2026:HHC:7829 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 529 of 2019 Decided on : 18.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Anita Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to take the petitioner on her services as contract basis as per Annexure P-4 office order dated 21.02.2014 with all consequential benefits and Annexure P-6 passed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the petitioner belongs from the ST category so the relaxation in the eligibility criteria should be given to the petitioner. (iii) That the petitioner belongs from the ST category so 7.5% reservation should be given in that recruitment, as 15% quota has been given to the Scheduled Caste.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:7829 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner, who belonged to Scheduled Tribe category had applied for the post of Language Teacher to be filled up by the respondents, on batch wise selection. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner had qualified Bachelor of Arts and Masters of Arts in Hindi and thereafter got her name registered with the Employment Exchange, Kullu in the year, 2000. The petitioner was qualified to be appointed as Language Teacher as well as TGT. Lateron, the petitioner had qualified Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred as TET) in the year, 2012 (Annexure P-2), making her eligible for appointment as Language Teacher and as a TGT Arts. 3. The petitioner was interviewed for the post of Language Teacher, conducted by the respondents in the month of February, 2014 and after verifying the documents submitted by her, she was offered appointment vide office order dated 21.02.2014 (Annexure P-4) and was posted in Government Sen. Sec. School Chansari, under complex Govt. Sen. Sec. School Kharahal, Distt. Kullu (HP), where she joined her duties. However, vide communication dated 19.01.2015, the petitioner was directed to attend the Office 3 2026:HHC:7829 of respondent No.3 on 22.01.2015, since a complaint dated 04.03.2014 had been received from one Sh. Deep Prakash, who raised objections regarding her appointment. Though the petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category, she was offered appointment as Language Teacher from the quota of General category. The petitioner had qualified the TET under Scheduled Tribe category by obtaining 89 marks, whereas minimum 90 marks was required for the candidates belonging to General category. 4. Respondent No.3 vide office order dated 31.01.2015 withdrew the office order dated 21.02.2014 with immediate effect, resulting the removal of the petitioner from services. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the action on the part of the respondents is highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing, her appointment was withdrawn. The petitioner was appointed by a duly constituted committee and since her services are governed by the Constitution of India, the impugned order is bad. The petitioner has also averred that she is a widow and her 4 2026:HHC:7829 husband was an employee in the Education Department, so she also deserves to be appointed on compassionate basis. It has also been averred that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, hence entitled to a special relaxation of 5% marks and thus was fully eligible. It has also been averred that no fraud was committed by the petitioner and further nothing was concealed from the selection committee, therefore, her appointment could not have been withdrawn. 5. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and have not disputed the fact that the petitioner did not conceal any facts. However, a stand had been taken that the petitioner was mistakenly appointed against the General category (UR) post of Language Teacher, despite not having the requisite essential qualification for the post, since she had obtained 89 marks in the TET examination, whereas minimum 90 marks were compulsory for the candidates belonging to General category. Thus, for want of TET qualification, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment against the post of General category. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have perused the case file carefully. 5 2026:HHC:7829 7. The petitioner had come to this Court immediately when office order dated 31.01.2015 withdrawing her appointment order dated 21.02.2014 was passed. This Court vide order dated 05.02.2015 had stayed the operation of impugned order dated 31.01.2015. 8. It is not in dispute that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before withdrawing appointment order dated 21.02.2014, except a communication dated 19.01.2015, whereby she was asked to attend the office on 22.01.2015. The respondents did not take any active steps to get the stay order dated 05.02.2015 passed by this Court, vacated by filing an application for vacation of stay. Not only this, even a short reply to the petition was filed on 07.03.2018 i.e. after three years of stay orders passed by this Court. 9. It is by now settled in a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case there is no fault on the part of the candidate in securing appointment, he or she cannot be penalized for the acts of the employer who offered such appointment. However, in the present case, the petitioner admittedly belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and had qualified TET examination, but fell short 6 2026:HHC:7829 of one mark for being considered for the post of Language Teacher in open category, since 90 marks were required, though eligible to be appointed under Scheduled Tribe category. It is also settled law that before terminating the services of an employee, he/she has a right to be heard. However, in the present case the no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating her services or withdrawal of the earlier order of appointment dated 21.02.2014. In sequel to the appointment order dated 21.02.2014, the petitioner had joined her duties with the respondents and she was for the first time informed about the complaint having been lodged against her vide communication dated 19.01.2015, when she was asked to bring her testimonials. Neither in the reply the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts nor the same is emanating from the impugned office order dated 31.01.2015. 10. As already observed above, there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner when she was offered the appointment on the post of Language Teacher. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed against the post of Language 7 2026:HHC:7829 Teacher. The only impediment was that instead of obtaining 90 marks in the TET examination out of 150, she had secured 89 marks. No doubt there was no post meant for a candidate of Scheduled Tribe category to be offered appointment as Language Teacher, but the petitioner being Scheduled Tribe category candidate could have been considered for the post of Language Teacher under General category candidate. The State Government has provided relaxation of marks with respect to reserved category candidates to be appointed against the post of LT under ST category, but even if the said aspect is ignored and not considered, the petitioner who had served with the respondents fairly for one year at the time of issuing the impugned order has not been granted reasonable opportunity of being heard coupled with the fact that there is no fault on her part at the time of offering her appointment. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar set of facts had considered the matter and held that if a person has been imparted training and thereafter had efficiently served with the employer for more than three years and also the termination will adversely affect the employee, the said 8 2026:HHC:7829 termination order cannot sustain. Reference in this regrad is made to Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC, 494, and the relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereinunder:- “28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.” 12. Again a similar issue had cropped up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anmol Kumar Tiwari and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2021) 5 SCC 424, wherein the High Court had directed the reinstatement of the employees, holding that though the employees were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in a regular manner, but since they were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities, they cannot be punished for no fault of theirs. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first 9 2026:HHC:7829 relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the Writ Petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh case, where this Court considered that the Appellants-therein were appointed due to an error committed by the Respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the Appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the Appellants therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the Writ Petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case, we are in agreement with the High Court that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of Contempt, the Writ Petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present.” 13. Since the dispute in the present case is also covered by the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court coupled with the fact that the petitioner had been discharging her duties with the respondents in sequel to the office order dated 21.02.2014, it would be too harsh to upheld the order dated 31.01.2015, especially when there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. Not only this, as already observed 10 2026:HHC:7829 above, the respondents did not take any effective steps to get the stay order vacated, granted by this Court, except for filing a reply which too, after three years from the date of grant of stay. 14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.01.2015 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside, with further direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner at par with other employees, who were offered appointment with her along with all consequential benefits. In case, the consequential orders regarding regularization and the arrears are not paid to the petitioner within three months from today, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the due date, till its payment. However, no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 18 th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge