IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5965 of 2008. Decided on 27.07. 2010. _____________________________________________________ Mast Ram. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner has served in the Indian Army w.e.f. May 16, 1967 to October 10, 1983. His name was registered with Ex-Servicemen Cell at Hamirpur. 2. The respondent-Board sent a requisition for filling up the post Security Supervisor. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Ex-servicemen employment Cell for the post of Security Supervisor. In sequel to Annexure A-2, dated 27.06.1997, the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Security Supervisor vide letter dated 12.11.1997. He joined his duties as Security Supervisor on 11th December, 1997. However, vide office order dated 19th June, 1999, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he did not possess the minimum essential educational qualification of matriculation. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 3. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client has neither mis- represented nor concealed his educational qualification at the time when his name was sponsored by the Ex-servicemen employment Cell. He then contended that the name of his client was recommended for the post of Security Supervisor and he was offered appointment, pursuant to which he has joined his duties. 4. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondent-Board vehemently argued that as per the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, Annexure RA-III, the essential qualification for filling up the post of Security Supervisor by direct recruitment is Matriculation or its equivalent. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. The fact of the matter is that at the time when the requisition was sent by the respondent-Board to the Recruitment Cell for filling up the post of Security Supervisor, the minimum qualification mentioned was middle standard. In sequel thereto, the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Ex-servicemen employment Cell, which lead to his appointment. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the principle of promissory estoppel will not apply in this case in stricto senso, but since the petitioner has neither mis-led nor mis- represented about his appointment, the issuance of Annexure A-4, dated 19th June, 1999 is not legal. The Ex-servicemen Cell has already notified to the respondent-Board that the qualification mentioned in the requisition in fact was middle standard and not matriculation. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondent-Board has drawn the attention of the Court to Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, Annexure RA-III, dated 07.08.1991. A bare perusal of the Regulations reveals that the post of Security Supervisor is to be filled up 25% by direct recruitment from amongst Ex-servicemen through Ex-servicemen Cell. The minimum essential qualification prescribed for the candidates in respect of direct recruitment is Matric or its equivalent. However, the remaining 75% vacancies are to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst Security Guards having minimum service in the grade as under:- (a) Matriculates:- : 4 years regular service. (b) Non-Matriculates : 6 years regular service. 7. Thus, it is evident that non-matriculate Security Guards having six years regular service can also be promoted as Security Supervisor. In these circumstances, the experience gained by the petitioner in the Indian Army can be substitute for educational qualification. 8. The petitioner has served in the Indian Army w.e.f. May 16, 1967 to October 10, 1983. He is the most suitable person to be appointed as Security Supervisor taking into consideration his vast experience he has gained in the Indian Army. In view of this, the rigors of qualification should not have come in the way of the petitioner and his services could not be terminated. The requisition has been sent by the respondent-Board, whereby the minimum qualification prescribed was middle standard, pursuant to which the name of the petitioner was sponsored and he was appointed as Security Supervisor. The experience gained by the petitioner in the Indian Army can be treated as a qualification taking into consideration the nature and duties, the Security Supervisor has to discharge. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-4, dated 19th June, 1999 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement and the period of his disengagement shall be counted for the purpose of continuity in service and seniority only. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 27, 2010. (bhupender)