Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 48 (HP)

Meena Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-06

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “I) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the Petitioners as Language Teachers by treating their batch from the date they possessed B.A. Degree; II) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned amendment of treating the batch for recruitment after 2013 from the date the aspirants/ Petitioners acquired their B.Ed; III) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside rejection order dated 18.01.2022 passe3d by respondents; IV) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to produce the entire record.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are un-employedand fully eligible to be appointed as Language Teachers. They fulfill the requisite criteria for appointment against the post in question in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. The petitioners have done their Graduation with more than 50% marks in Hindi as an elective subject and they have also acquired the essential qualification of B.Ed and have also passed the mandatory Teachers Eligibility Test. The dates of acquiring of the qualification by the petitioners are spelled out in Para-4 of the Writ Petition. According to the petitioners, earlier for the purpose of batch-wise recruitment, the eligibility was ascertained from the date when the candidates acquired the qualification of Graduation. However, vide Notification dated 16.11.2023, vide which the Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2009 have been amended, Note-I and Note-2, have been introduced by way of amendment and in terms thereof, the existing provisions of Column-7 of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules have been substituted, inter alia, to the following effect:- “Note (i): For batch wise recruitment to be made up to 31.3.2014, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of B.A. with Hindi as elective subject/ B.A. after Prabhakar by passing English and additional subject/M.A. Hindi, on the basis of which eligibility of the candidate is reckoned. ii) For batch wise recruitment to be made after 3.1.32014, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of Bachlor of Education (B.Ed.).” 3. ii) For batch wise recruitment to be made after 3.1.32014, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of Bachlor of Education (B.Ed.).” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that before the introduction of the impugned amendment, the batch for the purpose of recruitment to the Language Teacher was reckoned from the date of issuance of the original certificate of the Graduation Degree qua the candidates who had done Graduation in Hindi as an elective subject. However, in terms of the impugned amendment, dated 16.11.2013, all the recruitments which are to be effected after 31.03.2014 on batch-wise basis, will be by treating the batch to be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). 4. According to learned counsel, this cut-off date is arbitrary and the classification which has been made to reckon the qualification post 31.03.2024 on the basis of the date of issuance of the original certificate of B.Ed., Degree, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it is neither based on any intelligible differentia nor the classification has a reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved, i.e. appointment of Teachers against the post of Language Teacher. He further submitted that as the amendment otherwise also is in derogation of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5068 of 2023, titled as Devesh Sharma Versus Union of India and others, decided on 11.08.2023, therefore also, the present petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. He has accordingly prayed for quashing of the impugned Notification, as well as the quashing of rejection order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Authority. No other point was urged. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has defended the Notification dated 16.11.2013. He submitted that in terms of the amendments which were incorporated in the year 2013, the posts are now filled up on batch-wise basis by reckoning the batch from the date of passing of B.Ed. instead of Graduation. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the Rules are in vogue since the year 2013 and thereafter, recruitment on batch-wise basis has been made strictly as per these Rules. He argued that the criteria of selection is justified in law because it is the Graduation Degree alongwith B.Ed. instead of Graduation. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the Rules are in vogue since the year 2013 and thereafter, recruitment on batch-wise basis has been made strictly as per these Rules. He argued that the criteria of selection is justified in law because it is the Graduation Degree alongwith B.Ed. Degree, which renders a candidate eligible for appointment against the post of Language Teacher and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned Notification and the impugned order passed by the Authority. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that earlier eligibility was being assessed from the date of passing of Graduation, but it was realized that as it was the Degree of B.Ed. alongwith Graduation, which rendered a candidate eligible for appointment as a Language Teacher, therefore, necessary amendment was incorporated in the Rules, so that it was the acquisition of the complete qualification which rendered a candidate eligible even for the purpose of reckoning the batch in issue. He further submitted that as the Notification of the year 2013 does not violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further as the employer has the prerogative of carrying out necessary amendments in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, therefore, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith and also the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme of India relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. The moot issue for the purpose of adjudication of this Court is as to whether the amendment incorporated in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, in terms whereof, for batch-wise recruitment to be made after 31.03.2024, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of Bachelor of Education Degree is valid in law or not. 8. The appointment in terms of the impugned Rules is for the post of Language Teacher, which is a Class-III (Non-Gazetted) post. 8. The appointment in terms of the impugned Rules is for the post of Language Teacher, which is a Class-III (Non-Gazetted) post. The essential qualifications prescribed for appointment are as under:- “(a) Essential Qualification: (i) B.A. with Hindi as an elective subject and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR BA with atleast 50% marks with Hindi as an elective subject and I-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) OR BA with at least 45% marks with Hindi as an elective subject and 1 year Bachelor in Education (D.Bd) 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 1-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 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.). Or M.A. (Hindi) with at least 50% marks from a recognized university and 1-year Bache or in Education (B.Ed.) (ii) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (??? Language Teacher) duly conducted by HP Board of School Education, Dharamshala Provided that the incumbents who have already qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the H.P Subordinate Services Selection Board.” 