Whether approved for reportin t g?¹Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 5083 of 2019, titled Manju Kumari vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 24th February, 2026. The learned Single Judge has rejected the challenge to the order dated 21st June, 2014, whereby the private respondent No. 6 (Pardeep Kumar) had been appointed to the post of Language Teacher (Ortho) under the Reserved Category of Persons with Disabilities.

2. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, after consideration of the relevant rules and the arguments raised, was that as per the amended rules dated 16th November, 2013 (Annexure A-9), there was a provision, as such, under Note-(i) that for the recruitment which had to be made up to 31st March, 2014, the batch could be reckoned from the date of issuance of the original certificate of B.A. with Hindi as an elective subject/B.A. after Prabhakar by passing English andu the additional subject/M.A. Hindi, on the basis of which the eligibility of the candidate is reckoned.

3. Resultantly, the argument that the present appellant had the requisite B.Ed. certificate of 2010, on the hbasis of which she could claim preference for appointment on the ground that the private respondent had a certificate of the passing year 2013 and, vide the amendment, it would be the essential qualification, was rejected. It was noticed that the private respondent had acquired the qualification of graduation way back in the year 1999, whereas the petitioner had acquired her Bachelor of Arts qualification 10 years later, i.e., in the year 2009, and therefore, while keeping in consideration the rules in question, it was held that the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of the original certificate of B.A.

4. The relevant dates were noticed during the process of appointment to the post of Language Teacher, which had been initiated by way of recruitment dated 23.12.2013 (Annexure A-10), and the appointment had been made on 21.06.2014. The selection was made in the interview conducted on 26.03.2014, which was prior, as noticed, to 31st March, 2014. The appointment order was issued on 21.06.2014, though it is evident from the written statement that, oun account of the election process, the appointment process had been delayed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the National Council for Teacher Education h(NCTE) had issued a notification whereby the requisite B.Ed. degree in education was the minimum eligibility condition, and therefore contended that the amended rules could not grant the said benefit.

6. The amended State Rules could not be said to be inconsistent with the said provision, as, for the State of Himachal Pradesh, there was a relaxation on 17th October, 2012 itself by NCTE prior to the amended rules, wherein it was specifically mentioned that for appointment to the post of Language Teacher in Hindi and Shastri (Sanskrit), up to 31st March, 2014, such relaxation would apply, and a person possessing graduation with 50% marks in the subject would be considered eligible as per Clause 3. The relevant portion reads as under:-

“The persons possessing Graduation with fifty percent marks in the relevant subject shall also be eligible for appearing in the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the State Government in respect of teacher appointments for Language Teachers (Hindi) and fShastri (Sanskrit) made in the State up to 31st March, 2014, in accordance with sub- paragraph (iii) of paragraph 5 of the Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test under the said Act, issued by the Council vide its letter dated 11th February, 2011.” t

7. It is apparent that the rules, which were subsequently amended on 16th November, 2013, had taken this aspect