Smt. Bisero Devi vs The State of Himachal Pradesh

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not making offer of appointment to the petitioner as Lecturer Sanskrit in Government Senior Secondary School Takoli, District Una, under Para Teacher Policy, 2003, she has preferred the present writ petition, initially in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and on its abolition transferred to this Court with the following prayers:-

(i) That the respondent may very kindly be directed to issue appointment letter as Para Teacher Lecturer (Sanskrit) school cadre in favour of the applicant on the basis of selection made by duly constituted Selection Committee.

(ii) That the respondent No. 3 may very kindly be directed to take joining of the applicant as Lecturer (Sanskrit) school cadre as Para Teacher.

(iii) That the respondent may very kindly be directed to consider the qualification of Sahitya Acharya equivalent to M.A. Sanskrit on the basis of Annexure A-7.

In a nut shell, it is claimed that the petitioner being qualified as Sanskrit (honours) and Acharya i.e. equivalent to M.A. Sanskrit, had submitted her application for appointment as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Government Senior Secondary School, Takoli, District Una, under Para Teacher Policy, 2003, pursuant to advertisement Annexure A-4. She successfully appeared in the interview on 3rd November 2003 and secured first position in the merit list. She, however, was not given the offer of appointment as the 2nd respondent vide Annexure A-5 informed the 3rd respondent that Acharya qualification from H.P. University has not been notified equivalent to M.A. Sanskrit. The 4th respondent allegedly lower in merit was offered appointment and allowed to join her duty as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in the School.

The stand of respondents No. 1 to 3 as emerges from the perusal of the reply in a nut shell is that the qualification of Sahitya Acharya and Shastri from Himachal Pradesh University is not equivalent to M.A. Sanskrit and respondent No. 4 being M.A. Sanskrit and M. Phil also as well as recommended by the Selection Committee comprising SDM concerned as its Chairman, was rightly appointed against the post in question.

The 4th respondent has also taken similar stand in separate reply she filed to the writ petition.

In rejoinder, the petitioner has pressed into service three instances when the respondents have appointed the incumbents having qualification as Sahitya Acharya as Lecturer (Sanskrit). They are Suman Kumari, Ravi God and Dhani Ram.

In response thereto, respondents No. 1 and 2 in the supplementary affidavit have clarified that Suman Kumari and Shri Ravi God are having the degree of Darshanacharya, passed from Himachal Pradesh University and they have been appointed as Lecturer Sanskrit (school cadre). As regards Shri Dhani Ram, the respondents did not submit any response for want of better particulars.

In counter to the supplementary affidavit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, the petitioner has filed another affidavit dated 24th June 2012 quoting therein two more instances when the respondents have appointed one Shri Dharam Prakash and Onkar Chand having degree of Sahitya Acharya as Lecturer Sanskrit (school cadre). In support thereof, she has annexed the copy of their appointment order Annexure MA-I and the Educational Qualification certificates Annexure MA-4 to MA-7 obtained under RTI Act.

In view of this backdrop and hearing learned counsel for sometime, the following order was passed in this petition yesterday on 3.10.2012:-

Post for further arguments on 4th October, 2012. Learned Additional Advocate General to ensure the production of Rules, which were prevalent for making selection to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in the year 2003 when the petitioner appeared in interview under PTA Policy and 2010 when S/Shri Dharam Prakash and Onkar Chand, at Serial Nos. 1 and 26 of Annexure MA-1 to counter affidavit of the petitioner filed in this writ petition on 4.7.2012, were appointed as Lecturer (Sanskrit). The officer/official well conversant with the facts of this case also to remain present on the date fixed to assist the Court."

Consequently, learned Additional Advocate General has produced the ''Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class III (School and Inspection Cadre) Service Rules, 1973'' prevalent in the year 2003 when the petitioner and 4th respondent appeared before the Selection Committee for interview for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) under Para Teacher Policy 2003 and also the amended Rules notified vide notification dated 20th September, 2010 prevalent at the time of appointment of S/Shri Dharam Prakash and Onkar Chand as Lecturer Sanskrit (school cadre).

The essential qualification for the post in question finds mention at Sl. No. 2 of Annexure 1 to 1973 Rules, reads as follows :

The provision in the Rules amended in the year 2010 vide Notification No. EDN-A-Kha(3)-3/98-Part-II, dated 20th September, 2010 for the post in question reads as follows:-

It is seen that as per 1973 Rules, the essential qualification was Masters Degree in the subject concerned. In the amended Rules, the additional requirement is minimum 45 marks in aggregate in Masters Degree in the subject concerned and for the post of Lecturer Sanskrit, post-graduation should be only in Sanskrit subject. The petitioner is not post-graduate in Sanskrit. She is having the degree in Sahitya Acharya, Annexure A-2, passed from Himachal Pradesh University.

The 4th respondent, on the other hand, is post graduate in Sanskrit. Acharya qualification from Himachal Pradesh University was not equivalent to M.A. Sanskrit in the year 2003 as has been clarified vide Annexure A-6 by the 2nd respondent in response to letter dated 2nd June 2004 of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner cannot be said to have any preferential right as compared to the 4th respondent for appointment against the post in question in the year 2003/2004, however, in view of the instances of Suman Kumar and Ravi God having degree of Darshanacharya and appointed as Lecturer Sanskrit (school cadre) and that of Dharam Prakash and Onkar Chand having the same degree i.e. in Sahitya Acharya but appointed as Lecturer Sanskrit (school cadre), her claim also needs to be considered by the respondents. She has made the representation, Annexure A-8, on which no decision seems to have been taken so far. Therefore, in the nature of the order this Court propose to pass in this writ petition, there is no need to enter into the controversy on merits and a direction to the respondents to consider the representation Annexure A-8 of the petitioner in the light of the instances of Suman Kumari, Ravi God, Dharam Prakash and Onkar Chand no doubt brought on record by way of filing rejoinder and supplementary affidavit to which the respondents have filed the counter affidavit also, would serve the ends of justice.

Thus, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Annexure A-8, representation of the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner along with a copy of the writ petition and pass appropriate order including her appointment as Lecturer Sanskrit (school cadre) with all consequential benefits except the salary part. This, however, shall be without prejudice to the liberty of the petitioner to approach this Court again, if still feels aggrieved by the order, if adverse to her, passed by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition stands finally disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.