IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2356 of 2010 Decided on: 7.12.2010 Vinod Kumar ……..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and ors. ………Respondents. Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The petitioner is aggrieved since he has not been selected for the post of TGT (Arts) on batch-wise seniority basis. The petitioner has passed B.A. from University of Rajasthan Jaipur in 1986, M.A. (Hindi) in 1988 and B.Ed. in 1991. There is no dispute with regard to the qualifications. The only ground taken in the reply at paragraph 3 for not selecting the petitioner is that he has not studied English in all 3 years of graduation and that English was subject only in the first year. It is further stated in the reply that for the post of TGT (Arts), English is necessary in all three years of graduation. ______________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Annexure P-7 is R&P Rules. The qualification prescribed under the Rules is “Graduate (in the subjects concerned) of a recognized University with Post-graduate degree/Diploma in teaching/education” and the desirable qualification is “knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of H.P.” 3. The respondents do not have a case that in the selection process, on merit the petitioner was not meritorious enough, as compared to the other candidates. The only objection is that the petitioner has not studied English in all 3 years of graduation. But, that is not the requirement in the prescribed qualification. The prescribed qualification is only graduation from a recognized University in the subject concerned and that according to the petitioner, he possesses. He also possesses B.Ed. qualification. In the matter of selection, based on qualification as prescribed in the R&P Rules, the appointing authority cannot insist for any qualification, which is not prescribed under the Rules. In case, the degree possessed by the petitioner is in the subject concerned, the petitioner cannot be denied appointment on the only ground that he has not studied English in all three years of graduation. The situation would have been different, had the petitioner competed for selection and more meritorious candidates being selected. This is not the situation here. The selection is batch-wise and hence, the only consideration is whether a candidate possesses the prescribed qualification. 4. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of directing the respondent to see whether the petitioner possesses 3 graduation in the subject concerned and in case, he has graduation in the prescribed subject, he shall be considered for appointment. Needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner subject to order passed by the competent authority and further grievance regarding his seniority will also be considered. All the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja), December 7, 2010 Judge (tilak/pankaj)