Point of Law: After the amendment of R & P Rules prescribing minimum marks in Masters Degree with NET/SET qualification, petitioner was never asked to improve his qualification in terms of amended R & P Rules and thus was allowed to continue with his original qualification as Lecturer(College Cadre) till College was taken over.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

(i) That impugned order dated 10.01.2019 passed by Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 93 of 2015 ( Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the T.A. No. 93 of 2015, titled Rachpal Singh Dadhwal Vs. Principal Secretary (Education) may kindly be allowed and notification dated 04.01.2007 (Annexure P-9 of TA No. 93 of 2015) may kindly be quashed and set aside, to the effect that the services of the petitioner may be ordered to be taken over as Lecturer Physical Education (College Cadre) from due date i.e. 04.01.2007, along with all consequential benefits.

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to protect the last drawn salary of the petitioner which he was taking in privately managed colleges DAV College, Daulatpur Chowk, District Una, Himachal Pradesh on the post of Lecturer Physical Education (College Cadre) while taking over his services as Lecturer Physical Education by the Government w.e.f 04.01.2007.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed Lecturer Physical Education (D.P.E) in D.A.V. College, Daulatpur Chowk, District Una, H.P. on 05.01.1979. At that time, petitioner held a Diploma in Physical Education from Nagpur University. In the year 1984, petitioner acquired M.A. Degree in History. Himachal Pradesh University approved the appointment of petitioner as Lecturer in Physical Education in D.A.V. College, Daulatpur Chowk, District Una, H.P. w.e.f. 03.10.1979, vide executive council decision dated 03.08.1991.

3. In the year 2007, respondent No.1 took over the management and also the services of teaching & non-teaching Staff of D.A.V. College, Daulatpur Chowk. The services of the petitioner were taken over as Lecturer (School Cadre) instead of Lecturer (College Cadre), vide notification dated 04.01.2007, on the premise that petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for the post of Lecturer Physical Education ( College), at the time of taking over of the College.

4. Petitioner immediately approached the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by preferring original application which subsequently came to be registered as T.A. No. 93/2015, inter alia praying for quashing of notification dated 04.01.2007 qua the petitioner and directions to the respondents to take over the services of the petitioner as Lecturer (College Cadre) with all consequential benefits. The protection of the last drawn salary as Lecturer (College Cadre) was also sought.

5. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents on the ground that essential qualification for the post of College Lecturer was M.A. with 55% marks in a particular faculty with NET/SET qualification. The learned Tribunal dismissed the T.A. No. 93/2015, vide order dated 10.01.2019 by holding that the petitioner at the time of take over of the College by State Government did not possess requisite qualification i.e. 55% marks in Masters Degree coupled with qualification of NET/SET.

6. This lead the petitioner to assail the order dated 10.01.2019, passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by way of instant petition.

7. The main plank of challenge is that petitioner could not be put to disadvantageous position without any fault on his part. According to the petitioner, he held the requisite qualification as applicable at the time of his initial entry as D.P.E. in DAV College, Daulatpur Chowk in the year 1979. The subsequent change in R & P Rules would not be applicable in the case of petitioner, that too, when the college was taken over by the decision of the State Government at a juncture when petitioner was left with almost 3/½ years of service. The petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2010.

8. Respondents have contested the stand of the petitioner, on the grounds that the n