IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4505 of 2019 Decided on : 06.03.2026 Pooja Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and Others …Respondents.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Parav Sharma and Mr. Shekhar uBadola, Advocates.

For the respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Draik, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. B. Nandan Vashishta, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

Respondent No.4 is proceeded against ex parte.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (Oral)

i By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

i) That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for appointment to the post of PET on contract basis on batch wise w.e.f. the due date i.e. other candidates of the Academic Session 1999 have been

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

given appointment as such in District Kangra pursuant to the selection process undertaken at Annexure P-8 with all consequential benefits.

ii) That the letter dated 06.12.2019 at Annexure P-12 may kindly be quashed and seot aside.”

2. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the appointment by the petitioner is being sought to the post of Physical Education Teacher. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the said post have been appended as Annexure P-13. The same are dated 10.01.2011. According to the petitioner, the relevant qualification applicable in the case at hand are contained in Clause 7, specifically Clause 7(b). The relevant portion whereof as per the petitioner reads as under:-

Clause 7-Minimum educational and other i qualifications required for direct recruitment (b) Bachelor’s Degree in Physical Education with fifty per cent marks (B.P.Ed) from a University recognized by HP Govt.

3. The certificate of the petitioner with respect to the essential qualification of PG Diploma in Physical Education is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-3. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the petitioner has secured more than 50% marks. The same is dated 19.09.1999.

4. In this respect, attention has been invitedP to letter dated 03.11.2018 (Annexure P-8), whereby the petitioner had been called for counselling on 19.11.2018, for the post of Physical Education Teacher. Subsequent to the aforesaid, it is submitted that nothing was heard in the matter. Hence, the petitioner sought the information through an Advocate under the Right to Information Act in terms of letters datetd 13.11.2018 (Annexure P-9) and

02.03.2019 (Annexure P-10).

5. Information qua the counselling held on 19.11.2018 was provided to the Advocate of the petitioner, who had sought information under the RTI. The information was supplied vide letter date 09.12.2019 (Annexure P-11). In the information supplied vide Annexure P-11, a letter of rejection of the candidature of the present petitioner, vide letter dated 06.10.2019 (Annexure P-12), was supplied.

6. From a perusal of the rejection letter, it is evident that the petitioner had passed her Post Graduate Diploma in Physical Education from Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Sciences Delhi. The same is affiliated to the University of Delhi. The said Diploma has been obtained by the petitioner on 19.09.1999. The Diploma so obtained by the petitioner was of a one year course. In the rejection it has been stated that the Post Graduate Diploma in Physical Education, had been subsequently renamed as the Bachelor of Physical Education by the University of Delhi, vide its Resolution No.2 of dated 17.05.2001. The aforesaid nomenclature was also amended by the NCTE, Hvide his notification dated 13.03.2012.

7. Further in the rejection, it has been stated that B.P.Ed was a two-year course and the NCTE only for the Session 2000-01 had recognized the one-year dtiploma done by the petitioner in the year 1999. In view thereof, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, as her diploma could not be equated wit