IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1374 of 2022 Decided on 12th March, 2026 Sunita Rana …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- a. “That the impugned order of rejection dated 29.02.2021 Annexure P-8 may kindly be quashed and set aside. b. The respondent department may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Craft Teacher w.e.f. 2002. c. That the respondent department may kindly be directed to redraw the merit of the eligible candidates and against the resultant vacancy, the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be selected as Craft Teacher w.e.f. 2002.” 2 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a process was initiated by the Department for selection of an Art and Craft Teacher, way back in the year 2002-03. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she participated in the said process, but, on account of non-award of 25 marks for experience as a JBT on contract basis, she was not selected. Record demonstrates that earlier the petitioner filed original application i.e., OA(D)40/2004 in the year 2004. Said an original application after abolition of the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No.11469 of 2008. On 01.04.2011, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court by directing the petitioner to file a representation to the Authorities, with further direction to the Authorities to decide the same. As per the petitioner, she was not aware of this order and remained under the impression that the writ was still pending. It is further her contention that somewhere in the month of August, 2016, she heard of the re-establishment of the Tribunal and thereafter inquired about her case and was informed that the case stood disposed of by the Court on 3 01.04.2011. It is further her case that she thereafter filed OA No.6818 of 2016 before the learned Tribunal, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 23.12.2016 with direction to the Authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner and in compliance thereto, impugned order has been passed i.e., Annexure P-8. 3. In terms of this impugned order, the following reasons have been assigned by the Authority while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. “That Annexure A8 is a Employment-cum- Character Certificate issued by the Model Public School Rasuh Distt. Kangra (in which no class and subject taught mentioned) duly counter signed by the BPEO This school is Primary school and the subject Art & Craft is not taught in Primary schools. Annexure A9 reveals that the applicant had taught SUPW (Socially Useful Productive Work) in Army School Yol- can't Distt Kangra w.e.f. 14.05.97 to 21.08.98 which is different and distinct subject and has no nexus with the Art and Craft Subject Therefore Annexure A-9 cannot be considered at par to that of Art & Craft. Annexure A10 is a teaching experience certificate of the subject Art & Craft taught in Kendriya Vidyalaya Yol Cantt Distt Kangra w.e.f 01.05.2002 to 22.02.2003 which was issued on 22.02.2003, therefore, not considered for the interview conducted in the year 2002. If it is considered for the interview conducted in the year 2003 i.e. on 27.07.2003 and marks awarded proportionally even then the applicant does not 4 stand in merit list as the last selected candidate has more marks than the applicant as per the available, office record. Whereas the Annexure All is also a teaching experience certificate of subject Art & Craft taught in Kendriya Vidyalaya Yol Cantt w.e.f. 24.04.2003 to 17.10.2003 which was issued after the date of interview conducted in the year 2003 i.e. on 7.10.2003, hence, not considered by the then selection committee. Hence the applicant's claim is not in consonance to the criterion laid down by the Govt. for selection of teachers and has rightly been denied weightage of the experience marks by the then selection committee. That during the year 2010 the applicant was selected and appointed as Art & Craft Teacher, being senior in batch and marks of teaching experience were awarded to her as during that time she produced the experience certificate as per the instructions laid down by the Govt. The applicant served in this department till date 31.03.2018, she attained the age of superannuation. In view of the above stated reasons, the experience certificates of the applicant has rightly been considered by the appointing authority and accordingly she is not eligible to get marks on account of experience certificates rendered by her at that relevant time. I found no force in the contention of the applicant, therefore, the representation of the applicant is considered and rejected.” 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to para-3 of the reply filed on merits and submitted that it stands categorically mentioned therein that even if the petitioner was to be awarded the marks which, according to her, were not awarded to her, proportionately, even then she did not fall in merit as the last selected candidate 5 then also was having more marks than the petitioner. This plea taken in the reply has not been refuted by way of any rejoinder, though the reply was filed as far back as in the month of May, 2024. 5. In the light of this fact and further in the light of the fact that the process was undertaken by the Department to appoint Art and Craft Teacher as far back as in the year 2003 and as on the day when the petitioner has filed this writ petition, she was 61 years old, that is to say that she had even crossed the age of superannuation, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner and the same is dismissed. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 12, 2026 (Vinod)