IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P No. 750/2010 Decided on 12.3.2010 Vinod Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting Yes For the Petitioner: Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate For Respondents Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy. AG Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is a post graduate in Arts. He has also acquired M.Phil. Respondents initiated selection process for appointment to various posts in the subordinate service. One such post is of lecturer. The qualification, as per given notification Annexure P-4 dated 17.2.2009 is masters with B.Ed. While selection process was mid-way, it appears the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were amended. Thereafter, in continuation of the original notification dated 17.2.2009, selection board issued another notification dated 4.2.2010. In that notification also, the academic qualification is masters with B.Ed. However, a proviso was added, which reads as follows: “Provided further that for contract lecturers (school cadre) others already engaged for teaching, B.Ed qualification will not be essential till 31.12.2010.” It is also stated in the notification that the same was necessitated since provision of relaxation of B.Ed to the contract lecturers already engaged in service could not be mentioned in the earlier notification. Therefore, it was made clear that a candidate engaged as contract lecturer or others already engaged for teaching in non tribal area as on 25.3.2009 and for tribal areas on 9.4.2009 and not possessing the B.Ed degree as on that date, were eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer. According to the petitioner, he being M.Phil, is discriminated in the sense that when relaxation is granted in favour of a class of candidates, the same benefit is not extended to him. We do not think that the same would amount to discrimination in case the selection board has a justifiable rationale for a reasonable classification with the nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The selection board has made it clear that the relaxation is only in favour of those teachers engaged as per the then prevailing rules for the tribal and non tribal areas as per respective dates shown vide notice dated 4.2.2010. Apparently, teachers with B.Ed were not available at that time and hence those without B.Ed were engaged on contract basis. Therefore, when a regular selection is made, selection board thought it fit to relax the qualification in respect of those already in service, up to a particular date. Those teachers already engaged for teaching the students without B.Ed, definitely form a class by themselves. It is also to be seen that this is not a relaxation for all times. It is only a relaxation for a particular period so as to provide a chance to those who are already in service in accordance with the then prevailing rules to compete for the selection for appointment on regular basis in respect of the very same post in view of also of their teaching experience. Petitioner does not come in that category. The classification thus being reasonable and since the said classification has a reasonable basis, we do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the process of selection. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending application. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice March 12, 2010(sl/s) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge