2026:HHC:29292 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3233 of 2019 Decided on: 14.07.2026 Suneena Kumari ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. None for respondent No.4. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has sought direction to the respondents-State to take over her services as Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre), after taking over the college where she was working on the post of Lecturer. 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was engaged as Lecturer (Hindi) in Shri Chander Dhar Guleri Degree College, Haripur, District Kangra, H.P. (in short College), vide appointment letter 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:29292 dated 01.09.2004 (Annexure P-1). The aforementioned College was taken over by the respondents-State vide Notification dated 20.04.2007. Thereafter vide Notification dated 19.06.2007, the respondents-State decided to take over the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff deployed in the College. The services of the employees, who were in the College were taken over, but the services of the petitioner were not taken over for the reason that she was not in possession of the requisite qualification to hold the post of Lecturer, Hindi (College Cadre). However, as per the qualification possessed by the petitioner, her services were proposed to be taken over as Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre) (Contract Basis) as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short ‘R&P’ Rules) for which educational qualification is Master’s Degree in the relevant subject with Bachelor of Education (for short ‘B.Ed.’) subject to the condition that she has to pass B.Ed. before 31.12.2010, otherwise annual increment will not be admissible to her. At the time of taking over the College, the assets and liabilities were also taken over. But despite the recommendations made as per Annexure P-7, services of the petitioner were not taken over. It has been averred in the petition that the 3 2026:HHC:29292 services of Ms. Savita, Ms. Madhu Awasthi and Ms. Meena Kumari, who were working in the College and similar situate, their services were taken over, however, the service of the petitioner was not taken over. The petitioner has also averred that despite making various representations, her services have not been taken over which act on the part of the respondents-State is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and submitted that neither any legal and fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed in any manner nor any cause of action accrues in her favour. It has been admitted that the College was taken over vide Notification dated 20.04.2007. However, after issuing the aforementioned Notification, another Notification dated 24.07.2007 was issued whereby four-member committee was constituted for working out the modalities of taking over of assets and liabilities of College. Subsequently on 23.08.2007, another Notification was issued to constitute a three-member committee to work out the possibilities after taking over the services of working under self-financing scheme in the College. As per this report, 17 employees filed their 4 2026:HHC:29292 affidavits and 8 non-teaching staff. The committee upon scrutinizing the personal record of the petitioner lying with the College did not recommend her either for college cadre or for any other regular appointment on the grounds that at the time of her appointment, she was found to be engaged partly on contract/part time basis and had been engaged by Secretary Managing Committee and not shown as a regular employee in the list of employees. Besides this, she had not qualified NET/SET. Thus, based on the recommendations made by the duly constituted committee, the respondents- State approved the appointment of various teaching and non-teaching staff as per norms fixed under the Rules as well as recommendations so made by the committee. In case of one Sh. Varinder Singh, he was recommended for Lecturer (School Cadre) in the subject of Hindi and the petitioner being engaged as stop gap arrangement by the Secretary and not on roll of College at the time of taking over, her claim so made in the petition being contrary to the factual position was found by the committee to be not legally sustainable or maintainable. It has further been averred that as per Notification dated 25.08.1994 (Annexure SA-3), the services of only qualified teaching and non- 5 2026:HHC:29292 teaching staff appointed one year earlier, who fulfill, prescribed department recruitment and promotion conditions, prevalent at the time of taking over will be considered for taking over subject to the approval of the State Public Service Commissions or Department Screening Committee from the date of taking over. The State Government has taken over the services of the staff of College in terms of the Notification dated 25.08.1994 and the R&P Rules prevalent at the time of taking over of the College. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents-State and controverted the facts. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that as per Notification dated 20.04.2007, Shri Chander Dhar Guleri Degree College, Haripur, District Kangra, H.P. College was taken over by the State Government and services of the teachers, who were fulfilling the qualifications to hold the post of Lecturer (College Cadre), were taken over and services of those teaching staff, who was not fulfilling the qualifications to hold the post of Lecturer (College Cadre), were taken over 6 2026:HHC:29292 as Lecturer (School Cadre). The services of the petitioner were not taken over by the respondents-State on the grounds that she was appointed by the Secretary, Managing Committee on the basis of her application on contract basis/part time basis till regular hand joins; her appointment was not approved; she was not on pay roll of the college; and no proper procedure was followed while appointing her. It has also been averred that she did not fulfill the qualification even to be appointed as Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre). 7. This Court vide order dated 24.10.2024, after taking note of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer, Hindi in Sh. Chander Dhar Guleri Degree College, Haripur, District Kangra, H.P., on 01.09.2004 on contract basis, which college was taken over on 20.04.2007 and thereafter a decision was taken to take over the services of teaching and non-teaching staff on 19.06.2007 and also considering the import of the Notification dated 25.08.1994 and the list prepared by the Departmental Committee in the month of June 2007, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner is eligible for taking over of her services as Lecturer (School Cadre) on contract basis as per R&P Rules 7 2026:HHC:29292 of Lecturer (School Cadre), gave directions to the respondents-State to file a supplementary affidavit that what action was taken on the proposal recommending the name of the petitioner for taking over her services as Lecturer (School Cadre). 