HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 70 of 2005. Reserved on: 29.7.2008. Decided on: 31.7.2008. Parmod Singh Chandel ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Jeevesh Sharma and Mr.Inderjit Singh Narwal, Advocates. For respondents No.1 to 4: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.5: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Advocate. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal, dated 6.1.2005, dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, a Lecturer in English, serving in a private school appeared in an interview in the office of respondent No.4 for his selection as Para Teacher. The appointment was to be made under the Policy framed by the State Government regarding engagement __________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. of Para Teachers (Lecturers School Cadre). The petitioner appeared in the interview on 3.11.2003 in the office of respondent No.4, in which 24-25 candidates appeared. He alleged that as per the Policy, he was entitled to 10 marks for his teaching experience, which were not given to him and respondent No.5 was selected as a Para Teacher by ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that since he had an experience of more than 5 years in the teaching line, he was entitled to grant of 10 marks as per the Policy formulated by the State of H.P. and accordingly had challenged the appointment of respondent No.5 by filing an Original Application before the learned Tribunal, which dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The main plank of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was having a teaching experience of 5 years since he had served in one Adarsh Senior Secondary School and the respondents have not granted him the benefit of 10 marks of teaching experience on the ground that the said school was not a Government Aided School or a School recognized by the State Government. In the alternative, the petitioner has also challenged condition No.7-A of the Para Teacher Policy, which provides 10 marks for teaching experience and alleged that the said condition was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Condition No.7-A of the Policy reads as under: “S.N. Particulars Marks Remarks 7. Experience in the subject concerned: 10 Experience less than 6 (A) In the Govt./Govt.Aided/Govt. months would not be Recognized school (on or before considered. For every 15-7-1996) against the post for six months credit of which the candidate is being 2.5 marks would be interviewed. given subject to maximum of 10 marks.” It is, therefore, clear that the experience for which maximum 10 marks are to be given has to be either of the three categories of the schools, namely, Government or Government Aided or Government Recognized School. The experience certificate furnished by the petitioner duly countersigned by the Deputy Director of Education, as is required under the Policy, is of Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Arki, District Solan, H.P. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this school was neither a Government School nor Government Aided School nor a Government Recognized School. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this certificate was that this school was affiliated to H.P. Board of School Education. The affiliation is a different concept and the mere affiliation with H.P. Board of School Education does not make it a Government or Government Aided School or Government Recognized School. Condition No.7 of the policy is very clear and this has to be interpreted as it stands and once the petitioner had no experience in either of the three schools mentioned above, he was not entitled to marks for his teaching experience. The other ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that these Rules are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but it could not be substantiated by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how these rules are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Government has provided that the experience will be counted in case an applicant has an experience of Government, Government Aided or Government Recognized School and this is a reasonable classification made, which cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal shows that condition No.7-A was duly considered by the learned Tribunal and it was held that the applicant was not entitled to 10 marks under condition No.7 of the Policy and the said order passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner which is dismissed accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), July 31, 2008. (TILAK) Judge.