IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18994 of 2009 Date of decision : 6.5.2011 Dinesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vishal Malik, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner by virtue of the instant writ petition questions his rejection for the post of Principal conveyed to him vide Annexure P-3. According to the advertisement issued by the respondent-department, the essential qualification for the post of Principal (HES-II), Education Department were as follows :- “PRINCIPAL 1. Academic and Professional qualifications will be as prescribed for the post of lecturer. 2. Ph.D.in Education C.W.P.No.18994 of 2009 -2- 3. Ten years experience of teaching/research in University/teaching department of education/Colleges of Education and in the similar institution of higher education. 4. A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the Master's level for the SC/ST category.” The petitioner has to his credit M.Sc.in Physics, B.Ed, M.Ed. and since he proclaimed to have necessary experience as well, he applied for the same and as per the criteria adopted by the respondents the petitioner secured 45.36 marks against the last selected candidate who secured 46.19 marks. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has two Master Degrees to his credit i.e. M.Sc. in Physics and M.Ed., and if the criteria as adopted by the respondents was to be applied to him, he was to be awarded 0.25 of the percentage of marks obtained by him in Masters. The respondents considered his marks as per this criteria which pertains to the degree of M.Sc. in Physics but ignored the Master of Education and if they had considered the degree of Master of Education then he would have been selected as the criteria of percentage of 0.25 if applied, the higher marks would have upgraded his standing. He has referred to the UGC guidelines which prescribed the qualification of the Principal (Professor's Grade) wherein degree in M.Ed. along with various other degrees such as humanities, social sciences, sciences, commerce, education, physical education, foreign languages and law have been equated with the master degree for C.W.P.No.18994 of 2009 -3- being valid consideration for the post of Principal (Professor's Grade). He thus contends that if degree is equivalent to the Master Degree, it was this particular degree which ought to have been considered and non-consideration of the same would have prejudiced his case. The respondents have controverted the contention as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to state that the eligibility criteria was clearly prescribed in the advertisement and the degree of M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. with second division was the requirement expected of an aspiring candidate. Since the petitioner was M.Sc. in Physics, his marks obtained in this particular discipline were taken into consideration and the degree of M.Ed. was not considered for the simple reason that it was a qualification which was higher in so far as the professional requirement of B.Ed. was concerned. I have heard the matter and have considered the rival contentions of the parties. There is no element of doubt in the fact that the employer is very well within its right to prescribe the qualifications expected of a prospective employee seeking employment. When the State is employer, it is bound by the rules, as all public appointments are. There was a clear prescription in the advertisement that the incumbent should be holder of M.A./M.Sc./M.Com Degree and the second prescription was that a person should have B.T./B.Ed., or equivalent. The advertisement thus had a generic qualification in the Masters and a specific professional qualification in B.T./B.Ed. The petitioner had Masters in both and thus his marks were rightly evaluated as per C.W.P.No.18994 of 2009 -4- the criteria which is extracted herein below :- “Master Degree =25 marks (0.25 of the percentage of marks obtained. B.T./B.Ed. =20 marks (0.20 of the percentage of marks obtained. Experience = 05 marks (one mark for one year over and above the required experience and upto a maximum 5 marks. Viva-Voce =25 marks total =75 marks.” It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this criteria had been applied to him, but his only limited grievance is that his degree of M.Ed. should have been considered. The decision of the respondents, therefore, cannot be faulted with, as it is totally in consonance with their advertisement and the criteria adopted for selection by them. On the strength of some interpretation which may flow a possible view could have been taken in favour of the petitioner, but if the decision of the respondents does not suffer from any illegality or ambiguity and has been applied strictly then merely because another view is possible on the strength of principle of interpretation it will not render the decision of the respondents bad in the eyes of law. Besides, prima facie it appears to the Court that the UGC guidelines on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertain to the post of Principal (Professor's Grade) and not as per the posts of school principals and thus even on this parity of reasoning the contention C.W.P.No.18994 of 2009 -5- may not strictly be acceptable. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 6.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss