Himachal Pradesh High Court
Devender Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others on 28 February, 2015
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7291 of 2014
Reserved on: February 25, 2015.
.
Pronounced on: February 28, 2015.
Devender Kumar ..........Petitioner.
versus
State of H.P. and others. ...........Respondents.
___________________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General,
with M/s Romesh Verma & Anup Rattan,
Addl.A.Gs. and Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for
respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
____________________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.
By the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing and setting aside of Annexures PH and PJ, (letters dated 9th September, 2014 and 22nd September, 2014, respectively), to the extent the same pertain to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to undergo two years special training instead of six months, on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition.
2. The facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are that the petitioner obtained degree of Graduation (B.Com.) in the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:40:57 :::HCHP ...2...
year 1995 by securing 44.93% marks. The petitioner came to be .
appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher on 18th October, 2004.
Thereafter, in the year, 2010, the petitioner obtained Bachelor of Education degree from Jammu University by securing 58.5% marks.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has wrongly been subjected to undergo special training for two years
4.
r to since the marks obtained by him in Graduation (44.93%) should be rounded off and be taken as 45%.
The respondents have resisted the writ petition on the ground that a candidate who has passed Graduation with at least 45% marks and one year degree in Bachelor of Education has to undergo training for six months. The petitioner has since passed Graduation by securing only 44.93% marks, he has to undergo special training for two years. Further, the rounding off is not permissible as per the Rules occupying the field. Therefore, the impugned orders made by respondents are stated to be legally correct.
5. We have gone through the notification, dated 29th July, 2011, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, pleadings and the impugned orders. It is specifically provided in Clause III of the said notification that a candidate has to undergo, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:40:57 :::HCHP ...3...
after appointment, special training. It is apt to reproduce relevant .
portion of clause III of the said notification hereunder:
"III (i) Training to be undergone. - A person -
(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed.
qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard, shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to IV up to 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education;"
6. Thus, it is clear from a perusal of the above clause that only those persons are eligible to undergo six months' special training who possess Graduation degree with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks and one year degree in B.Ed. up to 1st January, 2012.
7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show any Rule or Regulation occupying the field which provides that rounding off is permissible and the marks obtained by the petitioner in Graduation i.e. 44.93% can be rounded off as 45%, as pleaded in the writ petition, which he could not.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents specifically argued that rounding off is not permissible.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:40:57 :::HCHP...4...
It was further argued that the minimum marks which a candidate .
has to secure in Graduation were at least 50% and B.Ed.
qualification or at least 45% and one year degree in Bachelor of Education, which qualification the petitioner was lacking.
Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned orders are sustainable in the eye of law.
9. As far as the question of rounding off of marks is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr. vs. Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr., AIR 2011 Supreme Court 3276. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 7, 10 and 14 of the said decision hereunder:
"7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents during the course of his arguments relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Orissa and Another v. Damodar Nayak, 1997 4 SCC 560, State of U.P. and Another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others, 2005 2 SCC 10, Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, 2007 8 SCC 100 and Bhudev Sharma v. District Judge, Bulandshahr and Another, 2008 1 SCC 233. On scrutiny, we find that the findings recorded in the above referred cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Facts and findings recorded by this Court in the above referred cases are distinguishable to facts of the case in hand. Almost all the aforesaid cases dealt with post or vacancies where it ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:40:57 :::HCHP ...5...
was allowed to be rounded off to make one whole post.
.
Understandably there cannot be a fraction of a post.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
10 There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible.
The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
14. The High Court, in our considered opinion, has also committed an error apparent on the face of the records by allowing two more persons, who secured marks between 44.5% and 45%, to be called for interview who were not even parties before it and who had not even shown interest subsequently to be appointed subsequent to the declaration of the results of the examination but despite the said fact the High Court directed them also to be called for the interview only on the ground that they have secured more than 44.5% of marks but less than 45% marks in the main written examination in aggregate."
10. Keeping in view the pleadings, Rules and the law expressed by the Apex Court, the petitioner has failed to carve out a case for interference.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:40:57 :::HCHP...6...
11. Having glance of the above discussion, the writ .
petition is dismissed.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
February 28, 2015. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (Tilak) Judge r to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:40:57 :::HCHP