IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 608 of 2005. Judgment reserved on 23.7.2008 Date of Decision: July 25, 2008 Kamaljit Singh …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P & Ors. . Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant(s): Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General 1 to 4. 5. Mr. K.S.Banyal, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 19.4.2005 passed in OA No. 1103 of 2004, whereby the OA filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner along with respondents 5 and other candidates applied for the job of Para Teacher as Physical Education Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Tihri, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, ,H.P. Admittedly, 2 respondent No.5 is a post graduate having done her MA in Mathematics. She was granted 10 extra marks for having higher qualification. The short ground raised by the petitioner is that the selection was for the post of DPE i.e. Director Physical Education, teacher and therefore, respondent No.5 could not have been awarded 10 extra marks for having done her MA in Mathematics. The learned Tribunal has held that MA (Mathematics) is a higher qualification and therefore respondent No.5 was entitled to the extra marks. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It would be pertinent to mention that during the course of this case, this court had passed orders from time to time directing the authorities to place on record the complete scheme for selection of Para Teachers and to specify the higher qualification for which the extra marks could be given. The respondent- State has placed on record the policy and has also submitted the formula for selection of DPEs in Education Department. We are only concerned with column No.5 of the same which reads as follows:- Particulars Marks Remarks. Any additional Higher Degree qualification of Minimum two years duration such as MA 15 15% of the Physical Education/M.P.Ed. marks obtained. 3 A bare perusal of column 5 of the aforesaid formula quoted hereinabove clearly shows that the higher qualifications envisaged in the formula for which extra 10 marks can be awarded are the qualifications in the field of Physical Education. This is apparent as the words used are “such as MA Physical Education/M.P.Ed.” It is thus apparent that the department did not envisage the grant of higher marks for post graduation in subjects other than those related to the fields of Physical Education. If that had been the intention then only the words post graduation would have been used and not the words “such as MA Physical Education/M.P.Ed.” The words “such as” occurring in this column have to be read ejusdem generis with the following words, that is to say that the higher qualification should be in a field similar to that of Physical Education. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that respondent No.5 could not have been granted marks for higher qualification on the basis of having done MA (Mathematics). Consequently, the order of the learned Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the selection of respondent No.5 is quashed. 4 Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to make fresh appointment on the basis of the interviews already held and in case the petitioner is found to be the most eligible candidate, offer him appointment within six weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. July 25, 2008. ( V.K.Ahuja ). J. s.