CWP No. 18236 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18236 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 15-03-2011 Dinesh Kumar and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms. Renu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J Reply on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4 has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to the counsel opposite. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition claiming the right to be appointed for the post of Hindi Teachers. The essential qualifications prescribed by the respondents in the advertisement are as follows:- “E.Q i) Matric from Haryana School Education Board or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana School Education Board. ii) Prabhakar/B.A (Hon's) in Hindi from a recognized University. iii)LTC/OT in Hindi conducted by the Haryana Education CWP No. 18236 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department or B.A (Hons) in Hindi with BT/B.Ed with Hindi as a teaching subject from a recognized university. Note: In case the candidate of above qualifications are not available then B.A with Hindi as an elective subject with BT.B.Ed with Hindi teaching subject from a recognized University shall be considered. iv) Knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard.” The qualifications possessed by the petitioners is as follows:- “Academic qualifications – Prabhakar or B.A (Hons.) in Hindi Professional qualifications – O.T or B.Ed with teaching subject Hindi.” The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since Prabhakar and BA (Hons) have been equated so merely because the petitioners do not possess the degree of BA but are having Prabhakar and B.Ed with Hindi as a subject they cannot be precluded from the purview of consideration and consequent appointment. Notice of motion having been issued, respondents have filed their reply and have pleaded that the petitioners do not fulfil the requisite qualifications. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners whose names appear at sr. no.1 and 3 have since been appointed while the case of the petitioner no.2 for appointment was rejected. The distinction which was placed in the case of the petitioner no.2 to discard his claim was that he did not possess the qualification of BA in addition to CWP No. 18236 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Prabhakar which other petitioners possess. Since the grievance of petitioners no.1 and 3 has already been answered, the petition qua them has become infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. In so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, I am of the opinion that respondents have committed a grave error. The Division Bench of this Court in CWP no. 2869 of 2001 titled as Rajinder Parshad vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 12.2.2002 while considering a similar controversy has observed as follows:- “On the basis of the above rule, it is argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner does not satisfy the prescribed qualification. A simple degree of Graduation is of no avail to the petitioner, as in terms of Clause 3 of the above rule, the petitioner is ought to possess degree of B.A (Honours) in Hindi, which petitioner admittedly is not possessing. We are not able to appreciate this submission on the part of the respondents. Under clause (ii) of the above Rules; Prabhakar/BA (Honours) in Hindi from a recognized university is an essential qualification. Once Prabhakar and BA are treated to be the equivalent qualifications, then clause (iii) cannot be construed to defeat what is specifically stipulated under clause (ii) of the above Rules. In fact, both these rules may be read so as to achieve the purpose of the Rule i.e a person could be BA (Honours) in Hindi or Prabhakar and should have also done B.Ed to satisfy the required qualifications. Certainly the petitioner possesses these qualifications. The petitioner is a Matric. He has done his CWP No. 18236 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Prabhakar (Honours) from Kurukshetra University (Photostat coy of the original degree is attached). The petitioner has also done B.Ed from a recognized University and which fact is admitted by the State of Haryana.” Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner no.2 cannot be distinguished from the case of the other petitioners to hold him ineligible for the appointment. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed in respect of petitioner no.2 and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner no.2 for appointment in the light of what has been observed hereabove. Let needful be done within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Since all the persons who are lower in merit have been appointed on a prior date, the appointments of all the petitioners herein shall also relate back to the same date. The petitioners' service from the said date shall be considered for matters of seniority etc. without conferring any monetary benefits. Disposed of. March 15, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge