1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6970 of 2023 Date of decision: 11.07.2025 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Pursuant to the decision in Suresh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others1, respondents is- sued an office order on 17.03.2022 appointing the petitioner as TGT (Arts). The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to notional seniority, pay fixation and benefits against the post of TGT(Arts) from the date on which other similarly situ- ated TGT(Arts) were given appointments i.e. with effect from 18.02.2021. 1CWP No. 4337 of 2021 decided on 23.02.2022 -2- 2. The relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be allowed to him in view of decision rendered in Suresh Kumar1 The Operative paragraph from the decision reads as under : 10. As it is not much in dispute that the “Non Employment Certificate” which was furnished by the petitioner before the Selection Committee was in fact issued on 12.06.2020 as is evidence from Annexure P-9, which is a susequent copy of the same certificate which was issued by the competent authority, accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reassess the merit of the petitioner by granting one mark to him under the head of ‘none of the family members being in government service’. Thereafter, if the marks obtained by the petitioner are found to be higher than the last candidate selected under the category of Scheduled Caste (unreserved), then the petitioner shall be offered appointment against the post of TGT(Arts), which appointment shall be prospective for all intents and purposes. This Court has been informed by the State that there are vacant posts of TGT (Arts) available in various districts of the State of Himachal Pradesh. In this view of the matter, it is further observed that the last candidate so selected under the category of Scheduled Caste (unreserved), i.e. respondent No. 4, shall be permitted to continue and his services shall not be dispensed with. Needful with regard to the petitioner be done within a period of four weeks from today. In terms of above directions, the respondents were to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of TGT (Arts), but the said appointment was to be prospective for all intents and purposes. It was for the -3- petitioner to raise the grievance at the relevant time in accordance with law, in case, he was not satisfied with grant of prospective appointment. Having accepted the decision and consequent appointment, his claim now for retrospective seniority on notional basis along with notional fixation of pay from retrospective date i.e. with effect from 18.02.2021 cannot be countenanced, being barred by principles of res judicata. The present writ petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 11th July, 2025 Judge (Vriti)