IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 15904 of 2008. Reserved on 31.12.2010. Decided on 21.02.2011. Pawan Kumar. …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. Harmeet Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. For respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondents 5 and 7. : Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Gulzar Rathore, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 7 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Basaha, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that respondent No. 7 was not eligible to be considered for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher since he lacked the essential educational qualification, i.e., 10+2. 3. Mr. Harmeet Singh, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the appointment of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - respondent No. 7 as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Basaha, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. is illegal. According to him, since the qualification acquired by respondent No. 7, i.e., Prak-Shastri (II) was not equal to 10+2, no marks could have been allotted to respondent No. 7 by the Selection Committee. 4. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. Gulzar Rathore, Advocate for respondents No. 5 and 7 have supported the selection of respondent No. 7 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Basaha, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner has been awarded 57.06 marks by the Selection Committee and respondent No. 7 has been awarded 60.5 marks. Petitioner has passed 10+2 examination. Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, learned vice counsel for respondents No. 5 and 7 has vehemently argued that his client has rightly been awarded marks by the Selection Committee. The manner in which the marks have to be given by the Selection Committee, as provided in the policy, has been reproduced in paragraph No. (x) of the reply filed by the State, which reads thus: “1. +2 marks (Actual percentage secured)= 50 marks. 2. Graduation = 10 marks. 3. Post Graduate = 05 marks. 4. Certificate/Diploma of at least One year duration in any Teacher training from recognized Board/university in JBT, B. Ed. - 3 - C& V = 05 marks. (Except music and craft) 5. Widow/Destitute women = 05 marks. 6. Un-Employed Family = 10 marks. 7. Personal Interview = 15 marks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total: = 100 marks.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. The core issue involved in this petition is whether respondent No. 7 was entitled to be appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher without possessing +2 or equivalent qualification. On 29.10.2010, the respondent-State was directed to file a supplementary affidavit clarifying therein whether the respondent No. 7 was eligible for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher or not. In sequel thereto, the respondent-State has filed a supplementary affidavit. A bare perusal of the same makes it abundantly clear that respondent No. 7 was not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. It has come in the supplementary affidavit that respondent No. 7 did not have the minimum essential educational qualification of 10+2. 8. Mr. Harmeet Singh, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-7, whereby it has been clarified by the Himachal Pradesh Education Board Dharamsala, District Kangra that the candidate appearing in H.P. University Prak-Shastri (Second year) has to pass +2 with English. As per the material placed on record, the respondent No. 7 has appeared in +2 English paper on 05.03.2010. Thus, the qualification acquired by the respondent No. 7, i.e., Prak Shastri-II could not be treated as equivalent to 10+2 examination. The - 4 - essential qualification is required to be possessed by the candidate on the last date of receipt of application. In this case, the last date of receipt of application was 10.09.2007. 9. Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, learned vice counsel for respondents No. 5 and 7 has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexures R-1 and R-2, dated 18.07.1972 and 31.08.1982, respectively. These will not advance the case of the petitioner since Madhyama has been treated as Higher Secondary. The qualification of Higher Secondary under the old stream was equivalent to +1 pass. Consequently, the qualification of Higher Secondary could not be treated as +2 examination. Moreover, it has been categorically stated by the respondent-State in the affidavit that the respondent No. 7 was not possessing +2 qualification. It has also come on the record that in order to enable the candidate to get his degree/certificate of Prak-Shastri (Second year) equated with +2 examination, he has to pass +2 examination with English subject. As noticed above, the respondent No. 7 has only appeared in this test on 05.03.2010 after his appointment. 10. What emerges from the observations and discussion made hereinabove, is that the respondent No. 7 was not eligible for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher and the Selection Committee could not award marks to him by treating Prak Shastri-II as +2 qualification. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The selection of respondent No. 7 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Basaha, Tehsil Pachhad, District - 5 - Sirmaur, H.P. made vide Annexure A-6, dated 09.10.2007 at Sr. No. 18 is quashed and set aside. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge February 21, 2011. (bhupender) - 6 -