed O.A. No.2800/1994 which was ordered to be treated as representation on 1.11.1994. The Secretary (Education) was directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law. The representation of petitioner was rejected on 2.1.1995 vide Annexure A-8. In these circumstances the petitioner had filed the petition. 4. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the reply. They have supported the decision dated 2.1.1994/95 Annexure A-8. The Secretary (Education) was directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law. The representation of petitioner was rejected on 2.1.1995 vide Annexure A-8. In these circumstances the petitioner had filed the petition. 4. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the reply. They have supported the decision dated 2.1.1994/95 Annexure A-8. The petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of the post in question. The petitioner is not eligible for appointment as Lecturer either in Instrumental Music or in Vocal Music as the qualification for the Lecturer College Cadre is M.A./M.Sc. 2nd Class with 50% marks from a recognized University or equivalent. The petitioner had filed a rejoinder to the reply of respondents No.1 and 2 and reiterated his stand taken by him in the petition. The respondent No.3 had not filed any reply. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petition against respondent No.3 was dismissed on 22.2.2010 since no steps were taken for service of respondent No.3. The question however remains regarding the entitlement of petitioner for the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the qualification for the appointment of Lecturer College Cadre is MA/MSc. 2nd Class. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 2.1.1995 vide Annexure A-8 on the ground that petitioner does not fulfill the academic qualifications for the post in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Annexure A-1 Certificate indicates that petitioner is ‘Sangit Praveen’ which is equivalent to MA (Music). The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Annexure A-13 letter dated 22.6.1985 written by Deputy Registrar (Academic) indicating that ‘Parveen Dance’ from ‘Prayag Sangit Samiti, Allahabad’ is equivalent to M.A. ( Music) of Himachal Pradesh University. The Annexure A-13 does not provide that ‘Sangit Praveen’ from ‘Prayag Sangit Samiti’ is equivalent to M.A. (Music) of Himachal Pradesh University. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out from any other material on record that ‘Sangit Praveen’ of ‘Prayag Sangit Samiti, Allahabad’ is equivalent to MA (Music). On the basis of Annexure A-13 it cannot be inferred that ‘Sangit Praveen’ of ‘Prayag Sangit Samiti, Allahabad’ is equivalent to MA (Music). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner is holding degree of MA (Music). On the basis of Annexure A-13 it cannot be inferred that ‘Sangit Praveen’ of ‘Prayag Sangit Samiti, Allahabad’ is equivalent to MA (Music). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner is holding degree of MA (Music). This being the position it cannot be said that petitioner has minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer College Cadre in Music. The representation of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure A-8 for want of requisite qualification. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case that petitioner is having minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer College Cadre in Music. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 as claimed by him in the petition. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The result of the above discussion, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.