Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16738 (HP)

Kalpana v. State of H. P.

2026-03-07

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

body2026
Judgment : Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J. By way of present petition, the petitioner has sought directions to offer her appointment as Junior Basic Teacher (in short 'JBT') on regular basis, as has been done in the batch of 174 candidates, with all consequential benefits. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined the Rameshwari Teacher Training Institute, Sarabai, Kullu, H.P. (in short 'RTTI' ) in the year 1999, for obtaining certificate of Junior Basic Teacher. However, for one reason or the other, the said course could not be commenced till the year 2003. The petitioner appeared in the examination of Junior Basic Teacher in December, 2005 and obtained the certificate in January, 2006 (Annexure P-1). After completion of her course, she got herself registered with the Employment Exchange, Mandi, H.P. and was allotted registration No. M-279/06, dated 06.03.2006 (Annexure P-2). 3. The respondents/State had started the process of filling up the posts of Junior Basic Teachers on the basis of the names received from different Employment Exchange(s) of the Himachal Pradesh. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had given approval for filling up of 174 posts of Junior Basic Teachers from the candidates, who had qualified the Junior Basic Teacher examination from Rameshwari Teachers Training School, Sarabai, Kullu, H.P. (RTTI) and St. Bede's College Shimla. However, the name of the petitioner was omitted. The petitioner made a representation on 07.08.2007 to respondent No.2 (Annexure P-3) requesting therein to entertain her candidature for the appointment as Junior Basic Teacher and include her name in the list. 4. Vide communication dated 07.08.2007, the petitioner had also sought information from respondent No.4 as to whether her name had been forwarded to respondent No.2 in the list of candidates who had qualified their Junior Basic Teacher Course from Rameshwari Teachers Training School, Sarabai, Kullu, H.P. and if not sent, be sent. In response to the said communication, respondent No.2 wrote respondent No.3 on 08.08.2007 (Annexure P-5), however, vide communication dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure P-6), it was informed that the names of candidates trained as JBT from RTTI Kullu and St. Bede's College Shimla had been forwarded and hence no other left out case of JBT trained from RTTI Kullu and St. Bede's College Shimla is there. Bede's College Shimla had been forwarded and hence no other left out case of JBT trained from RTTI Kullu and St. Bede's College Shimla is there. However, vide communication dated 17.08.2007, respondent No.4 had informed respondent No.3 that though the name of the petitioner is registered on 06.03.2006, but her case being unique, for the reason that she had mentioned that she had qualified JBT course from District Institute of Educational Training (DIET) as a private candidate and in the form which she had filled in at the time of registration, there was no mention of RTTI and it was simply mentioned JBT from HP Board of School Education, her name did not find mention in the list of candidates. The petitioner had claimed that she had appeared as re-appear candidate and had passed as a private candidate while she was also a regular student of RTTI Kullu. 5. Respondent No.3 vide office order dated 24.08.2007 (Annexure P-8) made regular appointments to the posts of JBTs, but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the said order. The name of the petitioner was considered later on and she was offered appointment vide office order dated 19.07.2008 (Annexure P-10),but on contract basis, alongwith other candidates, whereas while issuing office order dated 24.08.2007 (Annexure P-8), the candidates were appointed on regular basis. 6. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the action of respondents not to offer her appointment on regular basis, as was done in the entire batch of 174 candidates, had preferred the writ petition before this Court bearing No. CWP No. 5420 of 2010, titled, Kalpana Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., which was disposed of on 23.11.2010, wherein this Court had taken note of the reply filed by the respondents-State, wherein it was stated that the name of the petitioner was not in the list sent on 27.03.2006 to respondent No.3 and her name was sent vide letter dated 15.09.2007 and gave direction to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action in the light of the decision made by the Employment Officer, without discriminating the petitioner, within one month from the date of the production of a copy of said judgment. After receipt of  copy of the judgment passed by this Court, respondent No.3 rejected the claim of the petitioner to offer her appointment on regular basis stating that the matter was taken up with the State Government, but the same was rejected on the ground that due to submission of incomplete information by the petitioner, her name was sponsored by respondent No.4 in the list of 8 left out candidates and after approval of the State Government vide letter dated 07.04.2008, she has been offered appointment along with left out candidates and further, at present, there is a Policy of the State Government to offer appointment on contact basis, only. 7. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by order dated 30.12.2010 (Annexure P-14), had preferred writ petition before this Court, bearing CWP No. 11544 of 2011, titled, Kalpana Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., stating therein that her case is covered by the dictum passed in CWP No. 1170 of 2010, titled, Bhawana Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. The said case was disposed of on 29.12.2011, directing respondent No.2 to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the decision rendered in Bhawana Sharma's case and extend a similar treatment to her. In case she is similarly situated, as the petitioner in said judgment, the needful shall be done within four months  from the date of production of  copy of this judgment. However, respondent No. 2 after a direction being given by this Court in the writ petition, rejected the claim of the petitioner by taking into account the fact that the petitioner did not mention the name of the Institute i.e. RTTI Kullu, in the registration index card, which was filled in by her during her registration in the Employment Exchange. Due to this, the Employment Exchange did not sponsor her name along with her counterparts on 27.03.2006 to the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi. Further, as per the prevailing policy, the Government had granted approval to appoint her on contract basis along with other left out candidates as JBT teacher in District Mandi in the year 2008. Due to this, the Employment Exchange did not sponsor her name along with her counterparts on 27.03.2006 to the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi. Further, as per the prevailing policy, the Government had granted approval to appoint her on contract basis along with other left out candidates as JBT teacher in District Mandi in the year 2008. The findings were returned by respondent No.2 that so far as the case of Bhawana Sharma is concerned, it was the mistake which occurred inadvertently at the Department level that she was left out in spite of the fact that the concerned employment exchange had sponsored her name, thereby, rejecting the claim raised by the petitioner being a similar situated person. 8. The petitioner has instituted the present petition before this Court claiming that since the respondents had wrongly come to the conclusion that claim of the petitioner is not akin to the facts in Bhawana Sharma's case, the orders passed by the authorities are not sustainable. 9. