RENU KANWAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In furtherance of the directions issued by this Court, the author of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 is also present in Court in person. The issue to be adjudicated upon is, whether or not the petitioner Renu Kanwar is eligible for competing in the process of selection for appointment against the post of Resource Teacher. According to the learned counsel representing respondent No. 3, the petitioner is ineligible as she does not fulfil the essential qualifications stipulated in the advertisement (Annexure P-5), whereas according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner fulfils all essential qualifications stipulated in the advertisement (Annexure P-5).

(2.) We have perused Annexure P-5. The essential qualifications for eligibility have been depicted therein as under :-

(3.) Our aforestated determination is supplemented on the basis of clause (2) of the "essential" qualifications, extracted hereinabove. It would be pertinent to mention that clauses (3) to (7) have been recorded under the head "desirable" whereas clauses (1) and (2) have been described under the head "essential". It is, therefore, apparent that the qualification of B.Ed. Degree with "Special Education" is only a "desirable" qualification. The narration of clause (7) of the qualifications for appointment against the posts of Resource Teacher also, reveals, that the possessing of the qualification of B.Ed. (Special Education) would vest a preferential right of consideration with the candidates who possessed the said qualification. It is, therefore, apparent that the qualification!l of B.Ed. (Special Education) was merely a "desirable" qualification as against the "essential" qualifications, and further that, candidates possessing die degree of B.Ed. (Special Education) would be granted a preference.