Civil Writ Petition No. 4474 of 2009 1 ***** Arun Kumar versus State of Haryana and others Present: Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana for the State. ***** The petitioner initially joined the service as JBT teacher in Education Department on 27.11.1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was fully eligible for being promoted as Sanskrit teacher and was possessing the prescribed qualifications and the experience for such a promotion, in terms of the School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules'). The petitioner has averred that he was possessing B.A., B.Ed degree with Prabhakar. He had also subsequently cleared B.A. and B.Ed. in Sanskrit as additional subject and evidence in this regard is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. Despite possessing the requisite qualification, the name of the petitioner after being shown in the seniority list was deleted. He has, accordingly, approached this Court. Counsel for the petitioner would refer to the qualification given in Appendix B to Rule 7 of the rules reproduced in the writ petition. One of the qualification, which is essential for the promotion to the post of Sanskrit teacher is B.A.(Sanskrit) as elective subject with B.T/B.Ed or B.A. (Hons. in Sanskrit) with B.T. or B.Ed, from recognised University. Besides, some other qualification has been laid down as essential qualification for promotion to the said post. Civil Writ Petition No. 4474 of 2009 2 Reply has been filed in response to notice. In the reply, it is stated that, “The petitioner possess B.A. with Sanskrit as an elective subject & B.Ed. without Sanskrit Teaching subject. He has passed the B.Ed. with Sanskrit on 24.09.2008, hence he was not eligible on 10.04.2008”. The qualification as prescribed in the rules is as under:- Sr. Designation Academic qualifications Academic qualifications No. of post and experience, if any, and experience, if any, For direct recruitment for appointment other By direct recruitment than 1 2 3 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Sanskrit Teacher (i) Shastri/B.A. (Hon's in (i) Shastri/B.A.(Hon's in Sanskrit from recognised Sanskrit) from University; recognised University; (ii) L.T.C./OT in Sanskrit (ii) L.T.C./OT in Sanskrit Conducted by the Haryana Conducted by the Education Department or Haryana Education an equivalent qualification Department of an recognised by the Haryana equivalent qualification Education Department. Recognised by the Haryana Education Department OR B.T./B.Ed with Sanskrit as B.T./B.Ed with Sanskrit Teaching subject from a as Teaching subject Recognised Universty. From a recognised University Note: In case, the candidates of B.A. with Sanskrit as Above qualifications are not an elective subject and available then B.A, with with B.T./B.Ed. or Civil Writ Petition No. 4474 of 2009 3 Sanskrit as an Elective B.A. (Hons in Sanskrit) subject with B.T/B.Ed with B.T./B.Ed from a with Sanskrit teaching from a subject from a recongised recognised University University shall be iii) knowledge of Hindi considered. up to Matric standard (iv) knowledge of Hindi iv) 3years experience upto Matric on the post of JBT standard. teacher On this basis, State counsel would dispute the claim of the petitioner and would justify the action of the State in deleting the name of the petitioner from the seniority list. State counsel would further contend that the requirement of B.Ed in Sanskrit as subject is to be read in all the qualification prescribed in the rules in the alternative as otherwise the provisions for this in the Rule would become redundant and useless. I have not been able to persuade myself to subscribe to the view as is pressed before me. Once the alternative qualifications have been prescribed, the requirement which is projected in one qualification can not be read into other. If the intention of legislation was to provide something as an essential requirement for particular qualification as prescribed in the alternative, the same was required to be specifically mentioned therein as well. If the intention was as is being stated, then there was no need to lay down qualification in the alternative by co-joining it by the word 'OR'. Accordingly, this submission that requirement of possessing Sanskrit Degree as an essential qualification cannot be read into all the qualifications prescribed in the alternative and it cannot be treated that essential Civil Writ Petition No. 4474 of 2009 4 qualification. One of the qualification as prescribed is B.T./B.Ed with Sanskrit as teaching subject and the same was in alternative to a qualification of BA with Sanskrit as elective subject with B.T./B.Ed or B.A. (Hons. in Sanskrit) with B.T./B.Ed. The qualification of B.Ed as noted above does not make mention that the B.Ed has to be in Sanskrit subject. Thus, it is conscious decision to provide for B.T./B.Ed. only without Sanskrit being a teaching subject when one possesses B.A. degree with Sanskrit as elective subject. Obviously there could be reasons in this regard. Qualification of B.Ed is when B.A is with Sanskrit. Concededly the petitioner passes B.A. with Sanskrit as elective subject with B.Ed. This is a valid qualification. The case of deletion of the name of the petitioner from the seniority list thus was not proper on the ground that he did not possesses essential qualification. The word 'OR' used clearly indicate that qualifications are separately provided in the alternative. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition and pass a specific speaking order to the effect as to whether his name required to be maintained in the seniority list. The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge any order, in case he still feels aggrieved against the same. July 16, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE