( 2026:HHC:21564 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.7265 of 2020 Decided on: 03.06.2026 Uploaded on: 03.06.2026 Rajni ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.A.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State. Ms.Anchal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i. That the respondents may be directed to declare the result of the applicant against the post of Language Teacher (batch wise) on contract basis held on 17.9.2016. ii. That on declaration of the result of the applicant, the respondents may be directed to issue appointment letter in her favour and provide all consequential benefits like seniority, monetary benefits and regularisation from the date juniors appointed against the post of Language Teacher (batch wise).” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:21564 ) 2 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner belongs to General IRDP category and had obtained her degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Education in the years 2006 and 2009, respectively. The petitioner had also qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test (in short TET), for her appointment to the post of Language Teacher (in short LT). Respondent No.2 had issued letter dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure A-2) for filling up 400 posts of LT in all Districts in the State and 52 posts in District Hamirpur. As per the “Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department, Language Teacher, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules (First Amendment) Rules, 2013 (for short ‘R&P Rules) (Annexure A-1), 75% posts were to be filled- up by direct recruitment on regular basis or on contract basis, out of which 37.5% through the concerned recruiting agency and remaining 37.5% by batch wise at the department level. Rest 25% by promotion from amongst JBT working in Government Primary Schools, fulfilling minimum requirement as per R&P Rules. In pursuance of letter dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure A-2), the Employment Exchanges were asked to sponsor the names and the date of counseling/interview in District Hamirpur was fixed on 13.09.2016, which date was later on postponed to 17.09.2016, since 13.09.2016 was a public holiday. The petitioner appeared in the ( 2026:HHC:21564 ) 3 interview conducted by the Interview Committee on 17.09.2016. However, she was not selected and the candidates, who were junior to her, were selected and offered appointments. It has been alleged that the appointment letters were issued only to those, who had subsequently appeared in the interview held on 14.10.2016. The action on the part of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for appointment to the post of LT on batch wise in spite of her name duly been sponsored by the employment exchange and also being meritorious and senior in her batch, is totally illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious and violative of Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.3 has no authority to ignore the seniority and merit of any eligible candidate. Once the petitioner had appeared in the interview held on 17.09.2016, there was no occasion for respondent No.3 to issue another fresh intimation letter dated 29.09.2016 for sponsoring further names of the candidates against the post of LT. 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition is not maintainable. It is also averred that The National Council for Teachers Education (in short “NCTE”) had framed regulations 2001 called “National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) to determine the minimum qualifications for ( 2026:HHC:21564 ) 4 recruitment of teachers to bring uniformity in educational qualification of teachers. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which has been enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2010, provides that any person possessing such minimum qualification as laid down by the academic authority, authorized by the Central Government, shall be eligible for appointment as Teacher. As per qualification prescribed by NCTE notified on 23.08.2010, a teacher, who is teaching classes 6 to 8 has to be minimum 10+2 with 50% marks/graduate in addition to diploma in respective field, besides passing of TET is a compulsory qualification. As per R&P Rules dated 16.11.2013, for batchwise recruitment to be made after 31.03.2014, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). The Government of Himachal Pradesh had allocated 52 posts of LT to be filled up in District Hamirpur with the criteria to fill 37.5% through HPSSSB, Hamirpur, 37.5% through batchwise basis and 25% by promotion from JBT category. The petitioner appeared against the post of un-reserved IRDP quota (batch wise), for which, only two posts were allocated according to 200 point reservation roster, in which, the last candidate to whom appointment order was issued had completed her graduation (B.A.) on 27.06.1996 and B.Ed. on 14.05.1999, whereas the petitioner had completed her ( 2026:HHC:21564 ) 5 graduation on 21.07.1996 and B.Ed. on 05.05.2009 and thus as per merit list of LT General IRDP, the petitioner stood at Serial No.10. It has further been averred that names of the candidates who were also sponsored, did not fulfill the condition of 50% marks as per prevailing R&P Rules, and, therefore, on 27.09.2016, the names of eligible candidates were again sought from the concerned employment exchanges and consequently, these candidates were called for counselling/interview, vide letter dated 29.09.2016 and the entire recruitment process was concluded as per provisions of R&P Rules. As such, it is pleaded that there is no substance in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. Respondent No.5 filed separate reply and averred that the petition is not maintainable. It was further averred that her name was sponsored by the employment exchange in the category of general IRDP as she belongs to said category and not from the OBC category. She also placed on record IRDP certificate (Annexure R-5/1). 5. The petitioner filed rejoinders to the replies and not disputed the fact of marks secured by her and the last candidate, who has been selected against the post of IRDP unreserved as LT. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. ( 2026:HHC:21564 ) 6 7. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that respondent No.5, who was selected against the post of unreserved IRDP had obtained her degree of B.A. and B.Ed. prior to her. As per Annexure P-5 placed on record by the petitioner, respondent No.5 has done her B.A. in the year 1994 and B.Ed. in the year 1996, which is also evident from Annexure R-5/1, though in the reply filed by the respondents-State, her passing of B.A. and B.Ed. has been shown on 27.06.1996 and B.Ed. on 14.05.1999 whereas, the petitioner had obtained the aforementioned degrees on 21.07.1996 and 05.05.2009, respectively, that is admittedly after respondent No.5. As per R&P Rules notified on 16.11.2013, which were in vogue, when the process for filling up the posts of LT, on batch wise basis, was conducted, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of B.A. with Hindi as elective subject/B.A., after Prabhakar by passing English and additional subject/M.A. Hindi on the basis of which eligibility of the candidate is reckoned. Further, for batch wise recruitment to be made after 31.03.2014, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). Admittedly, in the case of respondent No.5, she had acquired the qualification of B.Ed. in the year 1996 as per Annexure A-5 appended by the petitioner though mentioned as 1999 in the reply by respondents- ( 2026:HHC:21564 ) 7 State and the petitioner had acquired the qualification of B.Ed. in the year 2009. Since respondent No.5 had acquired the qualification of B.Ed. earlier to the petitioner, no illegality has been committed by the respondents-State in making selection and appointment of respondent No.5 on batch wise basis, especially when the R&P Rules specifically provide that for making selection to the post of LT as per R&P Rules, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of B.Ed. 8. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 3rd June, 2026 Judge (naveen)