IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 10216 of 2008. Reserved on: 30.12.2010. Decided on: 06.01.2011. _____________________________________________________ Anjali Thakur. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner has obtained B.A., B.Ed. (Hindi) and M.Ed. qualifications. She was interviewed for the post of Language Teacher on 10.11.2003. She was offered appointment letter on 19.01.2004. She joined her duties as Language Teacher in Government High School, Dadriara (District Chamba) on 20.01.2004. However, she was not permitted to join her duties. Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Language Teacher in Government High School, Dadriara (District Chamba). According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 was not in possession of the requisite qualification. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. NO. - 2 - 2. Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was fully eligible and qualified to be considered to appointment to the post of Language Teacher. 3. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner was not qualified as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Language Teacher, she could not be permitted to join her services. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that his client was fully eligible and qualified for the post in question. The minimum qualification for the post of Language Teacher is Matric, Prabhakar and one year Language Teacher training from recognized institution. Petitioner does not possess this qualification. Since the petitioner was not in possession of this qualification, she was wrongly considered for appointment and there is no illegality in the action of the respondents, whereby she has not been permitted to join her duties. 6. It has come in the reply that appointment of respondent No. 5 was not as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Chamba was directed to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action as per Rules. 7. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, the respondent-State is - 3 - directed to take appropriate action against respondent No. 5, if not already taken, as undertaken in the reply, within a period of one month from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge January 06, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `