IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6635/2010 Reserved on: 30.5.2011 Decided on:3.6.2011 _____________________________________________ Sugreev Singh. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board. …Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Respondent-Board issued an advertisement bearing No.14/2009 on 17.2.2009 whereby applications were invited for filling the posts of Lecturers (School Cadre) in different subjects @ ` 6400+50% D.P. The last date for receipt of the applications in the Board was 25.3.2009. The minimum qualification prescribed as per Annexure P-1 for filling up the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) was Master’s Degree in the relevant subject with Bachelor of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes . 2 Education (B.Ed./M.Ed) or its equivalent or two years integrated M.Sc. Ed. Course or an equivalent course. Petitioner submitted his application for considering his candidature on 19.3.2009. It is not in dispute that on the date when the petitioner submitted his application, i.e. 19.3.2009, he was not possessing the qualification of B.Ed. However, respondent-Board vide Annexure P-2 issued a notice intimating therein that the minimum qualification prescribed as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) stood notified by the Himachal Pradesh Government as under: i) “Academic qualification :- Master’s Degree in the subject concerned from a recognized University; ii) Professional qualification:- Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from a recognized University; or Two years integrated M.Sc. Ed. Course of an equivalent course from a recognized University. Provided further that for contract Lecturers (School Cadre)/others already engaged for teaching B.Ed. qualification will not be essential till 31.12.2010”. 2. This provision of relaxation, as per Annexure P-2, could not be mentioned in earlier advertisement bearing No. 14/2009. Consequently, the candidate engaged as contract lecturer/others already engaged for teaching as on 25.3.2009 (for non-tribal areas) and 3 9.4.2009 (for tribal areas), who was not possessing B.Ed. degree on these dates and who did/could not apply for the said post earlier could send his/her application on prescribed format available in the post offices of Himachal Pradesh by 20.2.2010. The petitioner appeared in the screening test on 18.7.2010 and qualified the same. Subsequently, respondent-Board sent an interview letter to the petitioner for 12.10.2010. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was not interviewed on the purported ground that since the petitioner was not in possession of B.Ed. degree on 25.3.2009; his candidature has been wrongly considered. 3. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal has vehemently argued that the action of the respondent-Board not to interview the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the petitioner was fully eligible and qualified to the post in question as per Annexure P-2. He then argued that he had already supplied the information to the respondent-Board alongwith Annexure P-4 and his degree, which he obtained in the month of December, 2010. 4. Mr. Inder Sharma has strenuously argued that since the petitioner was not possessing the qualification of B.Ed. as on 25.3.2009, his candidature 4 was wrongly considered and the Board was not liable to interview the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties, as discussed hereinabove, is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in the subject of English on 19.3.2009. It is true that on 19.3.2009, the candidate, as per Annexure P-1 should have been in possession of B.Ed. degree. However, it is evident from Annexure P-2 that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Lecturer (School-Cadre) stood notified by the Himachal Pradesh Government whereby proviso was added to the effect that the contract Lecturers (School Cadre)/others already engaged for teaching, for them B.Ed. qualification was not essential till 31.12.2010. According to the phraseology employed in Annexure P-2, the candidate who was not possessing B.Ed. qualification as on 25.3.2009 and did/could not apply, could send his/her application before 20.2.2010. Annexure P-2 covers those candidates, who were not possessing the qualification of B.Ed. as on 25.3.2009 (for non tribal areas) and 9.4.2009 (for tribal areas) and those candidates, who could not apply for the post in question earlier. Petitioner had already applied for the post in 5 question on 19.3.2009 but was not possessing the qualification of B.Ed. It was open to the petitioner either to persist with his old application or he could apply afresh on the basis of Annexure P-2 on or before 20.2.2010. Petitioner had been teaching as Lecturer (School Cadre) on P.T.A. basis as is evident from Annexure P-4 and has acquired his B.Ed. qualification as per Annexure P-5 in December, 2010. He has also made a representation to the respondent-Board vide Annexure P-6. The same has not been addressed to. Petitioner could not be discriminated by the Board only on the ground that he had already applied pursuant to Annexure P-1 on 19.3.2009. However, according to the contents of Annexure P-2, the acquiring of B.Ed. qualification was extended upto 31.12.2010 and the candidate could apply afresh upto 20.2.2010. The objective/purpose of issuing Annexure P-2 was to make all those candidates eligible irrespective of the date when they had applied by relaxation of essential qualification of B.Ed. upto 31.12.2010. It is reiterated that all the candidates were to be treated alike, who had obtained B.Ed. degree upto 31.12.2010 after the new Recruitment and Promotions Rules were notified. 7. Mr. Inder Sharma has also argued that the petitioner is not similarly situate with the contract 6 Lecturers. The expression used is ‘contract lecturers (School Cadre)/others already teaching’ as on 25.3.2009. The expression ‘others already engaged for teaching’ has not been specified. The Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner was appointed on P.T.A. basis, he will also be covered under the category ‘others already engaged for teaching’. He has been teaching since 2005. The classification as canvassed by Mr. Inder Sharma merely on the basis of cut of date and submission of application is unreasonable and arbitrary. The decision of the Board not to interview the petitioner, though fully eligible as per Annexure P-2, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondent-Board is directed to interview the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in the subject of English and to take consequential steps. Needful be done within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 3.6. 2011 *awasthi*