IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.4490 of 2010. Date of Decision: 4.1.2011. Jai Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.P.P. Chauhan, counsel for R-4. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.6.2010 whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.4 was allowed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Gram Rozgar Sewak for Panchayat Circle Danda-Amboya-Gorkhuwala Panchayat in Panchayat Samiti/Development Block, Paonta Sahib on 5th September, 2008. The respondent No.4 challenged his appointment, which according to the respondent No.4 was challenged on 3rd October, 2008 and vide the 2 impugned order the appointment of the petitioner has been set-aside. 3. The only ground on which the appointment of the petitioner has been set-aside is that the certificate of Pandit Pariksha (12th) obtained by the petitioner from the Gurukul Vishav-Vidayalya, Vrindavan (Mathura) does not fulfil the requirement of the Rules and the petitioner is not qualified as per the Rules. 4. A copy of the scheme has been placed on record as Annexure P-4 and it provides that the minimum educational qualification should be matric with second division or 10+2 from a Board of School Education recognized by the Himachal Pradesh Government. It is thus obvious that the qualification should be obtained from the Board which is recognized by the State Government. The Director of Higher Education sent a communication dated 23rd March, 2010 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur in which it is clearly mentioned that the name of Gurukul Vishav-Vidayalya, Vrindavan (Mathura) is not recognized by the H.P. University. No document has been placed on record to show that this Institution is recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, this certificate could not have been 3 taken into consideration and the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated. 5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. January 4, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.