IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2870 of 2008. Decided on: 16.03.2009. Kusum Sharma … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and Others. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No . For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner is seeking appointment as volunteer teacher (language teacher). Her case is that she was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. She was interviewed and the employment letter was issued to her. However, the respondents have not permitted her to join duties. The case of the respondent-State is that Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2 the petitioner did not fulfil the essential qualification of trained language teacher from recognized institution. The case of Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate vice Shri R. Bharti, Advocate, is that the petitioner is a Prabhakar and has passed her M.A. Hindi from Himachal Pradesh University. The petitioner had approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA, bearing No.530 of 1993. The learned Tribunal had directed that the Original Application be treated as representation to the Director of Education, who was further directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law and to decide the same within a period of two months. In sequel to the directions of the learned Tribunal on 17.3.1993, the representation was rejected by the Director of Education, which is Annexure-A.1. The representation has been rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification of trained language teacher from recognized institution and accordingly she could not be appointed. It is settled law by now that the persons who are to be offered public employment must be in possession of essential qualification. In the present case the petitioner lacks the essential qualification being Language Teacher. Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate has strenuously argued that in similar circumstances one Smt. Alka Sharma has been granted relief by the learned Tribunal in OA No.1347/1992. I have gone through this order. The learned Tribunal could not issue directions straightway without deciding the lis, whether Alka Sharma was 3 3 qualified or not. The petitioner cannot claim equality in illegality. Article 14 is a positive concept. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. March 16, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge.