Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Yog Raj S/O Sh. Chet Ram vs State on 19 July, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 19th DAY OF JULY, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.3573 of 2019 AND
CONNECTED MATTERS
1. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.3573 of 2019
Between:
1. SH. YOG RAJ S/O SH. CHET RAM, R/O
VILLAGE RAKHOON POST OFFICE
KOTMORAS, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P. r
2. MS. SAVITRA DEVI, W/O SH. YOG RAJ,
R/O VILLAGE RAKHOON POST OFFICE
KOTMORAS, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
3. KUMARI HANSHA W/O LATE SHRI
YASHWANT SINGH R/O VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE GIUN, TEHSIL
DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
4. MS. NIRMALA KUMARI, W/O SH. BHOLA
DUTT, R/O VILLAGE KATED POST
OFFICE DAVDHAR, TEHSIL GOHAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
[
5. MS. JAMNA DEVI W/O SH. BAL
KRISHAN, R/O VILLAGE GHANI DHAR,
POST OFFICE BAGSAID, TEHSIL
THUNAG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
6. SH. HEM RAJ S/O SH. MUNI LAL, R/O
VILLAGE TAMROH CHOUNTRA, P.O.
DIYARGI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
7. SH. RAKESH KUMAR, S/O SH. ROSHAN
LAL, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
SARI, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
8. SH. VINOD KUMAR S/O SH. RANJHA
RAM, R/O VILLAGE SANOUR, P.O. SARI,
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
2
TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
9. SH. JAGDISH CHAND S/O LATE SH.
BASNTA RAM, R/O VILLAGE AND POST
.
OFFICE PAPLOG, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
10. SMT. BHAG DEVI, W/O SH. ROOP SINGH
R/O HOUSE NO. 196, WARD NO.2,
RAMNAGAR, VILLAGE LAKA, P.O. AND
TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
[[[
11. SH. TILAK RAJ S/O SH. INDER SINGH
R/O VILLAGE KHIURI, P.O. RAJGARH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
12. SH. BIRI SINGH S/O SH. BHADAR SINGH
R/O VILLAGE MARED, P.O. BAGGI,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
13. SH. TARA CHAND, S/O LALMAN, R/O
VILLAGE KOT KANGTU, P.O. BAGGI,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
14. SH. DHARAM SINGH S/O PANDTU RAM
R/O VILLAGE MANGLEH, P.O.
MERAMSIT, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
15. SH. RAMESH KUMAR S/O SH. RATTAN
CHAND, R/O VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE KANAID, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
16. SH. BHUPENDER SINGH S/O SH.
HARNAM SINGH R/O VILLAGE BHIURA,
P.O. RAJGARH, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
17. SH. SURESH KUMAR S/O SH. CHINT
RAM R/O VILLAGE SANGHAN, P/O
JUGHAN, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
18. SH. NARESH KUMAR S/O SH. SOHAN
LAL, R/O VILLAGE KANDHI, P.O. SAROA
TEHSIL CHAYAT DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
19. SH. KHEM CHAND, S/O SH. SUKH RAM
R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
3
CHEENA TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
20. SH. HANS RAJ S/O SH. KRISHAN
CHAND, R/O VILLAGE AND POST
.
OFFICE KOTHI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
21. SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O SH. SUNDER
SINGH R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
PAIRI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
22. SH. ANOOP RAM R/O VILLAGE MATLA,
P.O. KUHAN, TEHSIL BALICHOUKI,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
23. SH. AJIT KUMAR R/O VILLAGE SHYAIL,
P.O. GAGAL, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.r
24. MS. KANTA DEVI D/O SH. GURDWARU,
R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE UPPER
BALHI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
25. SH. BALAK RAM, S/O MEHAR SINGH
R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
CHAMBI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
26. SH. LUDERMANI, S/O VIR SINGH R/O
VILLAGE SATYABALI, P.O. GHANAIR,
TEHSIL BALICHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
27. PAWAN KUMAR S/O SH. BHADER R/O
VILLAGE CHATTER (KATALI) P.O.
JUGAHAN TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
28. DALIP SINGH S/O SH. HUKAM CHAND
R/O VILLAGE JUGAHAN TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
29. BALBIR SINGH S/O SH. KESHAV RAM
R/O VILLAGE CHATER P.O. JUGAHAN
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
4
30. PREM SINGH S/O SH. PARAS RAM R/O
P.O. SIANJHI TEHSIL BALH DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
31. NIDHI RAM S/O SH. CHANDER SAI R/O
.
