Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 569 (HP)

Parveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2023-12-20

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. CMPT No.946 of 2023 For the reasons stated therein, present application seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and disposed of. CWPOA No.3296 of 2020 2. By way of this petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief: “(i) That the office order dated 20.12.2017 at Annexure A-11 issued by respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the applicant may kindly be permitted to continue as Language Teacher (LT) on contract basis with the respondent.” 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner participated in the process that was undertaken by the respondent-department in the year 2017 for appointment as Language Teacher on contract basis. In terms of Annexure P5, dated 01.09.2017, the petitioner was reflected as a selected candidate. However, thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure A7), which reads as under: “In continuation of this office Order No.EDNHMR (Elem.)EV/ Apptt./2017/32450496 dated 1.9.2017 and modification No.: Even34317320 dated 8.9.2017 vide which you were appointed as LT in Gen. IRDP category and posted at GSSS Tikkar Khatrian and after modification posted at GSSS Choru, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. In this context, notice is hereby served to you that you have not possess the minimum qualification in graduation which should be 45% up to 30.8.2009 and 50% after 31.8.2009 as per R&P rules of LT. Therefore, notice is hereby issued to you and an opportunity is given to be heard regarding your qualification in graduation in personal in the chamber of undersigned as on 04.12.2017 at 11:00 AM sharp.” 4. The petitioner filed O.A. No.6256 of 2017, titled as Parveen Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others feeling aggrieved by issuance of the said notice. This Original Application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2017 in the following terms: “4. The petitioner filed O.A. No.6256 of 2017, titled as Parveen Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others feeling aggrieved by issuance of the said notice. This Original Application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2017 in the following terms: “4. In the facts and circumstances and interest of justice, the original application is disposed of with the stipulation that subject to the applicant making a detailed representation, supported by documents alongwith certified copy of this order, taking all the grounds as set up in the original application to the respondents/ competent authority(s) within three days from today, who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with rules/law at an early date, preferably within ten days from the date of submission of the representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant. 5. In the meanwhile, status quo qua existing as on 05.12.2017 (the date of institution of the original application) qua the applicant may be maintained till decision of the representation. 6. In case representation is not submitted within the time stipulated as above, the interim protection granted in favour of the applicant shall automatically cease to operate.” 5. In compliance to the order passed by the learned Tribunal, Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. vide order dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure A11) cancelled the appointment of the petitioner from the post of Language Teacher from GSSS Choru, District Hamirpur, H.P. by holding that the petitioner was not eligible as his marks percentage in B.A. was 42% which was less than the required 45% as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. 6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and having carefully perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the impugned order. 7. The educational qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules which were prevailing qua the post of the Language Teacher issued vide Notification dated 31.12.2009 when the process was initiated and the petitioner participated in the process of selection were as under: “(i) B.A. with Hindi as an elective subject and 2year Diploma in elementary Education (by what ever name known). Or BA with at least 50% marks with Hindi as an elective subject and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) Or B.A with at least 45% marks with Hindi as an elective subject and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard. Or B.A. with at least 50% marks with Hindi as an elective subject and 1year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) Special Education. Or at Least 50% marks with Hindi as elective subject and one year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) Special Education. or Prabhakar (Honours in Hindi) with 50% marks followed by B.A. Examination (English and one additional subject) with 50% marks from a recognized University and one year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.). or M.A. (Hindi) with at least 50% marks from a recognized University and one year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.). and ii) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET Language Teacher) duly) conducted by HP Board of School Education, Dharmshala. Provided that the incumbents who have already qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur shall also be eligible subject to the condition as laid down in Para11 of the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher 4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.02.2011 Education vide No. 754/ 2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.02.2011. Relaxation up to 5% will be allowed in minimum educational qualifications and also in minimum qualifying marks for TET to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/PH categories of Himachal Pradesh.” 8. The petitioner had applied for the post on the strength of his education as Graduation as well as B.Ed. Degree. Now incidently, in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules the petitioner was to at least have 45% marks in Graduation. However, the marks obtained by the petitioner in his graduation were 42%, i.e. less than 45%. 9. That being the case, as admittedly the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, as the appointment which was offered to the petitioner at first instance was bad, the Authorities were well within their right to cancel the same and this is exactly what was done in terms of the impugned order. 10. The contention of the petitioner that he ought to have been given some time to improve his qualification has no merit. 10. The contention of the petitioner that he ought to have been given some time to improve his qualification has no merit. Reliance placed upon communication dated 18.08.2017 (Annexure A8) on the subject ‘regarding condition of acquiring minimum educational qualification as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules’ is also of no avail to the petitioner, for the reason that this communication was relating to those candidates who were initially appointed as PTA (GIA) provided teachers and whose services were later on taken over by the State on contract basis, who as per this communication were given extension of time to improve their qualification and acquire the minimum education qualification as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the respective posts. Herein, the petitioner was not initially appointed as a PTA (GIA) provided teachers whose services were later on taken over by the Government. He had applied for recruitment from the open market as a direct candidate may be on contract basis. Therefore, the Notification was not applicable to him. 11. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any infirmity with the decision of the Authority concerned, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.