8. In sequel to the direction given by the Court, the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed an affidavit stating that Annexure P-7, annexed by the petitioner, is a copy of appendix/proposal attached to the Cabinet Memorandum for consideration and the same was not approved as a whole by the Cabinet. The Cabinet approved to take over the services of only such teachers in staff, who fulfilled the requisite qualifications as per R&P Rules. The copy of note dated 09.12.2009 conveying the decision of Cabinet has also been placed along with supplementary affidavit. It has also been averred in the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner was not eligible for taking over of her services, since she did not fulfill the requisite qualification, neither for School Cadre nor for College Cadre. It has also been averred that as per R&P Rules, one of the essential qualifications for the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) was B.Ed., whereas the petitioner 8 2026:HHC:29292 was not having the degree of B.Ed. The R&P Rules dated 11.06.2009 (Annexure SA-2) have also been placed on record. Even the Notification dated 25.08.1994 (Annexure SA-3) issued by the State Government has been placed on record. 9. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar, it would be relevant to quote the essential qualifications prescribed under the R&P Rules for the post of Lecturer (School Cadre), Class-III (Non-Gazetted), in the Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, notified on 11.06.2009 and the relevant Rules reads as under :- “7. Minimum educational qualification and other qualifications required for direct recruits ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS.- (1) Academic Qualification.-Master's Degree in the subject concerned from a recognized University and (2) Professional Qualification.-Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) as professional qualification from a recognized University. OR Two years integrated M.Sc. Ed. Course or an equivalent course from a recognized University. “Provided that for M. Com candidates, B.Ed. qualification will not be essential till the expiry of period of three years from the date HP University allows B.Com/M.Com candidates to undertake B.Ed course." Provided further that for Contract Lecturers (School Cadre)/others already engaged for teaching, B.Ed. qualification will not be essential till 31st December, 2010. Note.-(i) In case of Lecturer (School Cadre) in Biology subject the candidate must have qualified Post-Graduate Degree of M.Sc. in Botany/Zoology/Life Sciences/Bio- 9 2026:HHC:29292 Sciences/Bio-Science (Plant-science)/Animal-Science. (ii) In case of Lecturer (School Cadre) in Commerce subject the candidate must have qualified B.Com. with Accountancy and Income Tax as one of the papers. Degree of MFC (Master of Finance & Control) is also eligible for the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in Commerce subject from a recognized University.” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid R&P Rules reveals that the essential qualification for being appointed as Lecturer (School Cadre) is B.Ed. as professional qualification from a recognized University or two years integrated M.Sc. Ed. Course or an equivalent course from a recognized University. Provided that for M.Com. candidates, B.Ed. qualification will not be essential till the expiry of period of three years from the date HP University allows B.Com/M.Com candidates to undertake B.Ed. course. A proviso has been inserted in the Rules that for Contract Lecturers (School Cadre)/others already engaged for teaching, B.Ed. qualification will not be essential till 31.12.2010. In the case of the petitioner, she was having the qualification of M.A., M.Phil. and thus, the qualification of B.Ed. was not essential to be fulfilled by her, once she was already engaged as Lecturer in the College and thus she was fulfilling the essential qualification to hold the post for Lecturer (School Cadre). The respondents while filing the 10 2026:HHC:29292 reply have averred that the appointment of the petitioner was found to be purely on contract/part time basis and further she was engaged by Secretary Managing Committee and not shown as regular employee in the list of employees. Besides this, she has also not qualified NET/SET. Once the petitioner was already working, even if on contract basis, she was exempted to have the qualification of B.Ed. and thus eligible in all four to take over her services as Lecturer (School Cadre), when the services of other employees were taken over by the respondents-State. Though while filing the supplementary affidavit a justification has again been given that the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite qualifications as per R&P Rules, but it is not known that how she was not eligible. The respondents-State has wrongly construed that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Lecturer (School Cadre). 11. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the essential qualification cannot be relaxed and since the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite qualification to hold the post of Lecturer (School Cadre), there is no illegality having been committed by the respondents-State in not taking over her services. He placed 11 2026:HHC:29292 reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himakshi vs. Rahul Verma and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 642. There is no quarrel with respect to the preposition as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment that the essential qualification cannot be relaxed. The same can be relaxed only in case the Rules so prescribe. However, in the present case, the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not attracted for the reason that here the petitioner was fulfilling the qualification to hold the post of Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre), as evident from perusal of R&P Rules quoted hereinabove. