Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.2679 of 2008. Judgment reserved on: 8.8.2011. Date of Decision: September 6th, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjit Singh and another. … Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate general with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Surinder Singh, J.: The petitioners herein are Ex- servicemen. By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they mainly sought the following relief:- “ That the respondents No.1 and 2 may kindly be commanded with the writ of mandamus in the nature that respondent No.2 may be directed to sponsor the names of the petitioners for the interview to the post of Lecturer and respondent No.1 may be directed to consider them for the post of Lecturer in their respective subject.” - 2 - 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be stated thus. Petitioner No.1 Ranjit Singh did his matriculation in the year 1985 and petitioner No.2 Neel Mani in October, 1986. They got enrolled in the Indian Army and during such service, they improved their educational qualification, graduated themselves and later in the year 2002 petitioner Ranjit Singh did M.A. in History and in 1998 Neel Mani in Political Science from H.P. University. 3. The case of the petitioners is that after retirement from military service in the year 2003, they got their names registered in the Ex- servicemen Cell, Hamirpur for seeking employment as Lecturer in the Department of Education. Further with a view to improve their qualification, petitioners enrolled themselves for B.Ed. course from Kashmir University in the year 2004. Petitioner No.2 completed B.Ed. course in May, 2004, whereas petitioner No.1 Ranjit Singh got compartment and ultimately cleared during the supplementary examination in the years 2006-2007. - 3 - 4. It is further the case of the petitioners that prior to year 2005, for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT), professional qualification of B.Ed. was not an essential requirement except for the Post Graduate Teachers (PGT- Lecturers), whereas the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 4.8.2005 (Annexure P-5) substituted Column No.8 in the existing R&P Rules for the post of Lecturer (School cadre) vide Education Department Notification No.17- 4/69-Edn-II dated 28th December, 1973 made Master’s Degree in the relevant subject with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent, OR Two years’ integrated M.Sc. Ed. Course or an equivalent course, as essential requirement, which disturbed the seniority position of the petitioners maintained by the Ex-servicemen Cell Hamirpur (respondent No.2). Their rights were not protected who were legitimately expecting their appointment as Lecturer. The petitioners were not sponsored by the respondents for interview for the post of - 4 - Lecturers for the Ex-servicemen (General Category), which was scheduled to be held on 11th /12th December, 2008. Petitioners also contended that though they completed B.Ed. in the years 2007 and 2005 respectively, they have a right to appear in the interview for considering them to the post of Lecturer as having attained the minimum basic qualification even as per the amended rules. The batch-wise eligibility of the candidates has to be considered, especially when they attained the minimum qualification of Post Graduation for the post and not the B.Ed. 5. It is further contended that the most of the Lecturers who were Post-Graduate and appointed as such by the respondents after the amendment of the R & P Rules were given time to complete their B.Ed. course within three years, but whereas, names of the petitioners were not even sponsored by the respondents, thus, the petitioners sought the above relief. 6. Respondent No.1 did not file the reply, however, respondent No.2 in its reply - 5 - submitted that Ranjit Singh petitioner registered his name for the post of Lecturer (History) vide Registration No.410/03 dated 24.2.2003 [Cell No.G-27/03]. He also registered his name as B.Ed vide registration No.1090/07 dated 21.5.2007 [Cell No.G-53/2007]. As per the Notification issued by the Education Department of the State Government dated 4.8.2005 aforesaid, Degree for the relevant subject with B.Ed. or its equivalent, was essentially required for the Lecturer (School Cadre). Petitioner Ranjit Singh registered his name for the post of Lecturer( School Cadre) in M.A. (History) and B.Ed. as aforesaid, thus, he was not called for the interview on 21st and 22nd August, 2008, whereas, petitioner No.2 Neel Mani got registered his name to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in Political Science vide registration No.310/2003 dated 5.2.2003 [Cell No.M-4/2003] against NCO Code No.X01.35 and for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (B.Ed.) vide registration No. 4537/2005 dated 26.10.2005 [Cell No.M- - 6 - 78/2005] against NCO Code No.151.10. Thus, he was interviewed on 22.8.2008 for the post of TGT and stands at Sl. No.20 in waiting panel. At the time of interview for the post of TGT, the candidates for the post of PGT were also scrutinized by the State Selection Committee as per the Policy framed by the State Government and entered their qualification for the post of Lecturer (PGT). The Selection Committee of the Ex-servicemen Employment Cell decided to conduct the interview for the post of PGT (School Cadre), who did not report during the last interview held on 21st and 22nd August, 2008 and who had registered their names upto the year 2005. Their interviews were conducted on 11th/ 12th August, 2008 for PGT and the detail of the candidates, who were B.Ed. and Post-Graduation in Political Science and History are given in Annexures RB and RC on their merit. Petitioner No.2 being M.A. in Political Science and is at Sl.No.26 for the PGT (Political Science- General category). The number of posts meant for the post of PGT - 7 - Political Science was 10, hence he could not be finally selected being at serial No.26, whereas, for the post of PGT (History) only 9 posts were notified in general category as per Annexure-RC. Last candidate was Naik Amar Singh, who has registered his B.Ed. on 17.8.2005 and M.A on 6.4.2004, hence the petitioner No.1 could not be called as he registered his B.Ed. only, in the year 2007. It is also contended that the requisition for the post of PGT was received only on 8.10.2008 and as per Notification of the Education Department dated 4.8.2005 aforesaid, the qualification for PGT is master Degree in the relevant subject with B.Ed for School Cadre Lecturer, therefore, it was immaterial that in the year 2003, both the petitioners were Post Graduate in their respective subjects, whereas they registered their B.Ed. course in the years 2007 and 2005, hence, they were required to be considered, as per Policy, on 8.10.2008. 7. Shri Vijay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that by the amendment - 8 - in the year 2005 making B.Ed. essential disturbed the seniority maintained by the Ex- servicemen Cell by taking the date of passing of B.Ed. examination. Since they had the minimum qualification of Post-Graduation prior to the said amendment, therefore, seniority should not have been disturbed. 8. On considering the contention raised by the petitioner, in my opinion, the Court cannot interfere in the Policy Decision of the State Government as they decided to make B.Ed. as essential qualification with effect from the year 2005, by amending Column No.8 of the R&P Rules, 1973 accordingly. As such, the names of the petitioners could not have been sponsored on the basis of their earlier qualification of Post-Graduation also for the reason that the requisition of the post was received by respondent No.2 only in the year 2008 as aforesaid and on the basis of the interview, respondent No.2 rightly sponsored the names of the persons who had acquired B.Ed. qualification prior to the petitioners. - 9 - Therefore, no mandamus can be issued to respondent No.2 to sponsor the names of the petitioners for the interview for the post of Lecturer on the basis of the qualification prior to the amendment. However, it is made clear that respondent No.2 shall sponsor the names of the petitioners for the post in their respective discipline based upon their merit when they acquired the essential qualification of B.Ed, for the consideration of respondent No.1, for the post of Lecturer in the respective subjects. 9. With the aforesaid direction, present petition stands disposed of. Interim order dated 10.12.2008 read with order dated 12.4.2008 are hereby vacated. September 6, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge