Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1468 (HP)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-03-18

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii): “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the applicant as at par with diploma holder and promote the applicant to the post of DPE from the date when they have promoted similarly situated Diploma holder. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all arrears along with interest thereon. ” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents the following stand has been taken vide para 6(3) :- “ That in reply to the contents in this para, it is submitted that DPEd/BPEd or B.P.E. is the essential qualification for the post of DPE in as much as B.Ed. is essential qualification for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers. According to existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules for D.P.Es. Graduate with Diploma in Physical Education i.e. DPEd/BPEd or Bachelor of Physical Education i.e. BPE. Is the essential qualification for the D.P.E. However, M.A. Physical Education has not been mentioned as essential qualification for the post of D.P.E. In R&P Rules. It was due to this reason the particulars of those PETs were asked from the field who possessed the essential qualifications for the post of DPE i.e. DPEd/'PBEd or BPE. It is further submitted that the persons with higher qualifications but without essential lower qualification cannot be considered for promotion, hence, the applicant can not be considered for the promotion to the post of DPE as per existing R&P Rules.” 3. The petitioners who hold Masters Degree in Physical Education had joined the employment of the respondent department as Physical Education Teachers (PET) between the period 27.11.1999 to 3.10.2000. 4. The stand on behalf of the respondent-department is that requisite qualification for the post of DPE is DPEd/BPEd or BPE. However, the fact remains that MPEd is admittedly a higher qualification as compared to the DPEd and BPEd or BPE. 5. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1, Shri Rajesh Kumar has since been promoted to the post of DPE vide office Order dated 21st July, 2007, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-B-1 to CMP (T) No. 71of 2011, wherein his name figures at Sr. No.17. 5. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1, Shri Rajesh Kumar has since been promoted to the post of DPE vide office Order dated 21st July, 2007, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-B-1 to CMP (T) No. 71of 2011, wherein his name figures at Sr. No.17. However, according to him he ought to have been promoted much earlier, i.e., in the year 2004 when persons junior to him were promoted. In so far as the remaining petitioners No.2 to 4 are concerned, they are yet to be promoted. 6. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner No.1, Shri Rajesh Kumar as DPE from the due date i.e. when persons junior to him, if any, were promoted as DPE and that of the remaining petitioners No.2 to 4 for promotion to the post of DPE, if not already made, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioners in accordance with law. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, flowing from this judgment would follow. 7. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any.