IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.1799 of 2019 Decided on : 14.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Manglu Ram ...Petitioner versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Manglu Ram, initially filed a writ petition CWP No.2688/2012 which was transferred to Learned State Administrative Tribunal and abolition of Tribunal, the matter transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.1799 of 2019 seeking the following relief:- “That the respondents may kindly be directed to offer the appointment to the post of T.G.T. (Arts) to the petitioners.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance is that the petitioner belongs to IRDP and Schedule Tribe Category and he passed his Graduation in Arts in April 1999 and Master in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Political Science in June 2002. Petitioner is a physically challenged, being suffering from locomotive impairment to the extent of 45% as per Annexure P-3. He had passed Bachelors of Education Examination (B.Ed) from University of Gauhati on 04.05.2005 [Annexure P-5]. 2(i). It is averred that the State Authorities received to convey out special drive for recruitment challenged or visually impaired, hearing impaired on those suffering from permanent disability in August- September 2008. For this, an Advertisement- Recruitment Notice was issued in the month of August-September 2008 [Annexure P-6], whereby, out of total 52 posts to be filled by batch-wise selection, 9 posts of T.G.T (Arts) were meant for SC-specially abled candidates for various sub categories and three posts were meant to be filled for persons with locomotive- orthopedic challenged persons, in-addition to batch- wise recruitment, the recruitment notice issued in August-September 2008 [Annexure P-6] reveals that 50 posts of lectures were to be filled by direct recruitment from specially abled persons and 8 posts of TGT (Arts) were stated to be filled up and out of this, three posts were meant for persons suffering from locomotive impairment (Orthopedic). 2(ii). It is averred that in pursuance to the advertisement issued in August, September, 2008 [Annexure P-6], the Director of Elementary Education issued a letter in March 2011 (Annexure P-7) calling the petitioner for interview for post of T.G.T. (Arts) under the physically handicapped quota. Though, the petitioner appeared in interview on 21.04.2011, but despite his eligibility, the respondents have not granted the appointment to the petitioner against the posts of TGT(Arts) neither under the batch-wise recruitment nor against direct recruitment posts, which was illegal and unconstitutional. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES- RESPONDENTS IN THE REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, by this Court on 26.04.2012, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 24.05.2012, of Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that so far as the recruitment notice issued for batch wise recruitment is concerned, the petitioner did not fall in seniority as per the batch wise norms, for the reason, that the petitioner had passed his B.Ed. Examination on 30.03.2005, whereas, the last candidate who was selected on the basis of batch wise seniority, had passed B.Ed on 20.07.2000, who figured at serial No.9 of the merit list, whereas the petitioner figured much below at seniority No.91, against the posts of TGT (Arts) reserved for PHH (Orthopedically Disabled Candidates) under batch-wise selection. 3(ii). So far as, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as T.G.T (Arts) against the merit/ selection posts as in the recruitment notice, the Reply- Affidavit states that though the petitioner had appeared in the selection process but the petitioner scored 11.96 marks in interview and was shown at serial No.179, whereas, the last candidate who was offered appointment as TGT (Arts), on the basis of merit scored 16.33 marks in interview, who figured at Serial No.8 of the merit list. 3(iii). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that selection for the advertised posts of [TGT (Arts)] under the batch-wise recruitment as well as the merit- selection, was made by the State Authorities, after complying with the norms of selection in accordance with the rules. Reply-Affidavit states that two merits lists, one for batch-wise selection and another for merit selection post was separately prepared as per norms. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that no undue favour has been given to any other physically challenged (Orthopedically Disabled) incumbent as is being claimed by the petitioner. It is averred that the averment that Junior incumbents were appointed is misconceived, in view of the fact that juniors were selected against the merit posts, on the basis of their performance in interview and the petitioner having lower over all merit as per performance can have no claim against such juniors, who have higher over all merit. It is in this backdrop, prayer was made for dismissing the writ petition. STAND TAKEN IN REJOINDER: 4. Petitioner has chosen not to file any rejoinder so as to rebut-controvert the stand taken by the State Authorities in Reply-Affidavit, as referred to above. 5. Heard. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents, and have gone through the records. