1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11322 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.07.2025 Bhagwan Singh Negi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner’s grievance is to office order dated 18.05.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondent rejecting his representation. 3. Bhagwan Singh Negi vs. State of H.P.1 instituted by the petitioner seeking regularization of his services was decided on 11.03.2025 with following operative directions:- 1 CWP No.8532 of 2022 decided on 11.03.2025. -2- “5. The respondent has not disputed the factual position asserted by the petitioner that he is being discriminated viz-a-viz similarly situated PTA appointed Lecturers, whose services have been regularized under notification dated 04.09.2020 and who were in possession of only M.Phil. Degree prior to the cut off date of 11.07.2009. However, details of those persons are not available on record of the case. Though there is merit in the contentions of the petitioner, however, the allegations touching factual aspects of the case that petitioner has been discriminated with similarly situated persons viz-a-viz imposition of condition of qualifying NET/SET etc. despite having M.Phil. Degree prior to 11.07.2009 needs to be examined by the respondent. Accordingly this petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure R-1), in particular Clause 7(vii) and proviso thereof, and also keeping in view the regularization cases of other similarly situated PTA appointed Lecturers, who were in possession of M.Phil. Degree prior to 11.07.2009. This exercise be carried out within four weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is found to be similarly situated, as the others, he shall be granted same consequential benefits in lieu of his regularization as granted to other similarly situated persons. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” It is pursuant thereto that respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting petitioner’s case for the following reasons assigned in the order:- “WHEREAS, The Undersigned have gone through the representation dated nil received in the office on 25.03.2025 of Sh. Bhagwan Singh Negi made in view of Hon’ble High Court order and after having examined all the relevant records it has been found that Sh. Bhagwan Singh Negi cannot be considered to be appointed in the year 2006, when PTA (GIA) policy was in force. On the basis of above observations, it is found that his case is not similarly situated to others PYA (GIA) provided teachers who were regularized vide notification(s) dated 04-09-2020 and 17-10- 2023 and hence his case is rejected.” -3- 4. The above reason assigned for rejecting the case of the petitioner is misconceived in view of findings returned and conclusions drawn in Bhagwan Singh Negi1, which are reproduced hereinafter:- “4. Consideration. 4(i). The first ground of defense taken by the respondent for not regularizing the services of the petitioner, is without any merit. Respondent has not disputed that petitioner was engaged on PTA basis as Lecturer (Public Administration) on 25.07.2005. This appointment was prior to coming into force of Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006. Thereafter, a Committee duly constituted in terms of Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006, again appointed the petitioner on PTA basis on 19.08.2006. It is also an admitted position that respondent is paying grant-in-aid to the petitioner under the Grant-in- Aid Rules, 2006, w.e.f. 07.05.2009. The release of grant-in- aid to the petitioner is for the obvious reason that respondent has treated petitioner’s appointment to be in conformity with the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006. That being the position, the respondent cannot be permitted to contend that petitioner having been engaged prior to 29.06.2006, is not entitled to be considered for regularization. 4(ii). The second ground of defense taken by the respondent concerns petitioner’s alleged non-possession of requisite educational qualification either at the time of his initial engagement or as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules in place at present. 4(ii)(a). Learned Deputy Advocate General invited attention to the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Professor, College Cadre, Class-I (Gazetted) in the respondent-Education Department, notified on 27.03.2018 appended by the respondent along with their reply. The minimum educational and other qualification required for direct recruit(s), have been prescribed in Column No.7 of these Rules. Learned Deputy Advocate General has pressed following Rule 7(vii) of the aforesaid Recruitment & Promotion Rules:- “(vii) NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor in Universities / Colleges / Institutions. Provided that the award of degree to candidates registered for the M.Phil/Ph.D programme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/ Byelaws/Regulations of the Institutions awarding the degree and the Ph.D candidates shall be exempted from the -4- requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent position in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:- a) Ph.D degree of the candidate awarded in regular mode only; b) Evaluation of the Ph.D thesis by at least two external examiners: c) Open Ph.D viva voce of the candidate had been conducted; d) Candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D work out of which at least one must be In a refereed journal; e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in conferences / seminars, based on his / her Ph.D work. (a) to (e) as above are to be certified by the Vice- Chancellor/ Pro-Vice Chancellor/Dean (Academic Affairs)/Dean (University instructions).” Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that since the petitioner did not possess and still does not satisfy prescribed National Eligibility Test (‘NET’)/State Level Eligibility Test (‘SLET’) criteria, therefore, he cannot be considered for the regularization of his services, being not in possession of requisite educational criteria. 4(ii)(b). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the proviso to the above extracted Rule 7(vii). As per the proviso to the Rule 7(vii), the award of degrees to candidates registered to M.Phil/Ph.D. programme prior to 11.07.2009, would be governed by the provisions of then existing Ordinances/Bye-laws/ Regulations of the Institutions awarding the degree. Further, a Ph.D. candidate is exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent position in Universities/ Colleges/Institutions. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had obtained M.Phil. Degree in May, 2009, therefore, he falls within the exemption criteria as laid down under proviso to Rule 7(vii). It was also argued that respondent has applied the exemption criteria in cases of several other similarly situated PTA appointed Lecturers, who were in possession of M.Phil. Degree prior to 11.07.2009 by regularizing their services under notification dated 04.09.2020. That the respondent has adopted the same criteria while making regular recruitment, i.e. those in possession of M.Phil. Degree prior to 11.07.2009 have been exempted from NET/SLET/SET and their services have been regularized. -5- Attention was also drawn to Annexure P-6 appended along with CMP No.17214 of 2024. This document was taken on record under order dated 04.11.2024. As per Annexure P-6, the respondent-Department had proposed for regularizing the services of the petitioner, in view of his having obtained M.Phil. Degree in May 2009, i.e. prior to the cut off date of 11.07.2009.” A perusal of the impugned order makes it evident that respondent has not even cared to go through the decision rendered in Bhagwan Singh Negi1, wherein it has already been held that plea of the petitioner having been engaged prior to 29.06.2006, is not even available to the respondent for denying his claim of regularizing his services. Furthermore, in the impugned order, respondent has observed that petitioner’s case is not similarly situated to the others PTA (GIA) provided teachers, who were regularized vide notifications dated 04.09.2020 and 17.10.2023. There is no reasoning discernable from the impugned order as to why the case of the petitioner is not similar to other PTA provided teachers and who are such PTA provided teachers. Ordinarily, the respondent would have been called upon to file a reply to the writ petition, but such an exercise in the instant case is not required to be carried out, as it would be an exercise in futility. This is so because the respondent was required to pass the impugned order in consonance with the observations made and directions issued in Bhagwan Singh -6- Negi1. However, the consideration order passed by the respondent does not even refer to the observations recorded in Bhagwan Singh Negi1. For that reason alone, the impugned order dated 18.05.2025 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with the directions issued in Bhagwan Singh Negi1. This exercise be now completed within a period of three weeks, i.e. by 07.08.2025. A copy of order be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 16th July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)