IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 16251 of 2026. Decided on : 24 th September , 2026 Madhav Maharawal Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: M/s.. Aasheesh Patial and Jyoti Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Grievance of the petitioner was noted in the following order passed in this writ petition on 17.09.2024: “CWP No.16251/2026 & CMP No.24166/2026 Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 and respondent No.2, respectively. 2. Respondent No.2 has rejected the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher (Sociology) advertised on 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner apprehends that such rejection is on the ground that he was allegedly not in possession of HP TET certificate prior to the cut- off date indicated in the advertisement.i.e.14.05.2026. Highlighting essential qualifications for the post in question as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 mentioned at page 21 of the paper book, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the TET conducted by HP Board of School Education, Dharamshala, but also by"any other agency authorized by Government" was admissible towards satisfying the essential qualification criteria; That petitioner had qualified TET conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education much prior to the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement; That the post in question was advertised under a scheme for engagement of teachers in Government schools affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education, therefore, the candidature of petitioner could not have been turned down by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has also qualified HP TET after the cut-off date, but before verification of documents. Learned counsel for the respondent No 2 to have instructions in the matter. List on 18.09.2026. Rejection of petitioner’s candidature shall abide by the outcome of the writ petition. Application (CMP No. 24166 of 206) to stand disposed of.” 2. On the next date of hearing i.e. 18.09.2024, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog, placed on record instructions to the effect that CTET qualification of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the State Government has not equated CTET with HP TET. Noticing this objection, following order was passed on the said date:- “Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record instructions dated 17.09.2026 from Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog. The stand of respondent No. 2 therein, inter alia, is that CTET qualification of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the State Government has not equated CTET with HP TET. 3 Considering the fact that post in question is being filled up under a scheme for engagement of teachers in government schools affiliated to Central Board of School Education and as to whether the TET test conducted by Central Board of School Education, which has been qualified by the petitioner, should be acknowledged as satisfying the eligibility criteria of mandatory TET requirement, let learned Assistant Advocate General have clear instructions from respondents No.1 and 3 by the next date. List on 21.09.2026.” 3. During the course of today's hearing, learned Advocate General submitted that CTET has been recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh as valid qualification towards satisfaction of Clause 2 of essential qualifications laid down in advertisement dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) for the post of Teachers. Further, instructions dated 21.09.2026 from Director School Education-Respondent No.3 were also placed on record, conveying as under: “In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the candidature of the petitioner may be considered for the post of sociology as the CBSE also recognized CTET as a valid eligibility qualification for the appointment of teachers in CBSE-affiliated schools. Therefore, candidates possessing a valid CTET certificate cannot be debarred from consideration for the aforesaid post on this ground. It is further submitted that clarification regarding the acceptance of CTET as an eligibility qualification for the posts of Teacher Economics, Teacher Commerce and TGT Hindi for the appointment of teacher in CBSE-affiliated schools were forwarded by this Department to the HPRCA vide letters dated 27.08.2026 and 05.09.2026.” 4 4. The only objection raised by respondent No.2 to the candidature of the petitioner was on account of his having qualified CTET conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education and not TET conducted by HP Board of School Education. That being the position, this writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the CTET certificate obtained by the petitioner as valid qualification, satisfying the essential qualifications for the post in question. The rejection of petitioner's candidature by respondent No.2 is, therefore, turned down. Respondents i.e. the State as also Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog, are directed to take all consequential action within one week. 5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th September, 2026. (jai)