IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6181 of 2008. Date of Decision: 29.6.2010 Sh.Gautam Ram Sharma …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate along with Sh.Varinder Bali, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to issue JBT certificate to him and be further directed to regularize his services on completion of 10 years tenure as volunteer teacher. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Shastri. He had only passed class 5 examination. He was appointed as voluntary teacher against JBT post at a fixed scale. Later the State Government framed a scheme to regularize the services of all such voluntary teachers who had put in 10 years of service. However, the services of the petitioner were not regularized on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification of having passed matriculation examination. 2 The petitioner filed the present writ petition in which it was claimed that though the services of the similarly situated Shastris had been regularized, his services have not been regularized. It is urged by Sh.I.D. Bali, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner that Shri Dharam Dutt Sharma mentioned at Sr.No.2 of Annexure A/5 had also not passed the matriculation examination since he was only required to produce the middle certificate. On the other hand, the respondents place reliance on the letter issued by the Department of Education dated 21.12.1998 wherein it has been stated as follows: “Thus, every volunteer Teacher being regularized should possess the minimum academic qualification under R&P Rules i.e. Matric/Higher Secondary qualification with Special Certificate equivalent to JBT before being considered for regularization.” When a scheme for regularization of persons who have been appointed without following any proper procedure is framed and the Government lays down that if a candidate does not possess the minimum academic qualification, his services cannot be regularized no fault can be found with such a stipulation. Even if Sh.Dharam Dutt Sharma has been appointed in violation of these instructions, the petitioner cannot claim the same benefit. Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to force the Government to take two wrong actions. Two wrongs do not make a right. Nobody has challenged the appointment of Sh.Dharam Dutt Sharma and therefore I am not going to the merits of his regularization. However, the 3 petitioner did not fulfil the minimum academic qualification at the relevant time and could not have been regularized. I have been informed at the Bar that in fact he now stands regularized since he has completed his matriculation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition which is rejected. No order as to costs. June 29, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.