1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 251 of 2011. Date of decision: 7th September, 2011. ___________________________________________________ Arjun Singh ….Appellant. Versus Pawan Kumar & Others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. R .K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 2 to 7. __________________________________________________________ Justice R. B. Misra, J. (Oral) 1. In the present Letter Patent Appeal, the order dated 21.2.2011 passed in CWP (T) No. 15904/2008 is under challenge. 2. Respondent No.1, namely, Pawan Kumar preferred CWP(T) 15904 of 2008 ( O.A. No. 2912 of 2007) praying that the appointment of appellant herein (respondent No.7 in the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge) be set aside as his selection for Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Basaha, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour H.P. was illegal. 3. After adjudication, learned Single Judge vide impugned order has allowed the above Writ Petition. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 4. The appellant’s case is that he was in possession of degree of Shashtri and had applied to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. Since in view of the notification dated 20.8.2009 and circular dated 8.9.2010 the degree of Shashtri possessed by the appellant being equivalent to B.A., was superior to the eligibility qualification of (10+2) as prescribed for the recruitment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher as such his case was rightly considered by the Selection Committee and he was rightly given appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. According to the appellant, the State Government has been issuing contrary notifications from time to time and in view of the notification dated 20.8.2009 for obtaining admission in higher classes the certificate of a candidate holding the Prak Shastri IInd Year certificate with English pass as an additional subject, is to be treated equivalent to Sr. Secondary Certificate (10+2) and also in view of the circular dated 8.9.2010, the candidate holding Shastri-III certificate is to be treated as equivalent to B.A. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record as well as analyzed the impugned order appealed against. 6. On analysis of record, we find that the advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher and the last date for submission of applications initially was 25.8.2007 subsequently extended to 10.9.2007 and as per clause (4) of the Notification (Annexure-A5) a candidate seeking appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher should be in possession of 10+2 certificate and should also be resident of the same Gram Panchayat. However, the interview was conducted on 6.10.2007, wherein the appellant herein said 3 to have scored 60.5 marks, in comparison to respondent No.1 (Pawan Kumar) who had scored 57.6 marks, accordingly the appellant was appointed to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. As submitted on behalf of the appellant his appointment has illegally been set aside by learned Single Judge. 7. In view of the notification dated 9th March, 2006 the candidates holding degrees/certificates such as Prak-shastri or Vishist Shastri or Shastri may not be equated with 10+2 or Graduation/Post Graduation degrees. As such in view of the above prevailing notification at relevant time, the degree of Shastri as possessed by the appellant herein was not to be treated equivalent to (10+2) certificate as an essential requisite for Primary Assistant Teacher. 8. Learned Single Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has taken a correct view that since the appellant herein was not in possession of the requisite qualification i.e. 10+2 on or before the prescribed date for submission of the application i.e. on 10.9.2007. In view of the prevailing criteria for qualification as mentioned above, the appellant’s consideration and selection to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher was rightly set aside. 9. We are not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of subsequent notifications dated 20.8.2009 and 8.9.2009, his appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher would be legally justifiable. In our considered view, in view of the prevailing notification, the appellant herein was not in possession of 10+2 qualification as required on the last date of the consideration of the candidature i.e. on 10.9.2007, as such his appointment was rightly rejected. Our view is also strengthened by the 4 verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and another versus Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723, where respondent Alpana appeared in U.P. Nyayik Seva (Munsif) Examination, 1988 for which the last date of receipt of applications was 20.8.1988. Her candidature for Munsif was considered only on her plea that she had already appeared in LLB examination and her result was awaited. However, required criteria for consideration for the post of Munsif was that candidature of an applicant for the post of Munsif could only be considered if that candidate was in possession of LLB degree on 20.8.1988. Surprisingly, the result of Alpana of LLB was declared in October, 1988 i.e. much later to the last date of acceptance of prescribed date (i.e. 20.8.1988). The High Court had allowed her to appear in the examination of Munsif (Civil Judge, Junior Division) and directed the commission to declare her result and treat her to be selected to the post of Munsif. Such view of the High Court was, however, up set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by observing that the applicant should be in possession of the actual eligibility qualification/degree on or before the last date prescribed for the acceptance of the application to the post. 10. In the facts and circumstances, we find no merits in the present Appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed accordingly. (R. B. Misra) Judge (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. 7th September, 2011. (jai)