Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3637 (HP)

Shaila Narang v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-11-11

Ranjan Sharma

body2025
JUDGMENT : RANJAN SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner, Shaila Narang, initially filed an Original Application 07 of 2008 before Learned State Administrative Tribunal, which stood transferred to this Court as CWP(T) No. 1763 of 2008 and upon abolition of Tribunal the matter has now been re- transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 353 of 2019, has prayed for, the following reliefs:- (i). That the rejection of the representation of the applicant vide order No. EDN- H(2)B(2)(D) 257/07 dated 15.10.2007 passed by the respondents No. 2 be quashed and the respondents be directed to appoint the applicant as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) consequent to the interview held on 04.11.2006 with consequential benefits from the date her juniors and person having lesser marks in the interview have been appointed. (ii) That the selection and appointment of candidates who have secured lesser marks than the applicant in the interview held on 04.11.2006 be quashed and applicant be ordered to be appointed as TGT (Arts). FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of petitioner is that pursuant to the interview held on 04.11.2006, some incumbents who were junior in batch-wise seniority and who possessed lower marks in interview were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers [Arts] by ignoring the higher merit of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an O.A. No. (D) 257 of 2007 and the same was disposed of by Learned State Administrative Tribunal on 31.07.2007 [Annexure A-4] and incompliance to these directions, the Respondent No. 2 Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, rejected the claim on 16.10.2007 [Annexure A-5] on the ground, that the petitioner was not eligible as the subject combination possessed by the petitioner renders her ineligible for post of TGT [Arts], as mentioned in the rejection orders. STAND OF RESPONDENT IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 15.12.2011 of Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh. (i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that a candidate should possess approved subject combination BA Honours in any School teaching subject with other two subsidiary subjects including English as compulsory subject should have passed from a recognized University in B.A. Part-I and B.A. Part-II. Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioner passed B.A. Examination with English with both elective subjects of Economics and Arts, and this subject combination is not approved subject combination for the post of TGT [Arts], as prescribed by the Government from time to time. Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioner passed B.A. Examination with English with both elective subjects of Economics and Arts, and this subject combination is not approved subject combination for the post of TGT [Arts], as prescribed by the Government from time to time. So far as, the claim of the petitioner that juniors possessing lesser merit were appointed. Learned State Counsel submits that such plea cannot be gone into when none of the juniors have been impleaded as party-respondents in instant case. In this background, the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition being ineligible, for want of required subject combination in BA and the case of the petitioner was validly rejected on 16.10.2007. NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. Petitioner chose not to file any rebuttal- rejoinder and the averments in Reply-Affidavit remained unrebutted. 5. Heard Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate., Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents-State. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection orders dated 16.10.2007 [Annexure A-5], does not call for any interference, for the reasons: (i). 5. Heard Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate., Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents-State. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection orders dated 16.10.2007 [Annexure A-5], does not call for any interference, for the reasons: (i). Firstly, the petitioner does not possess the required subject combination for the post of TGT [Arts]; secondly, for want of required subject combination in Graduation-BA the petitioner was not eligible for post of TGT (Arts); thirdly, the petitioner being ineligible has neither any locus standi nor any right of consideration and resultant appointment for the post in question; fourthly, the petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that the subject combination possessed by the petitioner renders her eligible for the post of TGT [Arts] at the relevant time; fifthly, mere participation of the petitioner in the Interview on 04.11.2006 will not confer an ipso-facto right of appointment, which is subject to the fulfilment of eligibility conditions prescribed for the post at relevant time; sixthly, even a perusal of Instructions dated 19.10.2020 and communication dated 05.11.1999 negates the claim of the petitioner, in view of the fact that the State Authorities have prescribed the subject combination for the post of TGT [Arts] as “BA Honours in any [school teaching] subject with other two subsidiary subjects including English as compulsory subject should have passed from a recognized University in B.A Part-I or in B.A. Part-II.” whereas perusal of the “Graduation-BA Certificate, Annexure A-1 reveals that the petitioner possessed the qualification of BA in English with Economics and Arts [which both were elective subjects]; instead of possessing required subject combination of BA with English and one compulsory and one subsidiary subject in terms of communication dated 05.11.1999, as well as Reply-Affidavit and the Rejection Orders dated 16.10.2007 [Annexure A-5] and Lastly, the petitioner has not established her eligibility as per the communication dated 05.11.1999 by filing response thereto. 7. Now coming to the claim of the petitioner that the junior possessing lower merit was appointed cannot come to the aid of the petitioner, when, the aforesaid junior has not been impleaded and nothing has been placed on record to establish that junior possessing lower merit was appointed. 7. Now coming to the claim of the petitioner that the junior possessing lower merit was appointed cannot come to the aid of the petitioner, when, the aforesaid junior has not been impleaded and nothing has been placed on record to establish that junior possessing lower merit was appointed. A bald assertion cannot be made the basis for drawing any adverse interference that juniors with lesser merit were appointed and that too when none of the juniors are before this Court in instant proceedings. No order can be passed behind the back of alleged juniors. In these circumstances, the contention cannot be accepted and is turned down. 8. Nothing cogent and convincing has been placed on record [supported by Rules-Orders] by the petitioner to establish that the petitioner was erroneously treated as ineligible during passing of the Interview on 04.11.2006 leading to passing of the rejection orders on 16.10.2007 [Annexure A-5]. In absence of any material having been placed on record, this Court sees no perversity, infirmity or illegality in treating the petitioner as ineligible for post of TGT [Arts] for want of required prescribed subject combination in B.A [Graduation]. DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed in the following terms:- (i). Rejection orders dated 16.10.2007 [Annexure A-5] treating petitioner as ineligible for post of Trained Graduate Teacher [Arts] for want of subject combination is upheld; (ii). Non-impleadment of juniors disentitles petitioner for any relief; (iii). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition as well as pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.