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts), against the posts meant for Physically-Orthographically Handicapped persons, either under Batch-wise selection or under Merit- Selection, is misconceived and is devoid of merit, for the following reasons:- NON-SELECTION UNDER BATCH WISE SELECTION DUE TO LOWER BATCH-WISE SENIORITY-VALID: 6(i). So far as the claim for batch wise recruitment is concerned, it is borne out from the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and settled law, that it is the seniority of a batch of passing the B.Ed qualification subject to fulfillment of the eligibility condition, which is made the basis for selection under the batch-wise recruitment. Averments in the Reply-Affidavit establish that in response to the Advertisement-Recruitment Notice dated August-September 2008 [Annexure P-5] and the Interview Letter dated March, 2011 [Annexure P-6] the petitioner appeared for selection against the posts of TGT (Arts), meant for Orthopedically Handicapped persons but since the petitioner was junior in batch-wise seniority for having passed B.Ed Degree on 30.03.2005 vis-a-vis the last selected candidate as TGT (Arts) who had passed B.Ed Degree on 20.07.2000. Thus, in terms of lower batch-wise seniority, the petitioner figured at serial No.91, whereas the last selected candidate under batch-wise selection figured at serial No.9 of the list. The name of the petitioner was duly considered as per norms but was not recommended for appointment against the batch-wise post due to lower batch wise seniority as per norms. Thus, the non-selection of the petitioner as TGT (Arts), against the reserved post, meant for Orthopedically Handicapped persons, under batch-wise selection [as in Annexure P-5 made on basis of batch- wise seniority teachers from passing the B.Ed. Qualification] under batch-wise recruitment does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Thus, the non- selection of the petitioner is upheld. NON-SELECTION AGAINST MERIT SELECTION POSTS DUE TO LOWER OVER ALL MERIT- VALID: 6(ii). Now, coming to the claim of the petitioner for appointment as T.G.T (Arts) against posts meant for Orthographically handicapped persons,in pursuance to the recruitment notice, Reply-Affidavit establishes that the petitioner was not selected for the post of T.G.T (Arts) due to his lower over all merit, who scored 11.96 marks in Interview and was placed at Serial No.179 of merit lists vis-a-vis the last selected candidate, who scored 16.33 marks and was placed at serial No.8 of the Merit List. Merely, because, the petitioner belongs to a physically challenged category (Orthopedically Disabled) as per the disability certificate will not confer an ipso facto right of appointment on petitioner. A candidate, including the petitioner, has a limited right of consideration, in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and applicable norms. In this background, the petitioner was duly considered for merit-selection but once on account of his lower over all merit vis-a vis other incumbents belonging to his reserved category. Thus, once the petitioner could not find place in merit against merit posts (reserved for orthopedically challenged persons) [as in Annexure P-5], due to lower merit, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for appointment, by ignoring his lower merit is devoid of any force and the same is turned down. 6 (iii). Reply-Affidavit indicates that the selection for the post of T.G.T (Arts) under two selections i.e. one batch wise recruitment norms and another for merit selection was conducted by the State Authorities as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the applicable norms and the non-selection of the petitioner after due consideration over due to his lower batch wise seniority (lower batch wise recruitment) vis-a-vis the lower overall merit lower merit selection] does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Moreover, once the State Authorities have taken a specific stand, to which, there is no rebuttal by the petitioner,therefore, in absence of any rejoinder, and coupled with the fact that it is not the case of the petitioner that the Selection Committee had either ignored the merit as Selection Committee had acted arbitrarily or in a bias manner, therefore, in absence of any such pleadings and cogent and convincing material on record, the stand of the State Authorities cannot be disbelieved. 7. Based on above discussions, the non-selection of the petitioner as TGT (Arts) after due consideration in view of his lower seniority (for batch wise posts) and his non-selection due to his lower over all merit (for merit-selection posts) does not warrant any interference, being devoid of any merit. DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition, is dismissed, in the following terms: (i) Non-selection of the petitioner as TGT (Arts) against reserved batch wise posts meant for orthopedically handicapped person (s) due to his lower batch-wise seniority does not suffer from any illegality; (ii) Non-selection of the petitioner as TGT/(Arts) against merit-selection posts meant for physically challenged persons due to his lower over-all merit, does not calls for interference; (iii) Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of. (Rajan Sharma) Judge November 14, 2025 (meera)