CWP No.5861 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No.5861 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.09.2011 Rupinder Singh and others ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Maninder, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudipti Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. ... Surya Kant, J.(Oral) The dispute in the present case pertains to the eligibility of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Educational Services Providers in the subject of Physical Training Master/Mistress (DPE). The prescribed qualifications contained in the advertisement for the said posts, reads as follows: “Graduate from a recognised university with training in advance physical training course degree or diploma.” The petitioners admittedly possess 10+2 plus three years degree course in Physical Education. They have been awarded the degree of Bachelor of Physical Education by the Punjabi University. CWP No.5861 of 2008 2 The respondents have still treated the petitioners ineligible for the advertised posts on the premise that the petitioners are graduates only and they are further required to possess a degree/diploma “in Advance Physical Training Course”. The petitioners, on the other hand, rely upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of its decision in Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008 (4) SCC 171 to the following effect:- “The 1983 Rules prescribe the requisite educational qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher-physical education as under:- "Graduation degree in Physical Education or Diploma in the Physical Education from any recognised Institution." The aforesaid Rule has been clarified by the Government of India, Ministry of Education, on 26.11.1965 to the effect that B.P.E degree holders should be treated at par with those who hold B.A./B.Sc., B.Com degree plus a diploma in physical education and should not be required to possess an additional B.A.,B.Sc/B.Com. degree for purposes of employment as Directors of physical education or on other similar posts. The aforesaid position has been further clarified by the Government in paragraph 12 of its counter affidavit that qualification of B.P.E. includes the graduation as well as diploma of physical education.” The question as to whether the qualification possessed by the petitioners is equivalent and/or more than the qualification prescribed by the respondents for the subject posts essentially falls within the domain of the CWP No.5861 of 2008 3 subject experts. This Court would not ordinarily assume the role of such experts and give its own opinion. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to constitute a Committee of three subject experts, who shall after going through the curriculum/syllabus etc. shall determine as to whether or not the petitioners were/are eligible for the subject posts. In case, the expert committee holds the petitioners eligible, the respondents shall consider them for selection for the future vacancies and if so required by granting them relaxation in age etc. The object of this direction is to give one opportunity to the petitioners to compete for the public employment on the assumption that they were eligible at the time when the advertisement in question was issued. It essentially means that the selection and appointment already made shall not be disturbed in any manner. Dasti. ( Surya Kant ) Judge 12.09.2011 sk.