Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 383 (HP)

Chet Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

2021-07-08

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Pursuant to advertisement issued in January, 2006 Annexure A-1, petitioner as well as respondent No.4 applied for the post of language Primary Assistant Teacher(hereinafter referred to as PAT) in the office of SDO, Sadar, District Bilaspur. Selection/interview committee constituted for the purpose of selection of Primary Assistant Teacher after having found the respondent No.4 eligible, selected him for the post in question and as such he gave his joining on 4th April, 2006 (Annexure A-3) at Government Primary School, Solda, District Bilaspur. 2. Petitioner after being declared unsuccessful laid challenge to the selection of respondent No.4, in aforesaid selection process, by way of Original Application No. 3136/2007 in erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Since the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal came to be abolished, aforesaid original application having been filed by petitioner came to be transferred to this Court and accordingly same was re-registered as CWP(T) No.16072/2008. On 17th October, 2011 coordinate Bench of this Court while placing reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Arjun Singh vs. Pawan Kumar & Others, LPA No. 251 of 2011, decided on 7th September, 2011, quashed and set aside the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Soldha and directed respondents to fill-up the post in question as per the earlier selection made in the interview held in the year, 2006 and the merit list drawn at that time. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, respondent No.4 preferred LPA bearing No. 64 of 2013, which ultimately came to be decided on 6th May, 2013. Division Bench of this Court while allowing aforesaid LPA No. 64 of 2013, having been filed by respondent No.4 observed that learned Single Judge before applying ratio of the decision rendered by Division Bench in Arjun Singh's case (Supra) has not recorded any findings with regard to the eligibility of the appellant and as such judgment is not sustainable. In the aforesaid background, Division Bench vide judgment dated 6th May, 2013 remanded the case back to the learned Single Judge for deciding afresh. In this background the matter has again come up for hearing in this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 5. In the aforesaid background, Division Bench vide judgment dated 6th May, 2013 remanded the case back to the learned Single Judge for deciding afresh. In this background the matter has again come up for hearing in this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner is that since at the time of interview held in January/March, 2006, respondent No.4 did not possess requisite qualification i.e. 10+2, he could not have been selected against the post in question. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to the advertisement, issued for filling-up the post(s) in question and the scheme formulated by Government for appointing Primary Assistant Teacher Annexure A-4, vehemently argued that since there was no provision to consider any qualification equivalent to 10+2, interview Committee while drawing merit list could not have awarded any marks to the respondent No. 4 for his having possessed certificate of "Prak Shastri". 7. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No.4 while refuting aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner contended that since its stands specifically provided in the advertisement as well as scheme that a person possessing higher qualification can also apply for the post, candidature of the respondent No.4, who was having degree of "Shastri" rightly came to be considered by the interview committee. Besides above, Mr. Rajesh Sharma contended that though no specific mention has been made with regard to "Prak Shastri" and "Shastri" in the advertisement as well as scheme but since both these qualifications have been termed to be equivalent to 10+2 and B.A., interview committee rightly awarded respondent no. 4 marks qua both the qualifications as referred above. 8. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while defending the selection of respondent No.4 invited the attention of this Court to notification dated 31st August, 1982 (Annexure D-1 annexed with supplementary affidavit filed by Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, dated 13.7.2011) and contended that as per aforesaid notification certificate/degree awarded qua courses "Madhyama" and "Shastri" have been termed to be equivalent to "Higher Secondary" and "B.A". 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, further submitted that though certificate issued by Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan qua "Madhyama" has been termed to be equivalent to Senior Secondary but since respondent No. 4 at the time of interview possessed degree of Shastri recognized by Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan, he was eligible to apply for the post in question, as such no illegality and infirmity, if any, can be said to have been committed by the interview committee while selecting respondent No.4 against the post in question. 10. Before ascertaining correctness and legality of the submissions made on behalf of the parties to the lis, it is apt to take note of "educational qualification" prescribed under advertisement in question as well as scheme formulated by Government for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher, which is reproduced herein below:- Eligibility and Educational Qualification "The minimum essential qualifications for the post of Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) shall be, "A pass in 10+2 examination" from a Board or a University duly recognized by the H.P. Govt. Candidates with higher academic qualification shall also be eligible to apply. The candidates with professional qualifications in the field of education will be preferred". 