IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2240 of 2008. Decided on: 7.4.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Dayalu Ram … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Gurdev Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 &2 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed as Librarian and was confirmed with effect from 31.10.1967. He was not paid the pay scale of the post of Librarian and instead he was paid the pay scale of the post of Assistant. He made representations to respondent No.3 for granting him the pay scale of Librarian on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. It is admitted by respondent No.3 in its reply that the petitioner was confirmed as Librarian with effect from 1.10.1967. However, it is further averred that since the petitioner was not possessing the requisite educational qualification of diploma or degree in Library Science, he could not be paid the pay scale of Librarian. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 Mr. Gurdev Thakur has strenuously argued that once the petitioner has been appointed as Librarian and confirmed as such with effect from 1.10.1967, he was entitled to the pay scale of Librarian i.e. Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of pay scale of Assistants. He then contended that the petitioner has gained sufficient experience as Librarian and it was to be treated as substitute for educational qualification. Mr. Dharamvir Sharma has though admitted that the petitioner has been confirmed as Librarian but has re-iterated the stand taken in the reply to the effect that the petitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualification. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed and confirmed as Librarian with effect from 1.10.1967. He has been discharging the duties of Librarian after his appointment as Librarian without interruption. He has gained sufficient experience while working as Librarian. The library maintained by respondent No.3 contains about 2000-3000 books. It is a large number. It may be true that the petitioner has not obtained degree/diploma in Library Science. The petitioner had worked as Librarian and has gained sufficient experience. In these circumstances, the experience gained by the petitioner for more than two decades is to be treated as substitute for educational qualification. 3 Their Lordships’ of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in B.N. Saxena Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2021 that the person having no diploma qualification but having experience of service for six years as Senior and Junior Draftsman was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Draftsman. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under: “The question is whether the petitioner possesses the prescribed qualification. The revised rules provide alternate qualification for the post of Head Draftsman. The first part of the rule prescribes a diploma with a minimum of three years service as Senior Draftsman in the scale of Rs. 250-400. The second limb of the revised rule refers to the service rendered by the candidate. It provides for six years of service as Senior and Junior Draftsman. The first part of the rule is almost similar to the qualification prescribed prior to the amended rules. The old rule provided: “Matric with Diploma/ certificate in Draftsmanship from a recognised institution with three years experience in preparation of Engineering/Drawing in an Electric supply undertaking or an engineering manufacturing organisation.” The second limb of the rule was evidently to benefit all those persons who have gained sufficient experience as Senior and Junior Draftsmen without possessing any qualification. Experience gained for a considerable length of time is itself a qualification (See the observation in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, 1989 (1) SCC 121: (AIR 1989 SC 19). It would be unreasonable to hold that in addition to this considerable experience, one must also have the diploma qualification prescribed under the first part. It could not have been the intention of the rule making 4 authority that persons who were designated as Senior Draftsmen without any Diploma qualification should acquire such diploma qualification for further promotion. Such a view would not be consistent and coherent with the revised rule and its object. We have no doubt that the second limb of the revised rule is independent of the first. The High Court seems to have erred in this aspect of the matter.” In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chief Executive Officer, NSSO and others Vs. Biswa Bhusan Nandi, (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 161 has held as under: “It is not a case where work experience of technical or professional nature was essential. Even in a case where experience in non-technical professional work was experience (sic) although prescribed as essential yet in a case where the appointing authority is satisfied that the ex-serviceman is expected to perform his duties in the post by undergoing “on-job training” for a short duration in terms of sub rule (4) of Rule 6, as amended, such appointment could have been made.” The petitioner had been performing the duties of Librarian for more than two decades and had gained “on-job training experience”. In these circumstances, it was not necessary for him to be in possession of essential qualification of degree or diploma in Library Sciences. The respondent No.3 has not placed on record copy of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules whereby the possession of degree or diploma in Library Sciences for the post of Librarian was essential. The respondent No.3 has itself appointed the petitioner as Librarian in the year 1967. The essential qualification of the petitioner was to be seen at that stage and not at belated stage. 5 Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. This be done by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 7, 2009. (cr)