- (1.) In furtherance of the directions issued by this Court, the author of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 is also present in Court in person. The issue to be adjudicated upon is, whether or not the petitioner Renu Kanwar is eligible for competing in the process of selection for appointment against the post of Resource Teacher. According to the learned counsel representing respondent No. 3, the petitioner is ineligible as she does not fulfil the essential qualifications stipulated in the advertisement (Annexure P-5), whereas according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner fulfils all essential qualifications stipulated in the advertisement (Annexure P-5).
(2.) We have perused Annexure P-5. The essential qualifications for eligibility have been depicted therein as under :- "Qualifications" Essential : 1. Should have passed +2 class examination or equivalent, and 2. Should possess a recognized degree/diploma/certificate in the education of a. Visually impaired or b. Hearing impaired or 7. Mentally challenged. Desirable : 3. Should possess at least one year's experience of teaching visually disabled, hearing impaired and/or mentally challenged children. 4. Should have taken Punjabi as a subject in matric and should be able to converse fluently in Punjabi. 5. Preference shall be given to candidates who have proficiency in Punjabi. 6. Preference shall he given to candidates who possess a degree/diploma in the education of multiple categories of disabilities. 7. Preference shall also be given to candidates who are graduates and hold a B.Ed. Degree in special education or any other equivalent professional training in special education." The stand of the respondents emerges from paragraph 3 of the written statement, which is also being extracted hereunder : "3. That para no.3 of the petition as stated and projected by the petitioner is absolutely incorrect and denied. The petitioner has not done B.Ed. (Special Education) as required and prescribed for the advertised post of teacher and as further advertised. The perusal of the B.Ed. certificate of the petitioner clearly shows that she has merely studied special education as one of the subjects of the normal B.Ed. programme. B.Ed. qualification with special which the petitioner has done is not the same thing as B.Ed. (Special Education) as prescribed for the advertised post. Universities conduct B.Ed. with special education as a subject and B.Ed. (Special Education) as separate programmes. The passing of 10+2, B.A. and Punjabi Examination by the petitioner is a matter of record and needs no comments." A perusal of the position depicted by the respondents reveals that the respondents have treated the petitioner ineligible as she does not possess the qualification of BEd. (Special Education). In order to highlight the submissions advanced o.i behalf of the petitioner, in our order dated 2.11.2007 we had, inter alia, recorded his contention as : "The solitary reason for treating the petitioner ineligible emerging from the written statement tiled by respondent No. 3, is that the petitioner did not possess the certificate of B.Ed. (Special Education). Having perused the advertisement appended to the writ petition as Annexure P5, we are of the view that B.Ed. (Special Education) is merely a preferential qualification and not an essential qualification prescribed for the post of Resource Teacher. In order to enable us to examine the matter in its entirety, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the author of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 to be present in Court in person." It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner possesses the qualifications stipulated at Serial Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 in the qualifications, extracted hereinabove. The only dispute is, whether the petitioner fulfils the requirement of Clause (2) of the "essential" qualifications wherein it has been stipulated that for eligibility a candidate should essentially possess a recognized degree/diploma/certificate in the education of visually impaired/hearing impaired/mentally challenged persons. The fact that the petitioner possesses such a degree has been acknowledged in the written statement, inasmuch as it is acknowledged that the petitioner studied "special education" as one of the subjects of the B.Ed. Course which he qualified in 2005 (Anlexure P-2). During the course of hearing, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3 reiterated the aforesaid factual position by affirming that one of the subjects qualified by the petitioner while pursuing the B.Ed. Course, was "special education" which dealt with education of visually impaired/hearing impaired/mentally challenged persons. Thus viewed, we Dave no doubt whatsoever that the petitioner satisfies the requirement of clause (2) of the "essential" qualifications, extracted hereinabove as she acquired the degree of B.Ed. with one subject in the field under reference.
(3.) Our aforestated determination is supplemented on the basis of clause (2) of the "essential" qualifications, extracted hereinabove. It would be pertinent to mention that clauses (3) to (7) have been recorded under the head "desirable" whereas clauses (1) and (2) have been described under the head "essential". It is, therefore, apparent that the qualification of B.Ed. Degree with "Special Education" is only a "desirable" qualification. The narration of clause (7) of the qualifications for appointment against the posts of Resource Teacher also, reveals, that the possessing of the qualification of B.Ed. (Special Education) would vest a preferential right of consideration with the candidates who possessed the said qualification. It is, therefore, apparent that the qualification!l of B.Ed. (Special Education) was merely a "desirable" qualification as against the "essential" qualifications, and further that, candidates possessing die degree of B.Ed. (Special Education) would be granted a preference.;