IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 7537 of 2008, Decided on: 23.04.2009. Sudesh Kumari. .… … … Petitioner. Versus Director of Education, … … … Respondent. Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?No.1 For the petitioner: Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Attendant with effect from14.5.1987. She improved her qualification while working as Laboratory Attendant. She sought her appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher on the basis of improvement in her academic qualification. The post of Trained Graduate Teacher is required to be filled up on the basis of Recruitment and promotion Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The post of Laboratory Attendant is not feeder category for promotion to the post of Trained Graduate Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Teacher and rightly so. The petitioner cannot claim her appointment on the basis of her improved qualification to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. She was required to submit application for considering her candidature for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher as and when the post was advertised. The plea of Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate that similarly situate persons have been granted benefits cannot be accepted. In case those persons have been appointed, de hors Recruitment and promotion Rules, their appointment cannot be termed legal and valid. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept, “Two wrongs do not make right”. Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is stagnating in the post of Laboratory Attendant for more than two decades. In view of this, the respondents are directed to frame a scheme for providing atleast two promotional avenues to the category of petitioner on the basis of law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 5, Supreme Court Cases 100, Food Corporation of India versus. Purshotam Das Bansal, within a period of eight weeks from today. The respondents are free to work out the modalities while framing out the scheme. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 23, 2009. (rkv) - 3 - April 18, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 4 -