IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.206/2011 Decided on:20.10.2011 _____________________________________________ Narayan Dutt. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Sood, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.3.2011 of the Learned Single Judge rendered in CWP (T) No. 12692 of 2008. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the State initiated the process for filling up the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Chattor, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur from general I.R.D.P. candidate. Minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post in question was 10+2. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Appellant and respondent No.4 participated in the selection process. However, Selection Committee recommended the name of respondent No.4. Appellant assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 by filing original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which after the abolition of the Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP (T) No. 12692. Learned Single Judge dismissed the same holding that since the petitioner belonged to O.B.C. category and did not belong to I.R.D.P. category, he was not eligible. 3. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the judgment of the learned Single Judge carefully. 4. The post in question was reserved for I.R.D.P. general candidate. Appellant belonged to O.B.C. category. The post in question was not reserved for O.B.C. candidate. 5. Now, as far as the question of qualification is concerned, according to Mr. Ankush Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, Prag Shastri was recognized in the year 2004 equivalent to 10+2 examination. Mr. Rajesh Verma on the basis of 3 Annexure A-3 has argued that State Government has now decided not to equate Prag Shastri with 10+2 examination. This notification has been issued on 9.3.2006. It will apply prospectively. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 20.10.2011*awasthi*