The main legal point established in the judgment is that the minimum essential qualification for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher is a 'pass in 10+2 examination' with no provision to consider any qualification equivalent to 10+2.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Pursuant to advertisement issued in January, 2006 Annexure A-1, petitioner as well as respondent No.4 applied for the post of language Primary Assistant Teacher(hereinafter referred to as PAT) in the office of SDO, Sadar, District Bilaspur. Selection/interview committee constituted for the purpose of selection of Primary Assistant Teacher after having found the respondent No.4 eligible, selected him for the post in question and as such he gave his joining on 4th April, 2006 (Annexure A-3) at Government Primary School, Solda, District Bilaspur.

2. Petitioner after being declared unsuccessful laid challenge to the selection of respondent No.4, in aforesaid selection process, by way of Original Application No. 3136/2007 in erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Since the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal came to be abolished, aforesaid original application having been filed by petitioner came to be transferred to this Court and accordingly same was re-registered as CWP(T) No.16072/2008. On 17th October, 2011 coordinate Bench of this Court while placing reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Arjun Singh vs. Pawan Kumar & Others, LPA No. 251 of 2011, decided on 7th September, 2011, quashed and set aside the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Soldha and directed respondents to fill-up the post in question as per the earlier selection made in the interview held in the year, 2006 and the merit list drawn at that time.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, respondent No.4 preferred LPA bearing No. 64 of 2013, which ultimately came to be decided on 6th May, 2013. Division Bench of this Court while allowing aforesaid LPA No. 64 of 2013, having been filed by respondent No.4 observed that learned Single Judge before applying ratio of the decision rendered by Division Bench in Arjun Singh's case (Supra) has not recorded any findings with regard to the eligibility of the appellant and as such judgment is not sustainable. In the aforesaid background, Division Bench vide judgment dated 6th May, 2013 remanded the case back to the learned Single Judge for deciding afresh. In this background the matter has again come up for hearing in this Court.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner is that since at the time of interview held in January/March, 2006, respondent No.4 did not possess requisite qualification i.e. 10+2, he could not have been selected against the post in question.

6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to the advertisement, issued for filling-up the post(s) in question and the scheme formulated by Government for appointing Primary Assistant Teacher Annexure A-4, vehemently argued that since there was no provision to consider any qualification equivalent to 10+2, interview Committee while drawing merit list could not have awarded any marks to the respondent No. 4 for his having possessed certificate of "Prak Shastri".

7. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No.4 while refuting aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner contended that since its stands specifically provided in the advertisement as well as scheme that a person possessing higher qualification can also apply for the post, candidature of the respondent No.4, who was having degree of "Shastri" rightly came to be considered by the interview committee. Besides above, Mr. Rajesh Sharma contended that though no specific mention has been made with regard to "Prak Shastri" and "Shastri" in the advertisement as well as scheme but since both these qualifications have been termed to be equivalent to 10+2 and B.A., interview committee rightly awarded respondent no. 4 marks qua b