( 2025:HHC:36641 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1226 of 2025 and LPA No.759 of 2025. Decided on: 30.10.2025 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ....Appellants Versus Parveen Kumari ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). CMP(M) No.1226 of 2025. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 126 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. LPA No.759 of 2025. 3. Consideration is sought to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1647 of 2022 titled Parveen Kumari Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 18.07.2024 and directions were issued to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Language Teacher, from the date of filing of the writ petition on the strength of her name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange Officer, Paonta Sahib, Distrcit Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh on 12.07.2012, with all consequential benefits. The monetary benefits to the petitioner were restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. 4. Vide order dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, District Sirmour at Nahan (Himachal Pradesh), the reason as such had been given by the said official, while deciding the representation of the petitioner that no such communication dated 11.09.2020 had been received in the office as claimed by the petitioner and she had never appeared/attended the counselling conducted by the office for the post of Language Teacher as her name was not sponsored by respondent No.4-Employment Exchange. Another ground was taken that she cannot be considered as eligible for the appointment to the post of Language Teacher as she did not fulfil the criteria as per prevalent Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed by the Government in the year 2013. 3 5. The reasons which weighed with the learned Single Judge while going through the records that there was sufficient material to show that her name had been sponsored by Employment Exchange on 12.07.2012 for appointment against Sr. No.82 for the post of Language Teacher. The clarification had been made subsequently on 11.09.2012 that the year of her passing B.A. was wrongly mentioned as 2001, whereas actually it was 1997. Resultantly, since the case as such was based solely on the ground that in spite of the name having been sent and she had not been given the appointment the rejection by passing the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 was held not to be justified. Accordingly, it was held that the stand of the respondents was not tenable. The denial of appointment to the petitioner by the respondents was wholly uncalled for. While dealing with the issue of 2013 Rules, it has been held that she had a right of being considered and it has been held that had she been considered in July, 2012, there was no issue as such of her not being eligible under the unamended Rules. 6. Keeping in view the above, we had also passed the order on 22.07.2025, asking the appellants-State to produce the first recommendation dated 12.07.2012 as there was nothing on 4 record to show and substantiate the same. The said order reads as under:- “A perusal of the writ record would go on to show that the specific averments have been made that the name of the petitioner has been initially sponsored on 10.07.2012 and vide clarification dated 11.09.2012, the respondent No.2-Sub- Employment Exchange Officer at Paonta Sahib, District, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh had clarified that her date of graduation was 1997 (1998) and not 2000. 2. Counsel for the appellants-State has vehemently submitted that the communication dated 11.09.2012 was not received in the higher office, which led to the rejection of representation dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure P-9) and has now been quashed by the learned Single Judge. 3. A perusal of the written statement would go on to show that there is no denial regarding the initial sponsorship made on 12.07.2012, nor the speaking order takes this into consideration. 4. Accordingly, counsel for the appellants- State prays for time to produce the first recommendation dated 12.07.2012. List on 25.08.2025.” 7. Today, counsel for the appellants-State has produced a photocopy of the order dated 12.07.2012, whereby respondent No.4-Employment Exchange, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh had sent particulars of as many as 105 candidates and the petitioner’s name also figured at Sr. No.82. Apparently, verification as noticed was made on 11.09.2012 mainly regarding the correction of the year of passing of B.A. 8. In such circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants-State that the name had not been sponsored, 5 which was subsequently clarified. The arguments now raised that requisition was only done upto the year of 1995 was not the reason for rejection while passing the order dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure P-9), which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition and now cannot be fallen back on. 9. The appellants-State cannot be permitted to build a new ground as such at the time of argument and the facts should have been pleaded in the written statement and the learned Single Judge could have dealt with the said issue. Once having not done so and appending the necessary material and neither the speaking order as such talking about the said fact that the requisition had only been sent upto the year 1995 would not as such give any benefit to the State. 10. Needless to say, if any such pleas are to be taken by any other similarly situated candidate, it is always open to the State to aver and rebut the same so that other persons do not get the benefit only on the strength of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 11. Therefore, we do not find any plausible reasons to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 6 12. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, are accordingly disposed off. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 30th October, 2025 (munish thakur)