Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 776 (HP)

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-22

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein has prayed for following main relief: “i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the appointment letter to the petitioner w.e.f. the date when other recommended candidates have been appointed with all actual benefits.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner was fully eligible to be appointed against the post of Shastri, but yet his candidature has been wrongly rejected on the ground that he does not possess requisite qualification i.e. Shastri. Precisely the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that vide advertisement No.36-2/2020 dated 18.06.2020, Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, ( for short, hereinafter referred to as “HPSSC” ) invited online applications for direct recruitment of Shastris in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh. Vide post code No.813 at Serial No.18 (Annexure P-1), inasmuch as 66 posts in total came to be advertised for District Kangra. Petitioner herein being fully eligible applied under General category for which 23 posts were reserved. 3. Though vide communication dated 26.09.2022 issued under the signatures of Secretary, HPSSC, Hamirpur, addressed to Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Kangra at Dharamshala (Annexure P-3), name of the petitioner along with other candidates came to be recommended for the post of Shastri (Post Code-813), District Kangra, but fact remains that he was not given appointment. 4. On 30.09.2022, respondents declared the final result of Shastris in District Kangra, but name of the petitioner was not reflected in that list. On inquiry, petitioner came to be informed that he does not possess requisite qualification in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules ( for short, hereinafter referred to as “R&P Rules ”) for the post of Shastri. Though petitioner took up the matter with respondent No.4-University for clarification regarding equivalence, but since needful was not done, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 5. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No.4-University has filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that issue with regard to equivalence can only be looked into by the Committee constituted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose. 5. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No.4-University has filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that issue with regard to equivalence can only be looked into by the Committee constituted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose. Since candidature of the petitioner never came to be rejected by respondent No.4-University, allegation levelled by the petitioner otherwise could not have been controverted by the respondent No.4-University. On the other hand, respondents No.1 to 3 by way of reply have refuted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he does not possess requisite qualification as prescribed in R&P Rules for concerned post. 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse advertisement (Annexure P-1), vehemently argued that for the post of Shastri, essential qualification as prescribed in R&P Rules is Shastri with at least 50% marks from a University/Institute recognized by Himachal Pradesh Government, whereas petitioner herein has not done Shastri, rather during verification of documents, petitioner made available certificate issued by the University of Delhi suggestive of the fact that he has done Bachelor of Arts (Honors in Sanskrit). Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General contended that since R&P Rules for the post in question prescribe specific qualification for the post of Shastri and there is no specific expression “equivalent” used in the same, petitioner cannot be permitted to state that Degree awarded to him by University of Delhi i.e. Bachelor of Arts (Honors in Sanskrit) is equivalent to Shastri. Mr. Kahol stated that though R&P Rules now stand amended, but even in amended Rules, Degree of Shastri has not been considered to be at par with Degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honors in Sanskrit), rather person having Degree of Shastri can apply for the post of Shastri. 7. Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned counsel representing the petitioner, with a view to refute aforesaid contentions raised by learned Additional Advocate General invited attention of this Court to notification dated March 2014 issued by the University Grants Commission (Annexure P-7) to state that Degree of Shastri and Bachelor of Arts (Honors in Sanskrit) are one and same thing. Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned counsel representing the petitioner further submitted that University Grants Commission has specifically clarified in aforesaid notification that University shall be free to write English equivalent of these degrees, if they so desire, in the mark-sheet/Degree certificates either in parentheses or slash. Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned counsel representing the petitioner further submitted that University Grants Commission has specifically clarified in aforesaid notification that University shall be free to write English equivalent of these degrees, if they so desire, in the mark-sheet/Degree certificates either in parentheses or slash. He stated that since as per University Grants Commission guidelines, Shastri and Bachelor of Arts (Honors in Sanskrit) is one and the same thing, candidature of petitioner could not have been rejected by the HPSSC. 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that vide advertisement dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-1), as many as 66 posts of Shastri in total came to be advertised for District Kangra under Post Code No.813 and petitioner applied under General category. Though at first instance, name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment against the post in question, but since during verification of documents it transpired that petitioner does not possess requisite qualification, he was not offered appointment. 9. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that Degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honors in Sanskrit) awarded to him by the University of Delhi is equivalent to Shastri, as has been clarified by University Grants Commission vide notification dated March 2014 (Annexure P- 7) and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for HPSSC to reject the candidature of the petitioner, however, having carefully perused the advertisement placed on record by the petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned counsel representing the petitioner for the reason that against Post Code No.813, specific qualification i.e. Shastri has been provided. Had HPSSC, while issuing advertisement dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P- 1) added word “equivalent to Shastri”, petitioner would have been right in contending that in terms of notification issued by the University Grants Commission, Degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honors in Sanskrit) awarded in his favour by the University of Delhi is equivalent to Shastri. Since R&P Rules for the post in question specifically provide for qualification of Shastri, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 10. To further clarify the matter, this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025 called upon learned counsel representing the respondent No.4-University to have instructions “whether degree of B.A. Honors Sanskrit is awarded in the State of Himachal Pradesh? 10. To further clarify the matter, this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025 called upon learned counsel representing the respondent No.4-University to have instructions “whether degree of B.A. Honors Sanskrit is awarded in the State of Himachal Pradesh? If yes, whether same can be equated with Degree of Shastri or not?” Pursuant to afore direction issued by this Court, Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent No.4-University has placed on record communication dated 19.04.2025, issued under the signatures of Deputy Registrar (Academics), H.P. University, perusal whereof reveals that H.P. University does not run the Degree of B.A. (Honors in Sanskrit), meaning thereby in Himachal Pradesh, no specific Degree of B.A. (Honors in Sanskrit) is awarded, whereas person desirous of getting appointment against the post of Shastri is necessarily required to possess the Degree of Shastri. 11. Though at this stage, Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned counsel representing the petitioner made available amended R&P Rules, perusal whereof reveals that now person after his/her having done B.A. Sanskrit can also apply for post of Shastri, but since amendment in R&P Rules came to be notified vide notification dated 19.02.2025, no benefit, if any, of the same can be availed at this stage by the petitioner, especially when selection process in question was initiated and concluded in terms of of old unamended rules. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is dismissed being devoid of any merits. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.