1. Vide advertisement notice issued by respondent No.4 under his No.ZK/3964-66 dated 18.8.2009, applications have been invited from the Candi­dates for engagement against one post of ReT teacher under SSA scheme at zonal level for zone Kunzar. Minimum qualification prescribed is 10+2 and above. Vide notification dated 21.11.2009, tentative list of prospective candidates for engage­ment as RT in various zones which include zone Kunzar has been notified wherein respondent No.5 is shown as prospective candidate. Petitioner has field the objec­tions before respondent Zonal Education Officer contending therein that he is superior in merit as against the selected prospective candidate Parvez Ahmad Khan (respondent No.5). Without waiting for the results of the objections so filed instant petition has been filed.

2. Admittedly qualification of the petitioner is 10+2, B.Sc. B. Ed, M.Sc. in Bio Technology from IASE (Deemed University) and M. Phil, from Global Open Uni­versity, Nagaland. The qualification of respondent No.5 (Parvez Ahmad Khan is B.Sc. and M.Ed.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being highly qualified has a preferential right of being engaged as RT.

4. In opposition it is pleaded by the respondents that the writ petition is premature as the objections filed by the petitioner is against the tentative selection of respondent No.5 as yet have not been finalized so the petitioner has attempted to scuttle the proceedings as were pending before the concerned authority. In the pleadings it is categorically pleaded that the respondent No.5 has a better merit i.e. he possesses B.Sc. and M.Ed, qualification and M.Ed, has an edge against all other qualifications which in turn would mean that the objections of the petitioner have to be rejected by the concerned authority.

5. Confronted with this position, both learned counsel agreed for disposal of this petition at its admission stage. Petition, as such, is admitted to hearing and taken up for final disposal.

6. The only question for determination as emerge from the respective pleadings and submissions of learned counsel for the parties is as to "whether petitioner is superior in merit or not".

7. Government order no.1503-Edu of 2003 dated 01.10.2003 is a clear answer wherein, among others, it is provided:

"B.Ed./M.Ed, practically carry a professional edge vis-a-vis an (academic) P.G degree. Extra weightage be allowed, therefore, to B.Ed/M.Ed, consis­tent with its role and relevance in the teaching-learning process".

8. In the said order it is clearly indicated that B.Ed/M.Ed, has an edge because being consistent with its role and relevance in the teaching-learning process.

9. The respondents No. 1 to 4 in categoric terms in their reply have indicated that 29 applications were received. Numbers of candidates were mostly B.Sc, B.Ed, M.Ed and M.Sc, B.Ed and one candidate was M.Sc, B.Ed, M.Phil, so guidance was sought from respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 in response provided guide­lines issued by the Government and in addition it is clear from the Govt. order no.1503-Edu of 2003 that B.Ed./M.Ed, being professional qualification have to be given an edge and M.Ed, has to be reckoned superior to any other PG degree without or without B.Ed. In addition it is pleaded that the petitioner has done M.Phil, from Global Open University, Nagaland which is not a recognized degree as is also made clear vide circular dated 17th of May, 2010 issued by the University of Kashmir.

10. Considered the submissions. The underlying object of giving preference to B.Ed./M.Ed, degree is to advance the professional skill for imparting education.

The B.Ed./M.Ed. has its role and relevance in the teaching-learning process. The respondent No.5 admittedly possesses M.Ed, qualification, as against him peti­tioner possesses M.Sc. degree in Bio Technology.

11. In terms of Govt. order No. 1503, M.Ed, has an edge. The said Govt. order has not been challenged, it being so, has to be fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document