Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sonia Thakur vs State Of H.P. And Others on 21 July, 2025
( 2025:HHC:23486 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No.2262 of 2019
Decided on: 21st July, 2025
Sonia Thakur
.
.......Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr.Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr.Gautam Sood, Deputy
Advocate General for
respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.Amit Singh Chandel,
Advocate for respondent No.3.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
"i. That the termination Notice Annexure-P/17 dated 15.6.2012 issued by the Respondent No.2 and revised interview sheet Annexure-P/18 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii. That the notification dated 21.10.2009, whereby 5 marks has been awarded to the Respondent No.3 and 4 and clarifications Annexure-P/20 and P/21, may kindly be held unreasonable and the same may also be quashed and set aside.
iii. That the petitioner may kindly be held selected in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:46 :::CIS
2 ( 2025:HHC:23486 ) framed by the State Government and may be allowed to continue on the post of Punjabi Language Teacher.
iv. The Selection/ appointment of Respondent No.3 and 4 may be held illegal, contrary and arbitrary to the .
provision of Recruitment and Promotion Rules and hence liable to be quashed and set aside."
2. Respondent No.2 invited applications for filling-up posts of teachers in the subject of Punjabi in Government Senior Secondary Schools, Lalpani and Summerhill and Government Middle School, Krishna Nagar, District Shimla, H.P. to be paid on period basis. The essential educational qualification was Punjabi Honours or BA (Honours) in Punjabi with B.Ed or 10+2 with certification in 'Giani' or MA in Punjabi. The applications were to be submitted by only those candidates who were between 18 to 45 years of age and were bonafide resident of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner along-with private respondents and many others applied for the above noted posts.
3. Initially, petitioner was selected and the 3rd respondent Ms.Anupam Sharma was declared ineligible. CWP No.9770 of 2011 came to be filed by Ms.Anupam Sharma before this Court and vide judgment dated 02.03.2012 her petition was allowed and she was declared eligible on the premise that where a candidate had qualified a degree higher than +2 and had also the qualification in 'Giani' would be ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:46 :::CIS 3 ( 2025:HHC:23486 ) eligible without insisting for passing of +2 examination specifically.
4. Thereafter, merit was re-drawn. Private .
respondents No.3 and 4 secured higher marks than petitioner. Accordingly, private respondents were offered appointment and the services of the petitioner were terminated.
5. Aggrieved against the conduct of the official respondents in r selecting the private respondents and terminating the services of the petitioner, the instant petition has been filed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that criteria adopted by the official respondents for drawing the comparative merit was bad in law insofar as it did not comply with the requirements of Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified by the State Government for the post of Teachers in the subject of Punjabi. He would contend that the official respondents have drawn a comparative merit of candidates on the basis of their respective marks in the matriculation examination, whereas, the minimum educational qualification required for the post was +2. ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:46 :::CIS
4 ( 2025:HHC:23486 ) Another objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 5 marks have been awarded to the private respondents for being resident of same ward where the school .
was situate, whereas, no mark was awarded to petitioner, though she also belonged to the State of Himachal Pradesh.
8. The official respondents have placed reliance on a document dated 19.10.2009 issued by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Director, Primary Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby, a criteria was fixed to hold interviews for the post of Teachers in the subject of Punjabi to be appointed on fixed remuneration of Rs.250/- per month or Rs.70/- per period. As per this criteria, total 30 marks were allocated for the interview, out of which, 10 marks were to be awarded on the basis of score of the candidate in matriculation examination, another 10 marks to be awarded on the basis of score of the candidate in Urdu curriculum, 5 marks were to be awarded to a candidate belonging to the same Panchayat and remaining 5 marks were to be awarded by the interview board on the basis of performance in the interview.
9. Though, the petitioner has sought the declaration of Notification dated 21.10.2009 to be unreasonable insofar as the award of 5 marks to the candidates from the same Panchayat was concerned, but in the body of the petition, no ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:46 :::CIS 5 ( 2025:HHC:23486 ) factual foundation for such challenge has been made. What has been alleged in the petition is that the allocation of 5 marks for the local candidates was unreasonable.
.
10. The ground so raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced for the reason that the posts against which the private respondents have been selected were not the regular posts prescribed under the R&P Rules. These were only the posts of temporary nature with fixed remuneration either on monthly basis or period basis. In such circumstances, giving the preferential marks to the local candidates cannot be said to be unreasonable. Further, as noticed above, since the posts in question were not the regular posts, strict application of R&P Rules will not be warranted.
11. It can also be seen that the document dated 19.10.2009 i.e. communication issued by the Secretary (Education), prescribing criteria for award of marks had been issued prior to the advertisement in question, which was issued in the year 2011. It cannot be said that the conditions in communication dated 19.10.2009 were tailor made to oust the petitioner or to grant any undue advantage to any other candidate. At the time when the petitioner submitted her application in response to the advertisement issued in the ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:46 :::CIS 6 ( 2025:HHC:23486 ) year 2011, communication dated 19.10.2009 was already in existence prescribing the criteria for award of marks.
12. The petitioner ought to have known about the .
procedure for the award of marks, more particularly, when no such prescription was there in the advertisement (Annexure P-1). The petitioner having participated in the selection process based on the instructions issued vide communication dated 19.10.2009, cannot now turn around to challenge the criteria fixed for award of marks.
13. In result, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
July 21, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya )
(naveen) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:46 :::CIS