IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12383 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Baljeet Dhatwalia …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 & 4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is an Ex-serviceman, is aggrieved by order dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby his appointment to the post of Lecturer (School New) (History), on contract basis, came to be kept in abeyance. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr.Vishwa 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Bhushan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though the petitioner herein could not have been denied appointment against the post of Lecturer (School New), pursuant to his nomination/recommendation made by the Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, Directorate Sainik Welfare, Government of Himachal Pradesh, but the respondents, under the erroneous assumption that the petitioner’s service in the Defence Security Corps (in short “DSC”) was on a regular basis, have attempted to defeat his rightful claim qua appointment under ex-servicemen category. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that petitioner, who had joined Indian Army on 15.03.2004 as Naik (TS), superannuated from Defence Services on 31.03.2021. On same date, he got himself registered in the office of Ex- servicemen Employment Cell Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-1) for civil employment sponsorship. Vide advertisement dated nil (Annexure P-1), respondents No. 3 & 4 invited applications from Ex-servicemen/disabled Ex-servicemen, widows and dependents of those soldiers killed in action, for appointment qua various posts in various departments. Petitioner herein, being fully eligible, applied for the post of Lecturer (School New), PGT (History). 3 4. Though vide communication dated nil (Annexure P-2), Sub Regional Employment Officer, Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, Himachal Pradesh at Hamirpur, sponsored petitioner for the post of Lecturer (School New), subject History, on contract basis under General Category, but fact remains that till date, he has not been given appointment. Subsequently, it transpired to the petitioner that vide communication dated 21.09.2024, Sub Regional Employment Officer, Ex-service Employment Cell, Himachal Pradesh at Hamirpur, requested Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, to keep the appointment of the petitioner in abeyance till the clarification from DSC with regard to nature of the employment of the petitioner prior to his joining Civil employment but after discharge from Army, is received. Vide communication dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure P-5), Director Sainik Welfare, Himachal Pradesh, requested DSC Record Office to intimate that whether petitioner, prior to his having staked claim against post of Lecturer (History) in the Department of Education, was enrolled in DSC or otherwise? 5. Vide communication dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure R-3), CGO, Asst. Record Officer for OIC records, clarified to Directorate Sainik Welfare, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh that petitioner herein was re-enrolled in DSC on 07.07.2023 and discharged from service 4 on 10.10.2024 at his own request. Since nature of employment of the petitioner with DSC was not disclosed in the aforesaid communication, respondent-Education Department did not issue appointment letter to the petitioner and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to quash and set aside the order dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) in the interest of just and fair play. (ii) That the respondents further may kindly be directed to offer the appointment to the petitioner within 15 days in accordance with Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel (Appointment-II), Shimla letter No.8-34/73-DP (Appointment-II) (Vol-6) dated 31 March, 1990.” 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 3 & 4 have filed reply, wherein facts as have been noticed hereinabove are not disputed, rather stand admitted. It is also not in dispute that petitioner, after his discharge from Army in year 2021, got himself registered in the office of Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, for civil employment, but before he could get civil employment, he was re- 5 employed in DSC. Though on the basis of recommendation/nomination made by the Employee Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, Department of Education selected petitioner against the post of Assistant Lecturer (History) under General Category against the Ex-servicemen quota, but kept the appointment letter in abeyance, pursuant to request made by the Ex-servicemen Cell Vide communication dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure R-4). Though Director Sainik Welfare Himachal Pradesh at Hamirpur, had sought some clarification from DSC Record Office with regard to nature of employment of the petitioner, but since no proper clarification with regard to enrollment of the petitioner in DSC ever came to be rendered on record by DSC Record Office, petitioner, despite his being selected, has not been offered appointment. 8. Having regard to the nature of controversy, coupled with the fact that no proper information with regard to nature of employment of the petitioner with DSC was coming forth, this Court, vide order dated 04.07.2025, directed learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 to clarify from DSC Records, C/o 56 APO, with regard to nature of employment of the petitioner. Pursuant to afore directions, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record 6 communication dated 11.07.2025 issued from the office of Defence Security Corps Records, perusal whereof reveals that DSC service is a contractual basis job, wherein JCOs, other Ranks from Tri-Services and Indian Coast Guard, are appointed, but on contractual basis. Persons appointed in DSC on contract basis though are entitled for pensionary benefits, but subject to their continuous service of 15 years or more in DSC. As per aforesaid letter, JCOs and other Ranks in DSC service are retired on attaining the superannuating age of 57 years, subject to other eligibility criteria. 9. Having perused aforesaid communication, it is quite apparent that petitioner’s previous service in DSC was on contractual basis. If it is so, there cannot be any impediment for the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (History), pursuant to nomination/recommendation made by the Sub Regional Employment Officer Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, Himachal Pradesh at Hamirpur, vide communication dated nil (Annexure P-2). 10. Though at this stage, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while referring to advertisement issued by Ex- servicemen Cell Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, thereby inviting applications for various posts in the various departments of Himachal Pradesh, submitted that as per Clause-3K of instructions, an ex- 7 serviceman, who after his retirement from Army or other defence services had taken regular job in Central Government, cannot be appointed under Ex-servicemen quota on the basis of recommendation made by the Ex-servicemen Cell, however, having carefully perused the aforesaid provision contained in Clause-3K, this Court finds that though an Ex-serviceman, who prior to his having applied for the post in question had not taken any employment through Ex-servicemen Cell on contract or regular basis, can be given appointment in Civil Department on the basis of nomination/recommendation made by the Ex-servicemen Cell, but subject to condition that after his discharge from army or other defence services, he had not taken any regular job in Central Government or Union Territory. 11. In the case at hand, it is none of the case of the respondents that petitioner, after his discharge from army, had taken any regular service in the Central Government or Union Territory. Similarly, it is not in dispute that prior to petitioner’s having applied for the post, in terms of advertisement (Annexure P-1), his name was recommended by the Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, Hamirpur, for civil employment on contract or regular basis. Now, since vide communication dated 11.07.2025, as has been taken note 8 hereinabove, it has been clarified by DSC Records that petitioner’s service with DSC was on contractual basis, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner herein is entitled to appointment against the post of Lecturer (History) under Ex-servicemen quota on the basis of recommendation/nomination made by Ex-servicemen Cell vide letter No. DSW Ex-Cell OC-12/2023-16.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), which fact has been otherwise fairly acknowledged by Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. 12. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as clarification dated 11.07.2025 furnished by Senior Record Officer for OIC Records, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Order dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby appointment letter of the petitioner qua the post of Lecturer (History) was ordered to be kept in abeyance, is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondent-Education Department to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Lecturer History. Since petitioner has not worked against the post of Lecturer (History), despite nomination/recommendation made by Ex-servicemen, vide Annexure P-2, he shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits, however, 9 having taken note of the fact that there was no fault, if any, of the petitioner, rather he, for the reasons detailed hereinabove, was prevented from joining the post in question in the month of September, 2024, period from September, 2024 till his joining, pursuant to instant order, shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 16, 2025 (Sunil)