( 2025:HHC:23951 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.343 of 2019 Decided on: 23rd July, 2025 Bhag Singh .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “7.1) That the applicant may be held be appointed as JBT in the respondent department w.e.f. 18.10.1989 (date of joining on ad hoc basis) and the said ad hoc service may be ordered to be counted for all intents and purposes. 7.2) That the impugned seniority list dated 16.3.2006, Annexure A-1, may be quashed and set aside to the extent it excludes the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by the applicant. 7.3) That any order passed consequent to the impugned seniority list dated 16.3.2006, may also be quashed and set aside. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:23951 ) 2 7.4) That the respondent department may be directed to re- draw the seniority of JBT's in District Sirmour in accordance with the aforesaid prayer.” 3. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as JBT Teacher on 29.09.1989 in Government Primary School, Kotibounch, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. on ad-hoc basis. As per petitioner, his ad-hoc appointment was made against a clear cut vacancy. He was qualified to be appointed as JBT Teacher. He continued to work in the same capacity till his appointment on regular basis. 4. As per petitioner, he was appointed as JBT Teacher on regular basis w.e.f. 01.03.1990. 5. In the year 2003, as per office memo dated 23.08.2003 issued by the Deputy Director (Primary Education), District Sirmour to all the Block Education Officers of the district, the ACRs of the JBTs were called for the purpose of making promotion to the post of Head Teachers. In the said memo, name of petitioner figured at Serial No.46 and his date of appointment was shown as 18.10.1989. Later, vide office order dated 07.11.2003, JBT Teachers were promoted/posted as Head Teachers and the ( 2025:HHC:23951 ) 3 incumbent junior to the petitioner i.e respondents No.4 and 5 were promoted, whereas, petitioner was left out. 6. Petitioner made representation against the order dated 07.11.2003. The petitioner vide order dated 20.11.2003 issued by the 3rd respondent was posted to work as Head Teacher in Government Primary School, Bandali Education Block, Shillai, District Sirmour. In compliance, the petitioner joined on 24.11.2003, however, vide order dated 17.12.2003, the earlier order dated 20.11.2003 was withdrawn, which forced the petitioner to prefer Original Application No.66 of 2004 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. By an interim order dated 08.01.2004, the operation of impugned order dated 17.12.2003 was stayed. 7. In the aforesaid factual background, the precise claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled for consideration of entire period of his ad-hoc services for the purposes of seniority and other related service benefits. 8. The official respondents have filed reply and have contested the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that initially the appointment of the petitioner as JBT Teacher was on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 18.10.1989 and thereafter, on the ( 2025:HHC:23951 ) 4 recommendations of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, he was appointed as regular JBT Teacher on 01.03.1990. After his selection, the petitioner joined as such on 12.03.1990. Accordingly, the seniority position of the petitioner finds place in the seniority list according to the merit of the selection. 9. Though the petitioner has filed rejoinder, but the contention raised by the respondents, as noticed above, has not been rebutted or controverted. That being so, the petitioner having consciously and voluntarily opted for fresh appointment after participating in the selection process cannot turn around to say that his ad-hoc service was liable to be counted for the purpose of seniority. In the facts and circumstances there is clear disjunct between the ad-hoc and regular services, which is result of altogether different selection process. 10. Thus, in my considered view, the petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. July 23, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge