IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP. No.3808 of 2010. Date of Decision:18.10.2010. _______________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the petitioner :Mr.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For Respondent-1. :Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This writ petition seeks an appropriate directions/order be issued to the respondents directing them to permit the petitioner to continue working as Teacher having been appointed by the Parents Teachers Association, Govt. Senior School Dhatti, District Kangra. It is undisputed before me that the petitioner was appointed vide Annexue:P-9 at Government Senior Secondary School, Dhatti. The petitioner avers that he has qualified his matriculation and senior secondary examination from the H.P. Board of School Education, B.A. in Hindi from H.P. University in 1997, M.A. in Hindi from the same University, Prabhakar Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 examination in 2001 and B.Ed examination in 2005. The qualifications of the petitioner are not disputed. It is eligibility of the petitioner to hold this post which is being contested by the respondents. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Vide its order dated 23.7.2010, this Court noticed that respondents No.2 and 3, who had been served but not present. In these circumstances, I direct that they proceeded ex-parte. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner is not entitled for consideration for appointment because he does not possess the qualification for the post of Language Teacher. According to him, the petitioner does not possess the qualification of J.B.T. or the L.T. Course. This controversy need not detain this Court any further. In CWP No. 1130 of 2009 titled Mamta Saini Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., this Court held: “In respect of Trained Graduate Teachers, the essential qualification is Graduate in the subject concerned from a recognized University with Post Graduate/Diploma in teaching/education. The petitioner qualified her Matriculation examination. Thereafter, she did Plus Two. She then did her Graduation from H.P. University with Hindi as a subject in September 1995. She then underwent the Prabhakar Course and qualified the same in May, 1996. She has also done her M.A. in Hindi from H.P. University in 1998. She has also obtained B.Ed degree with Hindi as a subject from the university of Kashmir, Srinagar. The respondent No.3 issued an advertisement for 61 posts of language Teachers (L.T.) including Hindi Teaches. The petitioner applied for the post of Language Teacher, 3 Hindi. She has been held not eligible to apply for the said post since she has not passed the L.T Course or the Junior Basic Training Course. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is more qualified than L.T. or J.B.T. Teachers. She is having Post Graduate degree in M.A. in Hindi and also B.Ed (Hind, as one of the subject) and, therefore, she should be held to be eligible for the said post. During the course of the hearing of the petition, it was pointed out that no L.T. training has been imparted in the State of Himachal Pradesh for almost 20 years. The petitioner has done B.Ed which is obviously a higher degree than J.B.T. It appears to us that the State has by inadvertence or otherwise not amended the criteria for Hindi language Teachers. In the same Rules while prescribing the academic/educational qualifications in most of the other cases, it is mentioned that equivalent qualification will be considered. In case of Language Teachers, the same has not been mentioned. It appears to us that this may be due to inadvertence. As noticed above by us, L.T training was not imparted for almost twenty years which reveals that only those who have done Prabhakar with Honour in Hindi and Matric with J.B.T. training would be eligible. By not putting in the words ‘or equivalent’ people with higher qualification are being left out. In case the qualification of the petitioner is taken into consideration, we find that she would be eligible for appointment as Lecturer in Hindi as well as Trained Graduate Teacher but is not eligible for a lower post of Language Teacher. This appears to us to be irrational.” 4. Pursuant to this direction having been issued, the State has also amended the rules as would be apparent and evident from Annexure:P-14. The minimum educational and other qualifications as required have been prescribed under Clause:VII: 4 Minimum educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment. a) Essential B.A. with Hindi as an elective subject from a recognized university with 50% marks in Hindi or its equivalent. b) Desirable qualification: knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh. 5. This amendment was made in the Recruitment and Promotions Rules for the post of Language Teacher, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) on December 31, 2009. 6. In this view of the matter, the submission made by the respondents that the order passed in the writ petition noticed above has not attained finality or that the qualification required was J.B.T. cannot be accepted. 7. This petition is accordingly allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall continue to work against the post of Hindi Language Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Dhatti, District kangra. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. October 18, 2010(R)