2026:HHC:6188 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.193 of 2019 Decided on: 6 th March, 2026 Niranjan Singh ...Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Amir Khan, Advocate vice Mr.Vasu Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition, has prayed for quashing office orders dated 20.11.2004 (Annexure A-4) and 16.05.2005 (Annexure A-8). 2. Vide office order dated 20.11.2004, the petitioner who was engaged as Drawing Master (Para Teacher), was relieved of his duties w.e.f. 20.11.2004 and vide order dated 16.05.2005, the original application, which was ordered to be treated as representation, was decided, whereby it was held that the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period till the date of termination. However, he was not held entitled to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6188 any other relief, in view of Annexure A-5, which is general in character and does not govern the case of the petitioner. 3. As per pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner was selected vide office order dated 11.06.2004(Annexure A-1) as Drawing Master by the Selection Committee of Para Teacher’s Policy, 2003 and posted in Government Senior Secondary School, Saribasa, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. In pursuance of the said order, he had joined his duties with the respondents on 17.06.2004 and vide office order dated 20.11.2004, his services were terminated without assigning any reasons. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order, had preferred the Original Application No. 3563 of 2004 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal) and vide order dated 14.12.2004 the same was disposed of treating the same as representation to respondent No.2, who shall consider and dispose of the same in the light of order dated 23.11.2004 (Annexure A-5). As per directions given by the Tribunal, respondent No.2 had passed an order dated 16.05.2005 (Annexure A-8), whereby the petitioner was held entitled to the salary for the period of his service till the date of 3 2026:HHC:6188 termination. However, he was not held entitled to any other relief. The order dated 16.05.2005 is reproduced as under:- “No.EDN-11(III)E(1)0.A.NO.3563/2004. Directorate of Education Himachal Pradesh Dated. Shimla-171001 the 16.5.05. Ο.Α.Νο.3563/2004- Naranjan Singh (Para teacher) vs. H.P. State. ORDER The Original Application No.3563/2004 昀椀led by Sh. Naran- jan Singh (para teacher) regarding drawl of his salary and against the termination of his services which was before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 14.12.2004 when on the request of the ap- plicant the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to treat the said O.A. as a representation to the Director of Education with the direc- tion to dispose of the same within a period of two weeks after giving personal hearing to the applicant. In pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal is- sued vide order dated 14/20-12-2004, Sh. Naranjan Singh was called upon to attend the hearing on 30.12.04 in order to dis- pose of the matter and he attended the same and participated in the hearing. During the course of hearing, record produced before me reveals that Sh. Niranjan Singh was appointed as Drawing teacher under para teacher policy by the Principal, GSSS. Saribasa vide letter No.GSSS-Saribasa/PT.apptt.-94/2004 dated 15.6.2004 where he joined on 16.6.2004. The Principal, GSSS. Saribasa has not drawn his salary because he was doubtful re- garding recognition of his diploma/degree. The Principal en- quired the matter and found that the applicant has not passed the Diploma/Degree of Art and Craft from a recognized Institu- tion/ University. After issuing show cause Notice on 02.09.04. Principal GSSS, Saribasa terminated his services on 20.11.2004. Annexure A-2, Terms & conditions of appointment Sr.No.6 provided that:- "Services will also be terminated at any time disciplinary measure of his services" In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and thorough perusal of the record I have come to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to the salary for the period till the date of termination. However, he is not entitled to any other relief in view of annexure A-5 which is general in character and does not governs the case of applicant. 4 2026:HHC:6188 In view of these observations the representation of the applicant is disposed of. REGISTERED Sh. Naranjan Singh S/O Sh.Amar Singh VPO (Dr.O.P.Sharma) Mawa Kohlan. Teh. Amb Distt. Una (H.Ρ.) Director of Education Himachal Pradesh” 5. The Director of Education, while disposing of the representation had even summoned the record of the petitioner, who was appointed as Drawing Teacher under Para Teacher’s Policy by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Saribasa, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., where he had joined on 16.06.2004. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Saribasa, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. had not drawn the salary of the petitioner because he was doubtful about the recognition of his diploma/degree. After issuing show cause notice on 02.09.2004, the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Saribasa, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. had terminated the services of the petitioner on 20.11.2004. 6. The petitioner has not stated anything in the petition regarding the diploma acquired by him. It has been submitted that few of the Para Teachers had filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the interim order passed by this Court and the said SLP is pending adjudication. It has 5 2026:HHC:6188 further been submitted that as per the order passed by this Court in CWP No.415 of 2000, titled, Baldev Singh vs. State of H.P and others, pertaining to contract Teachers, it has been held that if the regularly selected/appointed Teachers are available, in such an event, services of temporary/stop-gap arrangement appointed teachers can be terminated in accordance with law and the same kind of situation has arisen in the case of the petitioner. 7. The respondents filed reply to the petition and submitted that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner was having one year diploma in Craft Teacher from Blue Star Senior Secondary School, Hamirpur, which was affiliated with Mother Teresa School of Education, New Delhi. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Saribasa, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. had asked the petitioner to clear his position in respect of the recognition of his diploma for the purpose of employment in the State of Himachal Pradesh, but he had failed to produce any relevant document in his favour. It was further submitted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to clear his position, however, he had not bothered to clear his position till date. Thus, the services of the petitioner were rightly 6 2026:HHC:6188 terminated by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Saribasa, District Shimla, H.P. 8. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents and thus the averments made in the reply cannot be ignored while deciding the present lis. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General representing the respondents and also perused the record carefully. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the facts which have been recorded in the order dated 16.05.2005. It is not even disputed in the petition that the petitioner could not substantiate the fact that the diploma held by him was not recognized. Once the petitioner was not having the diploma recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh, the impugned order passed by the respondents to terminate his services does not warrant any interference. 11. A person, who claims to be appointed against a post, is required to first meet the minimum eligibility criteria under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules to hold the post. In the present case, no doubt, the petitioner had been appointed as Drawing Teacher (Para Techer), as is evident from perusal of Annexure A-1, but since the diploma 7 2026:HHC:6188 possessed by him to hold the post, was not recognized, the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Saribasa, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. had rightly relieved him of his duties on 20.11.2004. 12. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order had preferred the Original Application and the Tribunal had disposed of the said Original Application on 14.12.2004, wherein a direction was given to respondent No.2 to treat the said Original Application as representation and consider and dispose of the same in the light of order dated 23.11.2004. Respondent No.2 after passing of order by the Tribunal had passed the order on 16.05.2005, wherein it has been clearly recorded that he had called for the record and further the diploma held by the petitioner was not recognized. Once the diploma held by the petitioner was not recognized, no illegality or infirmity can be found with the order dated 16.05.2005, passed by respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out either from the pleading or otherwise that he is possessing the diploma which is recognized by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh. 13. So far as the relieving order of the petitioner is concerned, once the petitioner is not holding the requisite 8 2026:HHC:6188 qualification to hold the post of Drawing Teacher, he cannot rely upon other orders, more particularly, Annexure A-5. 14. No other points have been raised. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) March 06, 2026 Judge (naveen)