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not possessing the qualification of B.Ed. which is sine qua non for appointment to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) as per the R&P Rules. However, the said submission deserves to be rejected in view of the proviso contained in the R&P Rules, which says that for contract Lecturers (School Cadre)/others already engaged for teaching, B.Ed. qualification will not be essential till 31.12.2010. In the present case, the College where the petitioner was working 12 2026:HHC:29292 as Lecturer, Hindi (College Cadre) was taken over as per Notification dated 20.04.2007 and thereafter as per order dated 19.06.2007, the respondents-State had decided to take over the services of teaching and non-teaching staff and since the petitioner was fulfilling the qualification as per the R&P Rules mentioned above to hold the post of Lecturer (School Cadre), the action on the part of the respondents- State in not taking over her services is totally unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. The respondents-State in the supplementary affidavit has averred that the Annexure P-7 appended with the petition is the copy of the appendix/proposal attached with the Memorandum for its consideration and the same was not approved as a whole by the Cabinet. The Cabinet approved to take over the services of only such teachers and staff who fulfilled the qualification as per R&P Rules, meaning thereby as per the affidavit the services of the petitioner were not taken over only for the reason that she was not possessing the qualification to be appointed Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre). As already discussed above, the petitioner was possessing the qualifications to be 13 2026:HHC:29292 appointed as Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre) and thus, the action on the part of the respondents-State to not take her services on the ground, that she was not possessing the qualification is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. 14. So far as the services of respondent No.4 are concerned, his services have been taken over as Lecturer (School Cadre), though as per Annexure R-1, the committee had not recommended his appointment as Lecturer (College Cadre) or any other regular appointment. A justification has been given in the reply that he was having the qualification to hold the post and the petitioner has been denied the appointment only on the ground that she was engaged as stop gap arrangement by the Secretary and was not on roll of erstwhile college at the time of taking over. It is not known that on the one hand, the respondents-State has taken a stand that the petitioner was not eligible to hold the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) and on the other hand, has taken a plea that she was engaged as stop gap arrangement by the Secretary of the School. A perusal of Annexure P-1 reveals that the petitioner was offered the appointment as Lecturer, Hindi (College Cadre) and thereafter vide letter dated 09.06.2010 (Annexure P-5), it 14 2026:HHC:29292 was mentioned that the services of the petitioner be absorbed in Government service and she had also furnished the affidavit at the time of taking over of her services. Since the petitioner was working as Lecturer, Hindi (College Cadre) in the College, which was taken over by the respondents-State and thereafter, the services of employees, who have been possessing the qualification to hold the posts of Lecturer, (College Cadre) have been taken over and the teachers who were not fulfilling the qualifications to hold the post of Lecturer, (College Cadre) have been taken over as Lecturer, (School Cadre), the same treatment had to be extended to the petitioner and taken over her services as Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre). The plea taken by the respondents-State in the reply that she was engaged as stop gap arrangement by the Secretary cannot defeat her claim for taking over of her services, especially when the Cabinet had only approved that the staff, who possesses the qualifications as per the R&P Rules will be taken over and there is no other ground taken. Since the petitioner was having the qualification to hold the post of Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre), the action on the part of the respondents-State not to take over her services is illegal 15 2026:HHC:29292 and unjust. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General has also vehemently argued that since the appointment of the petitioner was a back door entry, her services cannot be taken over, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. However, the ratio laid down in the said judgment is not attracted to the present case for the reason that here the respondents-State had taken the conscious decision after taking over the College on 20.04.2007 to take over the services of teaching and non-teaching staff on 19.06.2007, in terms of the policy decision already notified on 25.08.1994. Once the petitioner was fulfilling the requisite qualification to hold the post of Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre), though serving on the post of Lecturer, Hindi (College Cadre) in College, she cannot be denied the benefit of taking over her services on the strength of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (supra). The ratio of the said judgment could have been applied in case the respondents-State had not taken the decision to take over the services of teaching and non-teaching staff after taking over the college. Once 16 2026:HHC:29292 the respondents-State has taken over the assets of the College after taking over the College, the respondents-State being a model employer cannot shy from its duties to share the liability also. 16. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that since Teachers Eligibility Test has now been made mandatory, the services of the petitioner cannot be taken over, since she has not qualified the said test. However, the said submission deserves to be rejected on the ground that since at the time when the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff were taken over, as per Notification dated 19.06.2007, there was no such test prescribed and the petitioner, who was already working as Lecturer, Hindi (College Cadre), the said condition cannot be imposed upon her. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has been deprived of her engagement after taking over the College when services of the similar situate persons, who were engaged, were taken over, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of her reinstatement with all consequential benefits from the date of filing the petition. However, nothing has 17 2026:HHC:29292 been placed on record by the petitioner, which can draw an inference that after institution of the petition, she has not rendered her services elsewhere. Therefore, the petitioner is only entitled for taking over her services from the date when the services of other similar situate employees have been taken over that too, on the post of Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre) with all consequential benefits except monetary benefits, which shall be paid notionally till today. 18. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents-State/competent authority is directed to take over the services of the petitioner as Lecturer, Hindi (School Cadre) from the date when the services of other persons have been taken over, after taking over the erstwhile Sh. Chander Dhar Guleri Degree College, Haripur, District Kangra, H.P., where the petitioner was working as Lecturer, Hindi (College Cadre) with all consequential benefits except monetary benefits, which shall be paid notionally till today. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 14 th July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge