Pooja Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

For the petitioner : Mr. Parav Sharma and Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Draik, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. B. Nandan Vashishta, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶10

Respondent No.4 is proceeded against ex parte.

¶11

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (Oral)

¶12

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

¶13

i) That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for appointment to the post of PET on contract basis on batch wise w.e.f. the due date i.e. other candidates of the Academic Session 1999 have been

¶14

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶15

-2-

¶16

given appointment as such in District Kangra pursuant to the selection process undertaken at Annexure P-8 with all consequential benefits.

¶17

ii) That the letter dated 06.12.2019 at Annexure P-12 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶18

Admittedly, in the case at hand, the appointment by the petitioner is being sought to the post of Physical Education Teacher. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the said post have been appended as Annexure P-13. The same are dated 10.01.2011. According to the petitioner, the relevant qualification applicable in the case at hand are contained in Clause 7, specifically Clause 7(b). The relevant portion whereof as per the petitioner reads as under:-

¶19

Clause 7-Minimum educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment

¶20

(b) Bachelor’s Degree in Physical Education with fifty per cent marks (B.P.Ed) from a University recognized by HP Govt.

¶21

The certificate of the petitioner with respect to the essential qualification of PG Diploma in Physical Education is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-3. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the petitioner has secured

¶22

-3-

¶23

more than 50% marks. The same is dated 19.09.1999.

¶24

In this respect, attention has been invited to letter dated 03.11.2018 (Annexure P-8), whereby the petitioner had been called for counselling on 19.11.2018, for the post of Physical Education Teacher. Subsequent to the aforesaid, it is submitted that nothing was heard in the matter. Hence, the petitioner sought the information through an Advocate under the Right to Information Act in terms of letters dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure P-9) and 02.03.2019 (Annexure P-10).

¶25

Information qua the counselling held on 19.11.2018 was provided to the Advocate of the petitioner, who had sought information under the RTI. The information was supplied vide letter date 09.12.2019 (Annexure P-11). In the information supplied vide Annexure P-11, a letter of rejection of the candidature of the present petitioner, vide letter dated 06.10.2019 (Annexure P-12), was supplied.

¶26

From a perusal of the rejection letter, it is evident that the petitioner had passed her Post Graduate Diploma in Physical Education from Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Sciences Delhi. The same is affiliated to the University of Delhi. The said Diploma has been obtained by the petitioner on 19.09.1999. The Diploma so obtained by the petitioner was of a one year course. In the rejection it has been stated that the Post

¶27

-4-

¶28

Graduate Diploma in Physical Education, had been subsequently renamed as the Bachelor of Physical Education by the University of Delhi, vide its Resolution No.2 of dated 17.05.2001. The aforesaid nomenclature was also amended by the NCTE, vide his notification dated 13.03.2012.

¶29

Further in the rejection, it has been stated that B.P.Ed was a two-year course and the NCTE only for the Session 2000-01 had recognized the one-year diploma done by the petitioner in the year 1999. In view thereof, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, as her diploma could not be equated with the B.P.Ed and there was no recognition of one year course done by the petitioner in the year 1999.

¶30

Per contra, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the rejection order in the case at hand dated 06.12.2019 is well reasoned order and calls for no interference. It is further contended that since the diploma done by the petitioner in the case at hand is not recognized, hence, also petition needs to be rejected. Attention is invited to the essential qualifications mentioned in the Recruitment Rules Clause 7 specifically in Clause 7(a) of the essential qualifications contained therein. The Relevant rule reads as follows:-

¶31

Clause 7-Minimum educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment

¶32

-5-

¶33

(a) Senior Secondary School (+2) or its equivalent examination passed with at least fifty percent marks and diploma in Physical Education (B.P.Ed) from a University recognized by HP Govt.

¶34

The essential qualification as per the Dy. Advocate General, is a Diploma in Physical Education with a duration of two academic years, whereas, in the case at hand, diploma obtained by the petitioner is only for one year. It is further contended that since the essential qualifications were not being fulfilled by the petitioner, therefore, the case was rightly rejected.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No.5-National Council for Teachers’ Education submits that their stand is as contained in order dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure P-15), pertaining to the case of the recognition of the Institute, wherefrom the present petitioner had done her diploma. Based on the aforesaid, he contends that Institute from where the petitioner has done her diploma has been recognized from the academic Session 2000-2001 and the nomenclature of PG Diploma was subsequently changed to B.P.Ed.

¶36

In the aforesaid factual matrix, order dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure P15) granting recognition to the PG Diploma Course done by the present petitioner gains significance to adjudicate the controversy. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that Indira Gandi Institute of Physical and Sports Sciences (University of Delhi)

¶37

-6-

¶38

had applied for grant of recognition of the existing Course of Post Graduate Diploma in Physical Education (1 year) on 17.05.1997. The matter of recognition so applied was considered by the NRC. As per the decision of the NRC, recognition was granted to the institution, vide NRC Order dated 31.07.2000, for the Post Graduate Diploma of Physical Education of two years from the Academic Session 2000-2001. Hence, the one-year course done by the petitioner was never recognized. From the said order, it is also evident that the nomenclature of the PG Diploma Course had been changed to B.P.Ed by the NRC in its meeting held from 24.11.2011 to 28.11.2011.

¶39

From the aforesaid, it is evident that in the case at hand, the petitioner neither has a Bachelor’s Degree in Physical Education as is the requirement of Rule 7(b) of the relevant R&P Rules nor does the petitioner possess a valid Diploma in Physical Education, which is the requirement of Rule 7(a) of the relevant R&P Rules. In the case at hand, the Diploma was obtained by the present petitioner in the year 1999. From a perusal of order dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure P-15) recognition was only accorded post 2000-2001 for two-year diploma courses and it is for such two-year PG Diploma Courses that the nomenclature had been changed to B.P.Ed.

¶40

The Institution from which the petitioner obtained the

¶41

-7-

¶42

diploma in the case at hand may have been affiliated to a University, however, the course/diploma granted to the petitioner in the case at hand, by the Institution was not recognized by the NCTE at the time, when the petitioner did the diploma course.

¶43

What is the use or advantage of an unrecognized Diploma Certificate obtained from an institution, which was unrecognized when the diploma was obtained, came up for consideration in 2000 (7) SCC 618, titled Muthukumar and

¶44

Anr. Vs. State of T.N. and Others . The aforesaid was answered in the following terms:

¶45

“14………………We are of the considered opinion that before teachers are allowed to teach innocent children, they must receive appropriate and adequate training in a recognized training institute satisfying the prescribed norms, otherwise standard of education and career of children will be jeopardized. In most civilized and advanced countries, job of a teacher in primary school is considered important and crucial one because moulding of young minds begins in primary schools. Allowing ill-trained teachers coming out of derecognised or unrecognized institutes or licensing them to teach the children of impressionable age, contrary to the norms prescribed, will be detrimental to the interest of the nation itself

¶46

-8-

¶47

in the sense that in the process of building a great nation, teachers and educational institutions also play vital role. In cases like these, interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to larger public interest. Thus considering all relevant aspects, Petitioners' prayers cannot be granted. Hence we do not find any substance in the second contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.”

¶48

In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶49

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand

¶50

disposed of.

¶51

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶52

06^th March, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)

Pooja Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajnish Singh @ Jeet Vs State of Hp and Another

Virender Vs State of Hp

Yoginder Vs State of Hp

National Insurance Company Vs Suvarna and Ors.

Dilshad @ Rashid Vs State of Hp

The Secretary, Rural Development and Anr. Vs Milkhi Ram and Anr.