IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1522 of 2007 Decided on 10.5.2010. ________________________________________________________ Meena Kumari Thakur …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. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl AG, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy AG. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved since she is not appointed as a language teacher. It is seen from the reply that the petitioner does not possess the prescribed qualification prescribed as per R & P Rules. According to the petitioner she possesses the qualification as per Annexure P- 1. P-1 is not a notification prescribing any qualification. P-1 is only clarification with regard to the pay scale attached to the posts. According to the petitioner as per said Annexure P-1, she is qualified for appointment. As already stated above, Annexure P-1 is not the prescription of qualification for appointment. It is only a clarification regarding pay scale attached to the post of language teacher possessing specified qualifications. The qualification for recruitment is prescribed only in the rules. The relevant portion of the rules is reproduced as Annexure R-1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner does not possess the qualification as prescribed in R & P Rules. In that view of the matter there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 10, 2010(k/s) (Justice R.B. Misra) Judge