11. It is apparent from the reading of eligibility conditions prescribed in advertisement as well as scheme (Annexures A-1 & A-4 that minimum essential qualification for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Is "pass in 10+2 examination" from a Board or a University duly recognized by Himachal Pradesh Government. Apart from above, person with Higher Academic Qualification is also entitled to apply against the post in question. Candidates with professional qualification in the field of education are required to be given preference. 12. It can safely be inferred from the reading of the aforesaid provisions provided in the advertisement as well as scheme (Annexures A-1 & A-4) that a candidate having passed 10+2 examination or Higher Academic Education qualification shall be eligible to apply and definitely there is no mention of word "equivalent" to basic qualification "10+2 examination". As per advertisement as well as scheme, person having passed 10+2 examination or having higher academic qualification could have applied to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. As per advertisement as well as scheme, person having passed 10+2 examination or having higher academic qualification could have applied to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. Since there is no specific mention of word "equivalent to 10+2 examination", a certificate/degree, if any, issued by any Board or University equivalent to 10+2 could not have been considered by the respondents while determining the eligibility of persons applying against the post in question. Only two categories i.e. candidate having 10+2 examination or with higher academic examination duly recognized by University and H.P. Government could have been considered for the post in question. Claim of the respondent No. 4 is that since he had passed "Prak Shashtri" which has been termed to be equivalent to 10+2, interview committee rightly awarded him 22.13 marks for his having possessed basic qualification i.e. 10+2 but such submission of him is not tenable at all. 13. Firstly, there is no material worth credence available on record suggestive of the fact that certificate of "Prak Shastri" awarded by H.P. University is equivalent to 10+2 and secondly once in the advertisement as well as scheme, it has not been provided specifically that candidate possessing qualification equivalent to 10+2 is also eligible to apply, no marks if any could have been awarded to respondent no.4 against the marks fixed/provided for having qualification of 10+2. Respondent-State while justifying selection of respondent No.4 has only placed on record notification dated 31.8.1982 (Annexure D-1/T annexed with supplementary affidavit filed by Director Elementary Education), perusal whereof nowhere reveals that certificate of "Prak Shashtri" issued by H.P. University is equivalent to 10+2, rather perusal of aforesaid notification reveals that there is no mention at all if any of certificate issued by University in "Prak Shastri". No doubt in the aforesaid notification degree of "Shastri" has been termed to be equivalent to be Bachelor of Arts, i.e. B.A. meaning thereby petitioner having possessed Higher qualification though was eligible to apply for the post in question but he could not have been awarded any marks in interview for his having possessed certificate of "Prak Shastri", which as per respondent No.4 is equivalent to 10+2. 14. During proceedings of the case Sh. 14. During proceedings of the case Sh. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent No.4 though made available certificate of "Prak Shastri" issued in favour of respondent No.4 by H.P. University but he was unable to place on record any document suggestive of the fact that aforesaid qualification of "Prak Shastri" is equivalent to 10+2. 15. Leaving everything beside, having carefully perused advertisement as well as scheme formulated by Government for selection of PAT, this court has no hesitation to conclude that once it was not specifically mentioned in the advertisement/scheme that person having qualification equivalent to 10+2 is also eligible to apply, the interview committee constituted for the selection to the post of PAT could not have awarded any marks to the petitioner for his having possessed "Prak Shastri" certificate, which is claimed to be equivalent to 10+2. Merit drawn by interview committee annexure A-6 annexed with application bearing No. 14172/2013 filed by petitioner clearly reveals that in total respondent No. 4 has been awarded 57.13 marks, whereas petitioner has been awarded 55 marks. 57.13 marks awarded to petitioner includes 22.13 marks awarded to him on account of his having possessed "Prak Shastri certificate". Since "Prak Shastri" was not the qualification prescribed in the advertisement as well as scheme, no marks could have been awarded to respondent No.4 qua the same and as such 22.13 marks awarded to the respondent No.4 on that account is required to be excluded from total marks and as such total marks of respondent No.4 comes out to be 35. Since petitioner came to be awarded 55 marks in total, he being higher in merit deserves to be appointed against the post in question. 16. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, instant petition is allowed and selection of respondent No. 4 is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as PAT in Government Primary School Soldha from the date of interview. 17. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated.