Durga Dass vs State of H.P. and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner was called for interview for the post of Language Teacher on 24.4.2001. He was offered appointment letter on 1.4.2002 pursuant to which he joined his duties on 2.4.2002. Respondent No. 3 sent a letter to Respondent No. 4 not to permit the Petitioner to join his duties on 1.4.2002. Petitioner had assailed Annexure P-4 dated 1.4.2002 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 589/2002. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 12.4.2002 by treating the same as representation to be decided by the Deputy Director of Education within ten days. He decided the same on 1.5.2002.

Ms. Archana Dutt has strenuously argued that the Petitioner was duly eligible and qualified to be considered for the post of Language Teacher and as such his appointment could not be cancelled.

Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has strenuously argued that the Petitioner was not possessing the minimum qualification prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Language Teacher. According to him, the Petitioner should have possessed Prabhakar (Honours in Hindi) with Matric (Full) and L.T. Training or J.B.T. (Two years training) from a recognized University/Institution.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

The following is the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Language Teacher:

Prabhakar (Honours in Hindi) with Matric (Full) and L.T. Training or J.B.T. (Two years training) from a recognized University/Institution.

Petitioner has placed on record copies of certificates qua his qualification vide Annexures P-8, P-9 and P-10. Case of the Petitioner precisely is that the certificate of Hindi Shikshan Parangat was equivalent to B.T. or B. Ed degree. He has relied upon Annexure P-11 dated 12.4.1967 and Annexures PX and PY.

Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure PY also. It is evident from the contents of Annexure PY dated 27.7.1966 that Hindi Shikshan Parangat was to be treated as B.T. or B. Ed. if graduate candidate with Hindi as one of the subjects at the degree examination obtains this certificate. Petitioner has not placed on record any tangible evidence to show that he has obtained Hindi Shikshan Parangat to become B.T. or B. Ed. after obtaining his graduate degree in the subject of Hindi.

Now, as far as the issuance of Annexure P-11 dated 12.4.1967 is concerned, Hindi Shikshan Parangat has been treated as B.T./B. Ed. degrees of an Indian University. The Court is of the considered opinion that to treat Hindi Shikshan Parangat equivalent to B.T./B. Ed degree of any Indian University, the candidate as per letter dated 27.7.1966 is required to be graduate in the subject of Hindi. It is also clear from the contents of Annexure P-11 dated 12.4.1967 that Hindi Shikshan Praveen is made equivalent to Teacher''s training certificate/diploma. However, since the Petitioner is not graduate with Hindi as one of the subjects at the Degree examination as such the certificate of Hindi Shikshan Parangat of the Petitioner cannot be treated equivalent to B.T. or B. Ed. degree of Indian University. Similarly, Petitioner cannot take any support from Annexure ''PX'' at page 60 of the paper book. The recognition is subject to letter dated 27.7.1966 whereby it is provided that if the candidate, who is graduate with Hindi as one of the subjects at the degree examination, obtains this certificate, i.e. Hindi Shikshan Parangat, can be treated as B.T. or B. Ed. Letter dated 13.4.1967 is to be read together with letter dated 27.7.1966. Moreover, it is for the State to consider the equivalence of the degrees/certificates issued by various institutions. This is a policy matter and the scope of judicial review is very limited. It is only in those cases where the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of any provisions of the Constitution of India, the Court can look into the equivalence on the basis of relevant data placed on record by the parties.

Ms. Archana Dutt has also argued that one Sh. Gopal Dass Dogra has been appointed on the basis of same qualification vide Annexure P-12. It has come in the reply that Gopal Dass Dogra was not eligible. However, the State has not placed any material on record whether any action has been taken against him or not. The State is directed to take consequential action against Sh. Gopal Dass Dogra as well.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.