IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 302 of 2001 Date of decision: 6.8.2008 State of H.P. Petitioner. Versus Dr. Balwinder Kaur and others. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the petitioners: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate. None for respondent No.2. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition by the State is directed against the order of the learned Tribunal dated 27.11.2000 passed in O.A. No. 376 of 1998. The whole case revolves round the interpretation of Clause-8 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Principal, Degree Colleges/Training Colleges/State Institute of Education/ Arts Colleges, etc. in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Clause-8 deals with the educational qualifications in respect of the promotees to the post of Principal, and reads as follows:- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 “8. Whether age and Age No. Educational qualifications Qualifications: prescribed for direct M.A/M.Sc. Second Class recruit will apply in with at least 50% of marks the case of in the relevant subject and promotees. with at least 10 years teaching experience to college classes (Degree Colleges/ Colleges of Education/ SIE)” The respondent No.1 was engaged as a home science lecturer. She was a graduate in home science. She did not possess a post graduate degree in home science. However, it is admitted that she has done M.Ed. in the year 1972 and has also obtained a doctorate degree (Ph.D) in education in the year 1987. She filed an original application before the learned Tribunal claiming that though persons junior to her had been promoted as Principals she was not being promoted. The stand of the State was that her name was not considered for promotion to the post of Principal (College Cadre) since she did not possess a post graduate degree in home science, i.e. the subject in which she was a lecturer. A perusal of the rule quoted here-in-above clearly shows that all that is required is that the person should be post graduate with at least 50% marks in the relevant subject. The learned Tribunal has held that the word ‘relevant’ in Rule 8 is irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable and has ordered that the said word be struck off from the rules. 3 We are unable to understand how the learned Tribunal has come to this conclusion. Though we are of the considered view that the State is not right in urging that a person must be a post graduate in the subject in which he is a lecturer, the word ‘relevant’ cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The world ‘relevant’ has to be read in the context of the entire rules which relates to the filling up the post of Principal. In our considered opinion, if the person is a post graduate in a subject which is relevant for holding the post of Principal then the mere fact that the said person is not a post graduate in the subject in which he is a lecturer is no ground to debar such person from holding the post of Principal. The question whether the post graduate degree is relevant or not shall have to be decided on the facts of each case but by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the word ‘relevant’ as used in Rule-8 is irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable. In the present case, as mentioned here-in- above, the respondent No.1 was not only a post graduate in education but had also obtained her doctorate degree in education. These are absolutely relevant for the purpose of filling up the post of Principal. In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ to the limited extent and hold that the findings given by the learned Tribunal that the word ‘relevant’ is 4 irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable is incorrect. However, we may clarify that the word ‘relevant’ has to be read to mean relevant for the post of Principal. As far as the case of the respondent No.1 is concerned, the degrees held by her were totally relevant for holding the post of Principal and therefore, she was entitled to the relief granted to her by the learned Tribunal. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 6th August, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™