Kashmira Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:­

The case of the petitioner is that she did her matriculation and thereafter higher secondary examination from the H.P. Board of School Education in the year 1987 and 1990, respectively. She did her Graduation in Arts with elective subject of Hindi in the year 1993. She did her Post Graduation in Hindi from Himachal Pradesh University in the year 1996 and thereafter, B.Ed from the University of Kashmir in the year 2000.

She got herself registered with Employment Exchange Office at Sarkaghat in the year 2000 itself. She qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test in the year 2014. According to the petitioner before the year 2014, the department used to fill up the post of language teacher on batch wise basis, by reckoning the batch from the date of issuance of certificate of B.A. with elective subject Hindi or from the issuance of certificate of M.A. in Hindi. However, respondent department amended the Recruitment and Promotions Rules on 16.11.2013, in terms whereof, after 31.03.2014, the batch was to be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of B.Ed Degree. According to the petitioner, at the time of filing of the petition, as per her information, respondent­department was intending to fill up posts of language teachers, which were lying vacant prior to the year 2014, but by applying the amended Recruitment and Promotions Rules, thus by reckoning the batch as from the date of issuance of original certificate of B.Ed. This act of the respondents as per the petitioner was bad in law because when there were posts available with the department which had occurred prior to the year 2014, then the same were supposed to be filled up by applying the Rules which existed before 31.03.2014, i.e. before the amendment stood incorporated in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Accordingly, a prayer has been made by the petitioner by way of this petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to fill up the posts of language teachers which were lying vacant prior to the month of March, 2014, by reckoning the batch from the date of issuance of certificate of B.A. with elective subject of Hindi/ M.A. Hindi and that the batch of the petitioner be considered in accordance with the un­amended Rules. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Notification dated 16.11.2013, on the ground that the same is ultravires and unconstitutional.

In the reply which has been filed by the department to the writ petition, it stands mentioned that necessary amendment stood incorporated in the Recruitment and Promotions Rules, to bring the Rules in consonance with the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Act, 2009. It further stands mentioned in the reply that after 31.03.2014, the qualification of B.Ed is mandatory to be appointed as a language teacher and batch is to be reckoned on the date of issuance of the said certificate and in fact the amendment stood made in the Recruitment and Promotions Rules with the motive to improve the quality of the education. On these basis, the State has defended its act.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

It is settled law that it is the prerogative of the employer to decide as to what is to be the eligibility criteria for appointment of its employees. This Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, does not ordinarily interferes with the same, unless the conditions contained in the Recruitment and Promotions Rules shock the judicial conscious of the Court.

It is the stand of the State that inconsonance with the provisions of the 2009 Act, necessary amendment stood incorporated in the Recruitment and Promotions Rules by the department to bring the Rules in the harmony with the 2009 Act. During the Course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded to the said stand of the State. That being the case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the amendment which has been carried out in the Rules to the effect that post 31.03.2014, the batch will be reckoned as from the date of issuance of original certificate of B.Ed, can be said to be arbitrary when it is not in dispute that after 31.03.2014, it is mandatory for every candidate to fulfill the eligibility criteria of possessing B.Ed degree to be eligible for being appointed as a language teacher. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amendment which has been carried out in the Recruitment and Promotions Rules by the State is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

As far as the contention of the petitioner that a direction be issued to the respondents to fill up the posts existing before 31.03.2014 as per the old Rules is concerned, said relief also cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of the settled law of the land that a post in question has to be filled in by way of direct recruitment in terms of the Rules which exist at the time when process is set into motion for the purpose of filling up the said post.

In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand dismissed.