Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 922 (HP)

Anita Rani v. Principal Secretary (Education)

2012-12-03

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The respondent-State has issued an advertisement on 11.06.2010, whereby applications were invited for filling up 19 posts of Panjabi Teachers in 19 Senior Secondary Schools by 15.07.2010. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 have submitted their applications for considering their candidatures for the post(s) in question. The minimum essential educational qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, notified on 09.10.2007 for filling up the post of Punjabi Teacher is Punjabi Honors or B.A. Honors in Punjabi with B.Ed. or Giani with Plus Two or M.A. Punjabi from a recognised University. The interviews were held between 07.09.2010 to 10.09.2010. The Selection Committee has recommended the name of respondent No. 4 for the post in question. 2. Mr. Pankaj Thakur, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No. 4 was not possessing the minimum essential educational qualification on the last date of receipt of application, i.e., 15.07.2010. He further contended that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Punjabi Teacher is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner did not possess the minimum essential educational qualification as on the last date of receipt of the application, i.e., 15.07.2010, but has acquired the same on the date of interview. 4. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 4 has also argued that respondent No. 4 has acquired the minimum essential educational qualification, i.e., M.A. Punjabi on the date of interview. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. The last date of receipt of application for filling up the post(s) of Punjabi Teachers was 15.07.2010. The respondent No. 4 has herself stated in the application that the result of M.A. Punjabi was awaited. The result of M.A. Punjabi of the petitioner was declared on 16.07.2010. It is settled law by now that the candidate must possess the essential educational qualification on the last date prescribed as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules or on the last date of receipt of the application prescribed in the advertisement. The interviews were held between 07.09.2010 and 10.09.2010. The eligibility of the petitioner was to be seen on the last date of receipt of application, i.e., 15.07.2010 and not on the date of interview. 7. The interviews were held between 07.09.2010 and 10.09.2010. The eligibility of the petitioner was to be seen on the last date of receipt of application, i.e., 15.07.2010 and not on the date of interview. 7. This Court in Kushal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2011 (2) Himachal Law Reporter 671 has held as under: "7. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Shankar K. Mandal and others v. State of Bihar and others (2013) 9 SCC 519 have held as under: "The principles culled out from the decisions of this Court (See Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another ( 1997 (4) SCC 18 ; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000 (5) SCC 262 and Jasbir Rani and others v. State of Punjab and another ( 2002 (1) SCC 124 ) are as follows: AIR 2000 SC 2011 : 2000 AIR SCW1888 : 2000 Lab IC 1980 (1) The cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules; (2) If there is no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; and (3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority." 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made herein above, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent No. 4 as Punjabi Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Ambota vide Annexure P- 13, dated 27.09.2010, is quashed and set aside. The respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to initiate the selection process for filling up the post of Punjabi Teacher within a period of three weeks from today and complete the same within a further period of three weeks. However, it is made clear that the respondent No. 4 shall be paid due and admissible salary till date within a period of three weeks. The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.