2026:HHC:5576 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 360 of 2019 Reserved on 24.02.2026 Decided on : 03.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Sunita Kumari ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge The petitioner, by way of present writ petition, has sought a direction to the respondents to consider her for appointment as Clerk, with effect from the date when other similarly situated staff members working in Indra Memorial Sanahi, District Hamirpur, were given appointments with all consequential benefits. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 12.09.1988 in the privately managed school in the name 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:5576 and style as Indra Memorial Sanahi, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the respondents-State had issued notification on 12.01.1990, whereby the privately managed school was taken over by the State Government and after the intervention of the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, the services of other staff of the school were taken over and Sh. Ramesh Chand, TGT (Arts) and Sh. Karan Singh, Peon-cum-Chowkidar were offered appointments. However, the petitioner was discriminated and ignored for appointment as Clerk by the respondents-State. 3. The petitioner had earlier instituted an Original Application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which was registered as OA No. 34 of 1995, for taking over of her services. However, after abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and was registered as CWP(T) No. 2401 of 2008, titled, Sunita Kumari versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 4. This Court, vide its judgment dated 17.03.2009, had allowed the petition preferred by the petitioner and 3 2026:HHC:5576 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Clerk, on the analogy of Annexures R-3 and R-4, dated 25.09.1992 and 12.03.1993, within a period of six weeks from the date of passing the judgment. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Clerk on the analogy of Annexure R-3 7 R-4, dated 25.09.1992 and 12.03.1993, within a period of six weeks from today. No costs.” 5. The respondents in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 17.03.2009, passed by this Court, offered appointment to the petitioner as Clerk on regular basis vide Annexure P-2. 6. The grievance of the petitioner, as highlighted in the present petition, is that since the respondents had offered appointments to S/Shri Ramesh Chand, TGT (Arts) and Karan Singh, Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the year 1992- 1993, she may also be considered for appointment w.e.f. the year 1992 instead of the year 2009. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was fully eligible and qualified for appointment as Clerk with the respondents-State when other similarly situated staff members working in the same 4 2026:HHC:5576 privately managed school, where the petitioner was working, had been given appointments by the respondents. It has further been pleaded that the respondents have arbitrarily ignored the petitioner despite clear cut observations made by this Court in the judgment dated 17.03.2009 to offer the appointment on the analogy of the aforementioned persons. 7. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and submitted that the Government vide notification dated 18.06.1990 had upgraded its own Government Middle School, Sanahi, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, to the standard of Government High School. The privately managed Indira Memorial School, Sanahi, has never been taken over by the Government. However, the Government had formulated a policy to take over the staff of those privately run institutions which were opened adjoining to the Government schools, as due to the up-gradation of Government school, the staff in the privately managed schools had become jobless. Since the appointment of the petitioner by the management was not as per the terms and conditions of the Government decision, her services were not taken over. However, after the direction of this Court, 5 2026:HHC:5576 the services of the petitioner have been taken over to the post of Clerk in the pay scale of ₹3120-5160 with the initial start of ₹3220/-. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the Government instructions. So far the case of Sh. Karan Singh is concerned, he was appointed as Peon-cum-Chokidar, an unskilled office worker, under Section 3 read-with Section 2 of the Employment Exchange Act, 1959. The provisions of the act for recruitment through Employment Exchange do not apply in the case of unskilled office workers. Hence, the allegations of discrimination made by the petitioner are wrong & denied. 8. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State and also gone through the record carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working with the erstwhile Indra Memorial High School, Sanai, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. The only plea which is raised by the respondents in the reply is to the effect that the petitioner was not appointed by the management as per the terms and conditions of the 6 2026:HHC:5576 Government. The respondents have also filed the sur-joinder to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to its reply, wherein it has been pleaded that the services of the petitioner were not taken over because of the fact that her name had neither been sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor specific interview board was framed and her appointment was merely by passing a resolution by the managing committee of the privately managed school. 10. The respondents were directed by this Court on 22.07.2020 to file an affidavit, clarifying as to what were those terms and conditions, which were in vouge at the relevant time as contained in the policy of the State, which were not fulfilled in the matter of appointment of the petitioner in the privately managed school, due to which her services were not taken over by the Government in the year 1990. In pursuance to the directions given by this Court, Director of Higher Education, H.P. has filed his affidavit and has reproduced the terms and conditions of taking over of the staff. The relevant terms and conditions mentioned in the affidavit dated 11.09.2020 are reproduced hereunder:- No. 13-8/72-Edu(Plan) Director of Education Himachal Pradesh Dated Shimla-1, the 5th July, 1973 7 2026:HHC:5576 To All the District Education Officer In the Pradesh Subject:- Policy Regarding Taking over of Classes/ Staff in Privately Managed Schools. The matter regarding taking over of Private Classes/Instructions and the staff posted therein has remained under consideration of Govt. for the past some time. It has not been decided by the State Govt. to regulate the taking over of Private Classes/Institutions and the staff posted therein in accordance with the following terms and conditions:- i. That the privately run instructions classes are recognized by the Department. ii. That the management hands over all assets. iii. That no liability is to be accepted by Govt. iv. That only qualified staff will be taken over in accordance with the posts which are sanctioned by Govt. in the prescribed scales. v. That no superannuated untrained or unqualified staff will be taken over. vi. That only such staff will be considered for taking over as was in position in the school at least one year prior to the date of taking over of school/classes by Govt. vii. That after the school is taken over it is to be known as Govt. Primary/Middle/High School as the case may be viii. That members of the staff who are taken over in Govt. service shall be treated as new entrant for all purposes. ix. That appointments of the staff with requisite qualifications who have been in service for one year or more in the institutions already taken over or are going to be taken over by the Education Department need not be referred to the State Public Service Commission. For this purpose a clause may be added in H.P. Public Service Commission Exemption for consultation Regulations. As regards sub para (ix) above, the matter under consideration of Govt. and you will be informed the action taken in the due course of time. Meanwhile it is requested that wherever schools have opened/upgraded by Govt. and parallel classes run by private managements are in existence, 8 2026:HHC:5576 formal requests from the Managements where they so like, for the taking over of such classes/institutions by Govt. may be obtained together with full particulars and assets and staff etc. The formal requests together with particulars of the staff may please be sent to the Assistant Director of Education (Schools) within a fortnight of the receipt of this memorandum for further necessary action. It may be added that Govt. will accept no liabilities in respect of staff etc. prior to their date/s of appointment/s in the Deptt. subject to the availability sanction of the posts/s. The staff for newly opened/upgraded institutions is likely to be sanctioned in the following patters. This may kindly be kept in view while entertaining applications:- Primary School J.B.T Teacher = 1 Middle Schools 1. Trained Graduate in Science = 1 2. -do- Arts = 1 3. OT (Sanskrit) = 1 4. L.T (Hindi) = 1 5. PTI (C.P.Ed) = 1 6. Arts and Craft Teacher = 1 7. Peon = 1 High Schools 1. Headmaster = 1 2. TGT (Arts) = 1 3. TGT (Science) = 1 4. Clerk = 1 5. Peon = 1 For D.E.O Sirmour: This also disposes of his memo No. 32- Genl (cp & up)4997 dated 15-6-73. Sd/- Director of Education Himachal Pradesh 11. A perusal of the terms and conditions of taking over the staff does not stipulate that the name of the candidate had to be sponsored from the Employment Exchange. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 12.09.1988 in the Indra Memorial 9 2026:HHC:5576 High School, Sanahi, and as per the notification dated 18.06.1990, the Government Middle School Sanahi, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, was upgraded as Government High School and on the said date, the petitioner had completed more than a year in the private school. 12. The petitioner when not offered the appointment had approached the Tribunal by way of filing an Original Application in the year 1995 and this Court vide its judgment dated 17.03.2009, had directed the respondents-State to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Clerk on the analogy of Annexures R-3 and R-4, dated 25.09.1992 and 12.03.1993, within a period of six weeks. Once this Court had given a specific direction to the respondents-State to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Clerk on the analogy of Annexures R-3 and R-4, which orders are pertaining to the appointments of similarly situated persons, who were appointed in the privately managed school, where the petitioner was working, the petitioner is entitled to be offered the appointment on notional basis at least w.e.f. 12.03.1993, when one Karan Singh, Peon-cum-Chowkidar 10 2026:HHC:5576 working in the privately managed school was offered the appointment by the respondents-State. The claim raised by the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, when she was appointed in the privately managed school. If the petitioner was not appointed as per the norms, the respondents-State could have denied her appointment in sequel to the directions given by this Court. Once the respondents had offered the appointment to the petitioner to the post of Clerk, she is entitled to the same w.e.f. 12.03.1993 on notional basis, when services of Karan Singh, Peon-cum-Chowkidar have been taken over by the respondents-State. 13. The respondents-State have accepted the verdict given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, when they were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner to the post of Clerk, on the analogy of S/Shri Ramesh Chand, TGT (Arts) and Sh. Karan Singh, Peon- cum-Chowkidar and consequently offered the appointment to the petitioner. 14. It is settled law that the similarly situated persons should be treated equally and not unequally. In 11 2026:HHC:5576 the present case, once the respondents-State had offered the appointment to the persons who were serving in the same institution in the year 1992-1993, where the petitioner had served and had completed one year of the service as per the terms and conditions of the policy mentioned in the affidavit, there was no justification to not offer her the appointment. Further, this Court while deciding the petition on 17.03.2009 had given direction to the respondents to offer the appointment to the petitioner to the post of Clerk on the analogy of Annexures R-3 & R- 4, which were pertaining to the appointment of other two persons referred above. The State Government has not challenged the aforementioned judgment, rather offered the appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner was litigating in the Court since long and thus, held entitled to get the relief on notional basis at least from 12.03.1993 when Karan Singh Peon-cum-Chowkidar was offered the appointment by the respondents-State. 15. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner as Clerk w.e.f. 12.03.1993, on notional basis till her actual appointment 12 2026:HHC:5576 made and thereafter, she shall be granted all the consequential benefits. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 03 rd March , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge