ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has approached the Court seeking direction to respondents authority/department to nominate and appoint him to the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) reserved for Ex-serviceman quota in Scheduled Tribe (ST) category along with all consequential benefits from the date since when his juniors has been appointed to the said post. 2. Petitioner, being an Ex-serviceman, registered his name in Employment Exchange on 18.12.2000 with qualification of matric and PTI. He also enrolled himself as a ST candidate with Employment Cell of Directorate of Sainik Welfare Himachal Pradesh at Hamirpur. 3. It is an admitted fact that at the time of interview of petitioner on 24.9.2003 education qualification for the post of PET was matriculation. Requisite educational qualification to the post of PET was amended from matriculation to 10+2 w.e.f. 10th January, 2011 in furtherance to National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) Regulation 2001 and provision of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 as well as notification dated 23.8.2010, issued by NCTE, prescribing minimum educational qualification, for various posts of teachers. For non-availability of any post of PET (ST Ex-serviceman), petitioner was not appointed as PET prior to amendment. 4. Petitioner acquired 10+2 qualification in October 2014 and registered the said qualification in the Employment Exchange on 16.1.2015. 5. As per reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2/Education Department, it has been submitted that Employment Exchange Nurpur had also sponsored his name under General Ex-serviceman Category to the post of PET and consequently, he had attended the interview on 28.9.2012 but for want of minimum educational qualification of 10+2 he was not found entitled for appointment to the post of PET and further that his name was not received from respondents No. 3 and 4 against the post reserved for ST Ex-serviceman Category. 6. As per reply of respondents No. 3 and 4/Directorate of Sainik Welfare Himachal Pradesh, in furtherance to his enrollment and registration in Employment Exchange/Employment Cell, petitioner was interviewed for the post of Physical Education Teacher on 24.9.2003 and was empanelled as selected as such, but his nomination was withheld for want of correction in his name and he was advised to produce a certificate with correction of his name duly authenticated by the appropriate authority during his interview. However, petitioner failed to produce the same within stipulated period. However, petitioner failed to produce the same within stipulated period. Petitioner was empanelled in the year 2003 finding him eligible to the post of Physical Education Teacher (ST category) at that time being matriculate. Further that though petitioner was empanelled for appointment to the said post in the year 2003, but no post was available after his empanellment till amendment of requisite qualification to the post of PET and thus his name could not be sponsored for want of availability of post. 7. It is further case of respondents that educational qualification for the post of PET was amended to 10+2 w.e.f. January 2011 and petitioner acquired the 10+2 qualification in October 2014 and correspondent entry to that effect in Employment Exchange was made on 16.1.2015 and further that respondent No.5 Dinesh was enrolled in Employment Exchange on 24.05.2013 with minimum prescribed educational qualification of 10+2 to the post of PET acquired on 17.01.2013 whereas petitioner acquired such qualification subsequent to him in the year 2014 on 10.12.2014 and entry with respect to which was made in the year 2015 on 16.01.2015. Therefore, Dinesh Kumar was found eligible since his enrollment in the year 2013 whereas petitioner was found eligible only after December 2014, entry with respect to which was made on record of Employment Exchange on 16.1.2015 and therefore, Dinesh Kumar was declared selected vide notification dated 17.9.2016. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner, referring the information received through RTI dated 6.7.2015 which has been placed on record as Annexure A-7, has contended that for batch-wise appointment to the post of PET against the category of ST, the appointment of batch of 2002 was being made in June 2015, whereas petitioner was registered in Employment Exchange in the year 2000 and therefore, he was senior to respondent No.5 who registered him in the year 2013 and ignoring the seniority of petitioner in batch, respondent No.5 Dinesh Kumar junior to the petitioner has been appointed and therefore, petitioner is entitled not only for appointment and consequential benefits but also for compensation for the period to which he has not been appointed despite being eligible for such post at least since 16.01.2015 i.e. the date of entry of acquiring the minimum educational qualification prescribed to the post of PET. 9. 9. For batch-wise appointment, entitlement has to be considered on the basis of date of acquiring minimum prescribed eligibility and the batch of candidate is to be determined on the basis of date of acquisition of such qualification and therefore, a batch of candidate for the purpose of batch-wise recruitment to the post shall be of the year in which he acquires such qualification but not before that. Therefore, till 10.01.2011 petitioner was entitled for batch-wise appointment by considering him a candidate having been registered in the year 2000 with requisite qualification of matric prescribed for the post of PET and accordingly, in the year 2003 on the basis of matriculation qualification, he was considered. But after 2011 he was not eligible for want of prescribed qualification and he again became eligible after acquiring 10+2 qualification in the year 2014 which was registered on 16.1.2015. Therefore, after 2011, batch for appointment for considering the petitioner for batch-wise appointment to the post of PET is to be determined on the basis of date of acquiring the 10+2 qualification by him. The batch of respondent No.5 has also to be considered accordingly. Therefore, for acquiring +2 qualification before the petitioner, respondent No.5, for considering to the post of PET, has to be considered senior to him for appointment to the post of PET and therefore, I find no merit in petition. 10. Needless to say that for general vacancies for which petitioner was eligible to be appointed at the time of registration in Employment Exchange and is also eligible till date, he has to be considered to be senior in batch to those who acquired qualification/registered name, as the case may be, after the petitioner. Further that, in case petitioner is/was otherwise eligible for appointment to the post of PET for subsequent vacancy(ies) available with the respondents, he was and is entitled to be considered for that on its own merit without any impact of filing of present petition, as claim of the petitioner for his appointment in the year 2015-16 has been rejected in this petition for availability of persons senior in batch with acquisition of essential qualification but not his entitlement for consideration and appointment on his turn subject to eligibility at relevant time. 11. 11. During pendency of petition, one Surender Kumar has filed an application CMP-T No. 2127 of 2020 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for arraying him as party/respondent claiming that he has acquired qualification of +2 w.e.f. 4.9.2013 i.e. prior to petitioner and OA No. 3225 of 2019 filed by him has been decided on 24th July, 2019 directing the respondents to consider his case but he has not been considered because of pendency of present petition and therefore, he seeks permission to array him as party/respondent. 12. For the findings returned in petition and also for reason that applicant Surender Kumar has no role and is not necessary party for adjudication of claim and counter claim of petitioner as well as respondents authorities, I do not find it appropriate to array him as a respondent in present petition and hence his application is rejected. With aforesaid observations, petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.