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed reply to petition and reiterated their stand taken in the orders, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents. It has been contended that the petitioner was not similarly situated because the name of Bhawana Sharma was sponsored from the employment exchange to the Deputy Director Elementary Education, Kullu, but while preparing a consolidated list of candidates received from various districts in the Directorate, her name was left out by mistake and the name of one Smt. Anu Sharma was mentioned twice, but in case of the petitioner, she did not mention the name of the institution in the registration index card while registering her name in the Employment Exchange. 10. Respondent No.4 filed separate reply and stated that in the registration index card, which was filled in by the petitioner herself at the time of registration in the Employment Exchange, there was no mention of RTTI, Kullu, as has been admitted by the petitioner herself, therefore, her name could not be included in the list sent on 27.03.2006 to respondent No.3. Respondent No. 3 had asked to forward the name of those left out candidates, who had qualified JBT/TTC from RTTI Kullu, St. Respondent No. 3 had asked to forward the name of those left out candidates, who had qualified JBT/TTC from RTTI Kullu, St. Bede's Shimla and from DIET and in response thereto, a list of 8 candidates including the name of the petitioner at Serial No.1 was sent by respondent No.4 on 15.09.2007 to respondent No.3. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the case file. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained her certificate of JBT from RTTI, Kullu as per Annexure P-1. The only controversy, which is to be adjudicated is whether the petitioner can be denied the benefit of similar treatment, only for the reason that she did not mention the name of the Institute wherefrom she did her JBT course at the time of getting her name registered with the employment exchange and filling up the form. No doubt, the petitioner had not mentioned the name of the Institute where from she had done her JBT, but a perusal of Annexure P-1 clearly reveals that the said examination has been conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. In the case of Bhawna Sharma, no doubt, the fault was on the part of the respondents/State, but after a direction was given by this Court to offer her appointment on regular basis with effect from the date of appointment of her compeers in the year 2007, on notional basis, the actual monetary benefits shall flow from the date of appointment, i.e. w.e.f. September, 2008. 13. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of appointment from the date when other persons have been offered the appointment merely on the ground that she did not mention the name of the Institute where from she had done her JBT course. The reasons which have been assigned by respondent No.2, while rejecting claim of the petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P-17), are that the facts in the case of Bhawna Sharma are not akin to the case of the petitioner for the reason that in the case of the petitioner, she did not enter the name of the institute in the employment exchange and, therefore, her name was not sponsored, whereas in the case of Smt. Bhawana, it was the mistake of the Department. No doubt, it was the mistake on the part of the petitioner not to mention the name of the institution at the time of entering her name in the employment exchange, but it is evident from a perusal of Annexure P-1, that the said certificate has been issued by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education and the Board had not mentioned the name of the institute rather it only states that it was issued from the District Institute of Educational Training (DIET), as mentioned by the petitioner. There was no requirement to mention the name of the Institute once the certificate also don’t mention the name. Neither it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner had not done her JBT from the RTTI, nor that the candidates, who possessed the diploma/certificate from RTTI of the same batch have been offered the appointment on regular basis. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment as was given to other candidates including Bhawana. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the similar situated persons who had also obtained certificate of JBT from the same Institute, have been offered appointment on regular basis, except 8 candidate including the petitioner, had been appointed on contract basis. Learned counsel has placed on record the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, for the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher Class-III (Non-Gazetted) in the Primary Education Department, H.P. (Annexure P-18), which were notified on 22.08.2000 and as per these rules, there is no provision to offer the appointment on contract basis. The Rules were again notified on 15.07.2010 (Annexure P-19), where there is a reference of contractual emoluments to the persons, who were appointed on contract basis. The respondents had not placed on record any Rules which provide to offer the appointment on contract basis when the petitioner had been offered appointment on contract basis on 19.07.2008 (Annexure P-10) and thus, once the Rules do not contemplate to offer the appointment on contract basis, the action on the part of the respondents to offer the appointment to the petitioner on contract basis is illegal and arbitrary. 15. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that since there is no mistake on the part of the Department and further the case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of Bhawna Sharma, the Department had rightly offered appointment to the petitioner on contract basis. 16. No doubt, there is no mistake on the part of the respondents/State, but at the same time, it is not denied by them that the petitioner had also obtained the JBT certificate from the same Institute, whose candidates were issued appointment letters by the respondents/State vide office order dated 24.08.2007, on regular basis. Once the petitioner had also obtained the diploma/certificate of JBT from the same Institute, she cannot be denied the monetary benefits for the little mistake which she had committed at the time of filling up of registration Index card, while getting her name registered. She cannot be denied the benefit of regular appointment from the same date, when the others had been appointed, especially when the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education had committed the mistake by not mentioning the name of institute, though it had mentioned the certificate issued from District Institute of Educational Training. Furthermore, as already held above, once there were no Rules of offering the appointment on contract basis when the petitioner had been appointed as JBT on contract basis, the action of the respondents, is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Once Bhawana Sharma had been granted benefits as per the direction dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure P-16) passed by this Court, the petitioner is also held entitled to the same benefits on notional basis, from the date when her other counterparts were offered appointment, till filing of the writ petition. 17. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P-17), passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as JBT on regular basis w.e.f. 24.08.2007 on notional basis, till the date of filing the petition and thereafter, the actual monetary benefits be given to her with all consequential benefits. In case the consequential benefits are not paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of the production of copy of this judgment, the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from due date till actual payment. 18. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.