9. Thus, in terms of the essential qualifications, it is the Graduation Degree with Hindi as an elective subject and two year diploma in Elementary Education or Graduation with at least 50% marks in Hindi as an elective subject and one year Bachelor in Education Degree or B.A. with 45% marks with Hindi as an elective subject and one year Bachelor in Education in accordance with NCTE Regulations or B.A. with 50% marks in Hindi as an elective subject and one year B.Ed. special education or Prabhakar (Honours) in Hindi with 50% marks followed by B.A. examination with English as an additional subject with 50% marks and one year B.Ed. of M.A. (Hindi) with at least 50% marks from a recognised university and B.Ed. and passing Teacher Eligibility Test (Language Teacher), duly conducted by H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, which renders a candidate eligible for the post of Language Teacher. 10. Degree of Graduation or Post Graduation without the Diploma in Elementary Education or B.Ed. of M.A. (Hindi) with at least 50% marks from a recognised university and B.Ed. and passing Teacher Eligibility Test (Language Teacher), duly conducted by H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, which renders a candidate eligible for the post of Language Teacher. 10. Degree of Graduation or Post Graduation without the Diploma in Elementary Education or B.Ed. Degree is of no assistance to an aspiring candidate and until and unless, such a candidate acquires the qualification of Diploma in Elementary Education or B.Ed., as the case may be, as is in the present case, he or she is not eligible for appointment. 11. Incidently, a Graduation Degree though may render a candidate eligible to apply for many posts from the post of a Clerk to State or Union Administrative Services, but simple Graduation does not renders candidate eligible to apply for the post of Language Teacher. For this, the candidate gains eligibility only alongwith Graduation or Post Graduation, as the case may be, the candidate also acquires the B.Ed. Degree. 12. Thus, it is the Graduation/Post Graduation, coupled with B.Ed. Degree which renders a candidate eligible for promotion. It is only when both these Degrees are in possession of a candidate that he is eligible to apply for the post in issue. 13. That being the case, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the amendment that has been incorporated which is under challenge, in terms whereof, after 31.03.2014, for the batch- wise recruitment, the batch is to be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of B.Ed. 14. In fact, in the considered view of this Court, this amendment does not infringes Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The classification which is made between a simple graduate and a graduate with B.Ed. Degree for the purpose of determining the batch by construing the same from the date of issuance of original B.Ed. Degree is based on an intelligible differentia as a simple graduate is not eligible to apply for a Language Teacher, whereas a graduate with B.Ed. The classification which is made between a simple graduate and a graduate with B.Ed. Degree for the purpose of determining the batch by construing the same from the date of issuance of original B.Ed. Degree is based on an intelligible differentia as a simple graduate is not eligible to apply for a Language Teacher, whereas a graduate with B.Ed. Degree is eligible and this intelligible differential has a nexus with the object and the same is that as it is the combination of these two Degrees which renders a candidate eligible for promotion, then obviously eligibility for batch-wise recruitment has to be construed as from the date when the candidates gain both the Degrees to render them or her eligible to be considered for the post. 15. As far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Devesh Sharma Versus Union of India and others (supra), being relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the same is of no assistance to the petitioners in the present case. The factual controversy involved before Hon’ble Supreme Court was completely different from that in the present case. This is apparent from the reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Before proceeding further it is pertinent to mention here that in this petition, there is no challenge to the essential qualifications as are contained in the Recruitment & Promotion rules, in terms whereof, a graduate becomes eligible for appointment only after the acquisition of the B.Ed. Degrees. On the other hand, the issue before Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether NCTE was justified in including B.Ed. qualification as an equivalent and essential qualification for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher (Level-1). The answer to the issue by Hon’ble Supreme Court was in the backdrop of the said moot issue, in the light of the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009 as well as the National Council for Teacher Education Act. This issue neither was before Hon’ble Supreme Court, nor it has been answered as to whether a candidate aspiring for the post of Language Teacher on batch-wise basis becomes eligible on the acquisition of Graduation Degree only or after he acquires the essential qualifications of Graduation as well as B.Ed.Degree to reckon the batch. 16. This issue neither was before Hon’ble Supreme Court, nor it has been answered as to whether a candidate aspiring for the post of Language Teacher on batch-wise basis becomes eligible on the acquisition of Graduation Degree only or after he acquires the essential qualifications of Graduation as well as B.Ed.Degree to reckon the batch. 16. On the other hand, this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar preposition if not the same in CWP No. 10055 of 2023, titled Kiran Mai vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 05.12.2024. In the said Writ Petition, the issue was that the petitioner therein did her Graduation from Punjab University in the year 1994, but she did not obtain 45% marks therein. Thereafter, she obtained her one year Bachelor Degree, one year B.Ed. Degree in the year 1996. However, as the petitioner was not having 45% marks in Graduation, she was not eligible to apply for the post of Language Teacher after she had done her B.Ed. The petitioner therein completed her Post Graduation in Hindi in the year 2017 with 50% marks and thereafter, she approached the Court with the prayer that respondents be directed to construe her batch as from the date of passing the B.Ed. that is the year 1996 in terms of the 2013 amendment. While negating the contention of the petitioner, this Court held that as the petitioner in fact became eligible to be considered for appointment as a Language Teacher only after she did her M.A. with 50% marks and that too, in the year 2017, her batch had to be construed from the said date i.e. the date when she gained eligibility and the Rules cannot be read in a myopic manner by ignoring the fact that the basic qualification of Post Graduation in Hindi with 50% marks was acquired by her only in the year 2017. 17. 17. Coming back to the facts of this case, herein this Court again reiterates that, as it is the fulfillment of the essential qualification in toto which renders a candidate eligible to be considered for appointment against the post of Language Teacher, which essentially includes the acquisition of B.Ed Degree also, the contention of the petitioners in this case cannot be accepted and in the backdrop of the above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.