Himachal Pradesh High Court
______________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 13 November, 2019
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.: 2303 of 2016
.
Date of Decision: 13.11.2019
______________________________________________________________________
Randeep Singh and others ....Petitioners.
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others .....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioners:
r Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate, vice Mr.
Anshul Bansal, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate
General, with M/s Seema Sharma, Amit
Kumar Dhumal and Divya Sood, Deputy
Advocate Generals and Mr. Sunny
Dhatwalia, Assistant Advocate General,
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for respondent
No. 3.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, laid challenge to Advertisement (Annexure P4), issued by the Chairman, SDM, Sadar, Temple Trust Shri Naina Deviji, District Bilaspur, H.P., vide which, applications were invited for filling up the posts of Lungar Helper (MPW), on the ground that the minimum qualification of 10+2 prescribed 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 2for being eligible to participate for being appointed against the said posts is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the condition which has been imposed of possessing the minimum of 10+2 qualification is an arbitrary condition because it is neither based on any intelligible differentia nor it has any nexus with the object to be achieved, which is distribution of food to the devotees. He thus prays that as the condition is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the same be quashed and set aside. No other point was raised.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3Trust has argued that the condition which has been imposed by the Trust with regard to the minimum qualification to be possessed by an aspirant for the post of Lungar Helper (MPW) cannot be said to be an arbitrary or harsh condition, because 10+2 is not such a high qualification, which the trust may not desire the aspirants to possess for the purpose of appointment to the post of Lungar Helper (MPW). He further submits that the nomenclature of the post which is Lungar Helper (MPW) itself demonstrates that the persons intended to be appointed are to be appointed as Multi Purpose Workers, therefore, it is in the interest of the Trust that these persons do possess at least the minimum qualification of 10+2 so that they are able to perform the duties which may be assigned to them as Lungar HelpercumMulti Purpose Workers.
::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 34. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned Annexures as well as other documents .
appended with the petition, this Court is of the view that there is nothing arbitrary in the minimum qualification which has been fixed by the employer for engaging persons against the post of Lungar Helper (MPW).
It is settled law that the eligibility criteria to be fixed for appointing a person to a particular post is the prerogative of the employer. Generally, Courts do not interfere with the said prerogative of the employer until and unless the Court is satisfied that the criteria, which has been so laid down is so arbitrary and harsh that no other prudent employer similarly situated as the said employer in given circumstances would do so.
5. Coming to the facts of the present case, the post in issue is that of Lungar Helper (MPW). The minimum qualification which has been prescribed is 10+2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the qualification has no nexus with the duties of a Lungar Helper (MPW), which is of distributing food to the devotees, is liable to be rejected. Simply because, the primary duty of Lungar Helper (MPW) may be to distribute food amongst the devotees, who may be visiting the temple, this does not mean that the employer does not possess this much of prerogative also that it may desire that the persons who are so appointed should at least have 10 + 2 qualification. Besides this, as has been argued by learned counsel for the respondentTrust, as these persons are also to perform other tasks complimenting the duties of a ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 4 Lungar Helper (MPW), like assisting the Trust in the purchase of food items etc. which are to be consumed by the devotees as also looking after .
articles etc. of the Trust which are used and utilized for the said purpose, therefore, such candidates at least possessing 10+2 qualification is desirable.
6. Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes at inequality. This Article provides that equals are to be treated alike and unequals are not to be treated alike. Reasonable classification is permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, provided said classification is based on intelligible differentia and said intelligible differentia has some nexus with the object to be achieved.
7. In the present case, the employerTrust has created a classification between persons who possess 10+2 qualification and those who do not possess the said qualification. This classification, but obvious is based on intelligible differentia, because the classification itself is on the basis of minimum qualification which a person may be possessing.
Coming to the nexus which this classification may be having with the object to be achieved, as I have already held hereinabove, as these persons are supposed to perform the duties of Lungar Helper (MPW) and also to do ancillary jobs which are analogous to the performing of duties of Lungar Helper (MPW), it cannot be said that there is no reasonable nexus with the object which the Trust intends to achieve by appointing only those persons as Lungar Helper (MPW) who have 10+2 qualification, ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 5 as a person with at least 10+2 qualification will be in a better position to perform said duties. Besides this, the employer is the best judge about .
the peculiar needs of a particular post and what should be the minimum qualification and eligibility criteria for appointment to the said post.
Therefore, as this Court is of the view that the minimum qualification which has been prescribed in Annexure P4 is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 13, 2019 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP