Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 24.06.2025 vs Himachal Pradesh University on 24 June, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:19541 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5157 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 .
_______________________________________________________ Sheba Parmar .......Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University ... Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.
_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
The case at hand is a classic case where petitioner was selected against the post of Information Scientist (Library) in the year 2012, pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent-University in the year 2011, but till date, she has been not offered appointment on one pretext or other.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 12.5.2025, whereby Executive Council of respondent-University, while approving appointment on regular basis of the petitioner against the post, as detailed hereinabove, in un- revised UGC pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 and corresponding pay scale in the revised pay scale, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 22025:HHC:19541 offered him appointment on contract basis, petitioner has filed instant petition.
.
3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, is that once Executive Council in its meeting dated 27.01.2016 had approved the recommendation of Selection Committee, thereby recommending the name of the petitioner for the post in question, there was no requirement, if any, for the respondent-
University to again take up the matter with the Executive Council, which without noticing previous decision taken by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 27.01.2016 (Annexure P-2), proceeded to offer appointment to the petitioner on contract basis instead of regular basis.
4. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 20.10.2011, respondent-University issued an advertisement No.03 of 2011, dated 20.10.2011, thereby inviting applications for various posts of teaching as well as non-teaching staff. As per item No.10 of this advertisement, one post of Information Scientist (Library) in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 (unrevised) came to be advertised (Annexure P-1). Petitioner herein, being eligible also applied against the aforesaid post. On 17.10.2012, petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:19541 appeared in the interview and consequent upon the same, Selection Committee found her to be meritorious and accordingly, .
recommended her name for the post of Information Scientist (Library).
Though, recommendation was made in the year, 2012, but for the reason best known to the respondent-University, recommendations were taken to Executive Council of the respondent-University on 27.01.2016. Executive Council in its meeting held on 27.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) approved the appointment of the petitioner against the post of Information Scientist (Library). However, before appointment letter could be issued to the petitioner, person, namely Sh. Lalit Kumar filed Original Application before erstwhile Tribunal bearing Original Application No.55669 of 2016, thereby challenging the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner against the post of Information Scientist (Library).
5. In nutshell, above named person alleged that petitioner has pursued two degrees simultaneously. Vide order dated 4.11.2016, erstwhile Tribunal directed the parties to maintain status quo, as a result thereof, appointment letter could not be issued to the petitioner. Afore original application ultimately came to be transferred to this Court and was re-registered as CWPOA No.553 of 2020. Vide judgment dated 3.9.2021, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition (Annexure P-3).
::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 42025:HHC:19541
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, above named Lalit Kumar .
filed LPA No. 99 of 2021 before the Division Bench of this Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 3.4.2024 (Annexure P-7). After dismissal of LPA, as detailed hereinabove, petitioner submitted representation dated 10.4.2024 (Annexure P-8), praying therein to issue appointment letter to her. Interestingly, respondent-University again took up the matter with Executive Council on 28.09.2024(Annexure P-10), which vide item No.14 though approved the appointment of the petitioner against the post in question, but on contract basis. Petitioner herein submitted representation against the aforesaid decision of Executive Council, as a result thereof, matter again came to be placed before the Executive Committee, which again vide decision dated 13.12.2024 reiterated its earlier decision taken on 02.01.2025 (Annexure P-11). In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceeding, praying therein for following main reliefs:-
" (i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondent-University to offer appointment to the petitioner for the post of Information Scientist (Library) on and with effect from January,2016 on regular basis with consequential eligible benefits in the interest of law justice;
(ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the decision vide Item No.14 of Annexure P-10 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:19541 and also decision vide Item No.14 of Annexure P-11 may kindly be quashed and set-aside with further directions to the respondent University to offer appointment to the petitioner for the post of Information Scientist (Library) on and with .
effect from January, 2016 with all consequential eligible benefits."
7. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the record.
8. Having carefully perused pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that vide advertisement dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure P-1), one post of Information Scientist (Library) in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 (UGC unrevised) came to be advertised at the behest of the respondent-
University. It is also not in dispute that petitioner being meritorious was recommended for appointment against the post in question by Selection Committee vide recommendation dated 27.01.2016. Before aforesaid recommendation could be acted upon, person namely, Lalit Kumar filed original application before the erstwhile Tribunal, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.09.2021. Though, against the judgment passed by this Court above named Lalit Kumar filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, but same was also dismissed on 03.04.2024. Immediately after dismissal of LPA filed by the respondent-University, petitioner herein submitted representation to the respondent-University to offer her appointment letter pursuant to her selection made in the year, 2016, but ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:19541 interestingly respondent-University instead of issuing appointment letter again took up the matter to Executive Council of the respondent-
.
University, which though agreed for appointment of the petitioner against the post in question pursuant to her having participated in selection process in terms of advertisement dated 20.10.2011, but held petitioner entitled to be appointed on contract basis. If the proposal given by the respondent-University to the Executive Council is perused, it appears that matter was placed before the Executive Council regarding offering appointment to the petitioner to the post of Information Scientist(Library) in unrevised UGC pay scale of Rs.2200- 400 and corresponding pay scale in the revised pay scales, but Executive Council, while approving the appointment of the petitioner, ordered her appointment on contract basis in the unrevised UGC pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 and corresponding pay scale in the revised pay scales.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid decision taken by the Executive Council, petitioner submitted representation, thereby reminding respondent-University as well as Executive Council that she could not have been offered appointment on contract basis as she had appeared in the interview/ test for regular post. However, Executive Council vide its decision dated 27.01.2016 again reiterated its earlier decision taken on 13.12.2024.
::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 72025:HHC:19541
10. While making this Court peruse Advertisement (Annexure P-1), learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner vehemently .
argued that once post in question qua which petitioner is proposed to be offered appointment on contract basis was never advertised to be filled up on contract basis, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondent-University to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post in question on contract basis, rather she ought to have been offered appointment on regular basis from the date of her selection to the post in question. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that bare perusal of advertisement reveals that some of the posts advertised vide advertisement dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure P-
1), were advertised to be filled up on contract basis, but post applied for by the petitioner was to be filled up on regular basis. He further submitted that after disposal of LPA, having been filed by Sh. Lalit Kumar, there was no occasion, if any, for respondent-University to again refer the matter to Executive Council, especially when afore council had already approved the appointment of the petitioner in its earlier meeting held on 27.01.2016.
11. To the contrary, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-University invited attention of this Court to Page No. 23 of the paper book, to state that in the advertisement it came to be specifically mentioned that University ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:19541 reserves the right to fill up or not to fill up these posts or to call only limited/suitable candidates for interview. He submitted that since .
respondent-University has reserved the right to fill up the posts either on regular basis on contract basis, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent-University, while recommending the case of the petitioner for appointment against the post in question on contract basis. Learned counsel for the respondent-University further submitted that since after decision given by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 27.01.2016, matter remained pending adjudication before this Court and erstwhile Tribunal for considerable time, it was necessary to again take up the matter to Executive Council, which having taken note of entire material adduced on record rightly held petitioner entitled to appointment against the post in question on contract basis that too from prospective date.
12. Learned counsel representing the respondent-University also invited attention of this Court to communication dated 12.02.2013 (Annexure R-1) issued under the signatures of Under Secretary (Higher Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to state that from afore date, no recruitment, if any, to the post in question could have been done on regular basis, rather same was otherwise required to be done on contract basis.
::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 92025:HHC:19541
13. Having carefully perused advertisement (Annexure P-1), this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned .
Senior counsel representing the petitioner that post of Information Scientist (Library) under INFLIBNET Programme-1 was advertised to be filled up on regular basis. True it is that advertisement nowhere suggest that afore post shall be filled up on regular basis, but once remarks given against other posts, which were advertised to be filled up alongwith afore post are perused, specific expression has been used i.e. 'contract basis' against such post, meaning thereby only those posts, against which 'contract basis' was mentioned were to be filled up on contract basis, whereas other all posts were to be filled up on regular basis. If it is so, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that after being selected against the post in question petitioner ought to have been given regular appointment. Similarly, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner that once Executive Council in its meeting held on 27.01.2016 had approved the recommendation of Selection Committee, whereby it had recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question, there was no requirement, if any, for the respondent-
University to take up the matter again to the Executive Council. True it is that after recommendation made by Executive Council in its ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:19541 meeting held on 27.01.2016 person, namely Lalit Kumar instituted proceedings against the petitioner before erstwhile Tribunal and .
thereafter, in this Court on the ground that petitioner herein is/was not eligible to participate in selection process for the reason that she had simultaneously pursued two master degrees, which is not admissible.
However, as has been taken note hereinabove, afore writ petition as well as LPA filed by the person named hereinabove was dismissed, as a result thereof, respondent-University was left with no option, but to give effect to the recommendation made by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 27.01.2016 and there was no requirement ,if any, to again send the matter to Executive Council, which specifically in its meeting held on 28.09.2024 though approved the appointment of the petitioner, but not on regular basis, rather on contract basis.
14. Since advertisement nowhere envisaged that post qua which petitioner was selected shall be filled up on contract basis, coupled with the fact that some of the posts advertised through advertisement were to be filled up on contract basis, there was no occasion, if any, for the Executive Council to change its earlier decision taken on 27.01.2016, when it had straightway accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee. If the minutes of aforesaid meeting are perused in its entirety it nowhere talks about the appointment of the petitioner on contract basis.
::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 112025:HHC:19541
15. Though, at this stage, learned counsel representing the respondent-University attempted to argue that since in advertisement .
word 'regular' was not used against the post of Information Scientist (Library), there was no requirement, if any, for the respondent-
University to offer appointment to the petitioner against regular post.
He also submitted that otherwise in advertisement, liberty was reserved to the respondent-University to decide that which of the post shall be filled up on regular basis and which of the post shall be filled up on contract basis. He submitted that since no specific challenge ever came to be laid to the advertisement pursuant to which petitioner not only participated in the selection process, but she was selected, prayer made in the instant petition deserves outright rejection.
However, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the respondent-University for the reason that in advertisement (Annexure P-1) some of the posts were specifically advertised to be filled up on contract basis, but admittedly no remark be it 'regular' or 'contract' was ever given against the post in question, if it is so, afore post is deemed to have been advertised on regular basis.
16. Though, learned counsel for the respondent-University while referring to Annexure R-1 annexed with the reply i.e. communication dated 12.02.2023, issued Under Secretary (Higher Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, attempted to ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:19541 argue that after 2013 no appointment against non-teaching staff could have been made on regular basis, rather appointment, if any, could .
only be given on contract basis, but such plea of him deserves ought right rejection for two reasons; (i) aforesaid communication came into existence on 12.2.2013 i.e after selection process was over and; (ii) some of the persons in the month of December, 2023 have been given appointment on regular basis in the respondent-University on non-teaching posts. While making available appointment letter issued by respondent-University to the person namely, Sh. Jai Kumar Sood, son of Sh. Mast Ram Sood, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that afore person came to be appointed against the post of Advisor-cum-Consultant, ICDEOL, Himachal Pradesh on regular basis. If it is so, plea with regard to filling up of the post on adhoc basis after 2013 raised by learned counsel for the respondent-University deserves outright rejection and accordingly same is rejected.
17. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The decisions taken by the Executive Council vide item No.14 (Annexure P10 & P-11) are quashed and set-aside with a direction to the respondent-
University to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Information Scientist (Library) on regular w.e.f. January, 2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:19541 pursuant to recommendation made by the Selection Committee, which was ultimately approved by Executive Council in its meeting .
held in the month of January, 2016. Since petitioner never worked against the post in question, she shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits, but certainly afore period shall be counted for the purpose of seniority and pay fixation. Since petitioner has been fighting for her rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of the directions contained in the instant judgment shall be done by the respondent-University expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24, 2025 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:14:55 :::CIS