IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 16163 of 2008 Date of Decision : October 25, 2010 Sh. Dina Nath Sharma Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the communication dated October 15, 2007 [Annexure A-8] may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the applicant, who was selected as Primary Assistant Teacher, may be held entitled for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher from the date of appointment of similarly situate persons with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case for the perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iv) That the cost of this Original Application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant throughout. (v) Any other order which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems just and proper may also be passed in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned hereinabove in favour of the applicant.” 2. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 6.9.2007 (Annexure A-7) petitioner was selected as a successful candidate for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. However vide letter dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure A-8) petitioner was informed that his candidature was rejected for the reason that course of Shastri undertaken by him was not equivalent to a B.A. degree. Aggrieved of the same petitioner has filed the instant petition. 3. Petition is opposed on the ground that vide letter dated 9.3.2006 candidate holding degrees of Prak-Shastri/Vishist Shastri/Shastri was not to be equated with 10+2 or Graduation or Post Graduation degrees. 4. My attention has been invited to the notification issued by the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh which reads as under:- “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to recognize the following Sanskrit examinations conducted by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi as equivalent to the educational examinations shown against each for the purpose of employment in Himachal Pradesh. Name of Examinations As equivalent to 1. Prathma Middle School 3 2. Madhyama Higher Secondary 3. Shastri B.A. 4. Acharya M.A. 5. Shiksha . . . .Shastri B. Ed. 6. Vidya Verishi Ph.D. 7. Vachaspati D. Litt. 2. These orders will take immediate effect.” 5. It is not in dispute that petitioner has successfully completed the course of Shastri conducted by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi. He has undertaken examination of Shastri. The aforesaid communication has not been superseded till date. Consequently the decision taken by the Government as communicated by the Secretary (Education) shall prevail. 6. Importantly the Central Government has also recognised the said institution for the purposes of employment under the Central Government. This is so evident from Annexure A-12. 7. Therefore stand taken by the respondents is untenable in law. Consequently petition needs to be allowed. Communication dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure A-8) is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner and offer him letter of appointment. 8. Necessary action be positively taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 25, 2010 (PK)