Date Of Decision: 11 Th October vs State Of H.P & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 16025 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.6506/2020 Date of Decision: 11 th October, 2023.

      Kishore Kumar                                              .....Petitioner.




                                                                                     .
                                         Versus





      State of H.P & anr.                                        .....Respondents.
      Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent r No.2.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral).

By way of this petition, petitioner has approached this Court

seeking direction to the respondents, particularly to respondent No.2,

to award him one mark on account of Training, as provided under

Clause-X of the criteria of evaluation for providing marks in respect of

shortlisted candidates after written/skill test for various Class-III

posts, adopted by Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission,

Hamirpur (Annexure A-9), wherein it has been provided that for

Training of at least six months duration related to the Post applied for

from a recognized University/Institution, one mark shall be allotted to

the candidate.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Admittedly, petitioner had applied for the Post of Physical

Education Teacher (PET), for which Essential Qualification was as

under:-

.

"Essential Qualifications:-

Senior Secondary School (+2) or its equivalent examination

passed with at least fifty percent marks and diploma in Physical Education (D. P.Ed) of a duration of two academic years from a University/Board recognized by H.P Govt.

OR Bachelor's Degree in Physical Education with fifty percent marks (B.P. Ed) from a University recognized by H.P Govt.

OR Bachelor's Degree with Physical Education as an elective subject with fifty percent marks in Physical Education from a University recognized by H.P. Govt.

OR For Ex-Servicemen candidates Senior Secondary School (+2)

or its equivalent examination with pass course of PTI from Army School of Physical Education, Poona.

Note:- 05% relaxation in marks will be given to those who have at least participated in International/National/SGFI/Sports competition or Position Holders in Inter-Zonal sports competitions."

3. Petitioner is claiming one mark on the basis of Certificate of

Vocational Course of Physical Training Instructor issued by State

Council for Vocational Training for completing one year Course of

Physical Training Instructor by the petitioner from J.S. VTC,

Dharampur Road, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, which was completed by

the petitioner in April-May, 2006.

4. Admittedly, prior to 2011, before amendment of Recruitment

& Promotion Rules, Essential Qualification to the post of Physical

Education Teacher was Certificate Course of Physical Training

Instructor of duration of one year. After 2011, Essential Qualification

has been prescribed, as detailed hereinabove. The Certificate Course

of Physical Training Instructor was completed by the petitioner in the

year, 2006, but after amendment in Recruitment and Promotion Rules,

to acquire Essential Qualification prescribed after 2011, he completed

.

his Bachelor Degree in Physical Education (B.P.Ed) in the year, 2014.

The Vocational Course of Physical Training Instructor claimed to be as

a Training Course Certificate related to the post by the petitioner is

not a Certificate of Training, but itself Certificate Course of Physical

Training Instructor and the same cannot be treated, as Certificate of

Training, as required under Clause-X (Annexure A-9). It was itself

Essential Qualification, which was acquired by the petitioner prior to

acquiring Essential Qualification and, therefore, it cannot be

considered, as Training completed by the petitioner after acquiring

Essential Qualification, as this Training Course was completed by the

petitioner in the year 2006, much prior to acquiring B.P. Ed, in the

year 2014. There can be no challenge prior to acquiring minimum

Essential Qualification prescribed for the post.

5. A Certificate Course merely for the reason that Certificate has

been issued by the State Council for Vocational Training and it

contains the word's Training in Course completed under the State

Council cannot be termed, as Training Certificate with respect to

Essential Qualification prescribed for the post.

6. Physical Training Instructor course was an Essential

Qualification for the post concerned and now Essential Qualification

has been substituted with higher qualification. Therefore, Certificate

Course of Physical Training Instructor cannot be a training course

enhancing the knowledge or efficiency after acquiring higher

qualification of Bachelor Degree. The "training" referred in Clause-X

.

(Annexure-9) must be an extra training in furtherance of the

prescribed Essential Qualification, but not a training/course inferior

thereto. It should be an additional training other than prescribed

Essential Qualification.

7. Clause-X of Criteria of Evaluation provides extra mark for

training related to the post. Extra mark must be given for extra

qualification over and above the Essential Qualification prescribed for

the post.

8. In present case, Certificate Course in Physical Training

Instructor is not additional qualification, but a 'certificate' course,

inferior to 'Diploma' in Physical Education and 'Bachelor Degree' in

Physical Education, the Essential Qualification prescribed to the post.

Physical Training Instructor is not a training, but is a Certificate Course

which ranks at lowest grade amongst Diploma and Degree. It is not a

training warranting grant of mark as per Clause-X of Annexure A-9.

Therefore, plea of the petitioner to award him extra mark for having

certificate course of one year in Physical Training Instructor is not

tenable.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that present

petition has been preferred on misconceived motion that Vocational

Course of Physical Training Instructor can be treated.

10. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any

merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed, so

also the pending application(s), if any.

.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

11th October,2023 (CS)