KAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought the following reliefs by way of this petition:

(2.) The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that Prabhakar qualification be treated as BA and Hindi Shikshan Parangat be treated as equivalent to B.Ed obtained by her from Kendriya Hindi Shikshan), Agra. The determination of equivalence of qualification is to be done by the employer. The scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. The Under Secretary (Education) has sent a communication to the Director, Education Department (Annexure PH) on 21.11.1988 whereby he has been informed that the petitioner was not eligible for the post of Language Teacher as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the post of Language Teacher require the candidate to be Prabhakar (Honours in Hindi) with matric (full subject) and Language Teacher training or JBT two years training from the recognized University/Institution. The candidate besides required to be as Prabhakar should also obtain Language Teacher training or JBT two years training from the recognized University/Institution. The appointment to the post is to be made on the basis of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The petitioner has not substantiated that the Kendriya Hindi Shikshan, Agra is University incorporated under the Central Act or State Act. The degrees, diplomas and Certificates can only be awarded by the duly established Universities/Boards etc. The documents placed by the petitioner are required to be looked into as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed for the post in question. The candidate must possess the qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Moreover, the instructions, if any, issued by the competent authority for equivalence of degree/degrees are required to be specifically adopted by the employer.

(3.) The stand of the State in the reply is also not in conformity with the law. The recognition is to be considered by the employer and not by the University. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner is not in possession of the minimum essential educational qualification prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the post of Language Teacher. The petitioner was 33 years at the time of filing of this petition. She is now about 49 years old and has crossed the maximum age prescribed to the recruitment for the post of Language Teacher.