P.O BEENA TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
32. TEJ PAL S/O SH. TRA CHAND R/O P.O.
SIDHBARI, TEHSIL BALH DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
33. HARI SINGH S/O SH. KAHAN SINGH R/O
VILLAGE DHARANDA P.O. MERAMARIT
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
34. YUDHVIR SINGH S/O SH. TEK SINGH
R/O VILLAGE KATWANU P.O. GHANYAR
TEHSIL BALI CHOWKI DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
35. HARISH KUMAR S/O SH. DAMODAR
DASS R/O VILLAGE TAPNALI TEHSIL
BALI CHOWKI DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
36. BODH RAJ S/O SH. KESHAV RAM R/O
VILLAGE SIDHYAR P.O. GADAGUSHIAN
TEHSIL BALI CHOWKI DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
37. JITENDER KUMAR S/O SH. CHET RAM
R/O VILLAGE BHONBARI P.O. KALAHOD
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
38. FATEH SINGH S/O SH. CHET SINGH R/O
BEHAL P.O. PAIRI TEHSIL BALU
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
39. BRIJ LAL S/O SH. MOHAN LAL R/O
VILLAGE MAHOTALA P.O. BALT
TEHSIL BALH DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
40. TILAK RAJ S/O SH. BALAK RAM R/O
VILLAGE JAJROT P.O. BALAT TEHSIL
BALH DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
41. RAM LAL S/O SH. KIRPU RAM R/O
VILLAGE SLAPPER P.O. SUDHAN
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
5
42. PITAMBER LAL S/O SH. SANSAR
CHAND R/O VILLAGE BARI TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.
43. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O SH. SOHAN LAL
R/O VILLAGE TOWAN P.O. DHAWAN
TEHSIL BALH DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
44. GHANSHYAM S/O SH. PIURI RAM R/O
VILLAGE MALWANA P.O. TIKKAR
TEHSIL BALH DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
45. SHYAM LAL S/O SH. JAI SINGH R/O
VILLAGE NALSAR P.O. KOTGARH
TEHSIL BALH DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
46. DHARAM PAL S/O SH. JAGAT RAM R/O
VILLAGE AND P.O. KOHU TEHSIL
NALAGARH DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
[
47. MAN SINGH S/O SH. JAGAT RAM R/O
VILLAGE KASLA P.O. GALOT TEHSIL
NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
48. PARVEEN KUMAR RANOTE S/O SH.
RANVIR R/O VILLAGE TALI P.O.
ZAKATKHANA, TEHSIL NAINA DEVI
DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
49. NARENDER SINGH S/O SH. NARAYAN
DASS R/O VILLAGE NAULAKHA P.O.
KANAID TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
50. NAND LAL S/O SH. SHAMSAR SINGH
R/O VILLAGE CHOWK P.O. MAHADEV
TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
51. MADAN LAL S/O KANSHI RAM R/O
VILLAGE MALEHANI P.O. KUNDLU,
TEHSIL NALAGARH DISTRICT SOLAN,
H.P.
52. BHADAR RAM S/O SH. DILA RAM R/O
VILLAGE DUMEHAR TEHSIL SUNNI
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
6
53. SANJAY KUMAR S/O SH. SHADI LAL
R/O VILLAGE KUMARSAIN DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
54. NEELAM KUMARI W/O SH. VIJAY
.
KUMAR R/O MIDDLE SCHOOL PASHAD
P.O. DARYARGI TEHSIL BALH DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
55. NARESH KUMAR S/O SH. JIWAN SINGH
R/O VILLAGE RAO P.O. DARYARGI
TEHSIL BALH DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
56. ANJANA KUMARI D/O SH. GARIB DASS
R/O VILLAGE PULGHARAT P.O.
GUTKAR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
57. RANJEET SINGH C/O SH. DAMODAR
DASS R/O VILLAGE ANSHAI P.O.
GHARWERA DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
58. PARDEEP KUMAR S/O SH. SITA RAM
R/O VILLAGE BAHUT TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
59. KUSHAL KUMAR S/O SH. DOLA RAM
R/O VPO RATTI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
60. PAWAN KUMAR S/O SH. DOLA RAM R/O
V.P.O. RATTI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
61. KESAR SINGH S/O SH. OM CHAND R/O
V.P.O. RATTI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
62. HARWANSH LAL S/O SH. JAI SINGH R/O
V.P.O. KUMMI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
[
63. CHAIN SINGH S/O SH. SOM DUTT R/O
VILLAGE CHANSARI P.O. BARI TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT KULLU H.P.
64. PREM SINGH S/O SH. PURAN CHAND,
R/O VPO SAKROHA, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
7
65. TAKUR SINGH S/O SH. DEVI RAM R/O
VILLAGE DAUNT, P.O. JAROL, TEHSIL
THUNAG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
66. CHOTTU RAM S/O SH. GAWANU RAM
.
R/O VILLAGE CHHATRU, P.O. KUMMI,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
67. KURAM DEV, S/O SH. NARAYAN DASS,
R/O VILLAGE NEHRA, P.O.
SOMNACHANI, TEHSIL BALO CHOWKI,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
68. GIAN CHAND S/O SH. CHUHARU RAM
R/O VILLAGE DARBATHU, P.O.
LOHARA, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
69. MAHINDER SINGH S/O SH. TEK CHAND
R/O VILLAGE MAHOTLA, P.O. BALT,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
70. KRISHAN CHAND S/O SH. BHAGAT
RAM, R/O VILLAGE MAHOTLA, P.O.
BALT, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
71. KARAM SINGH S/O SH. DEVI SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE KAREHRI, P.O. BALT,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
72. DILA RAM S/O SH. BANGALI RAM R/O
VILLAGE BANED, P.O. SUNDERNAGAR,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
[[
73. CHET RAM S/O SH. DHARM SINGH, R/O
VILLAGE SLABKOT, P.O. AND TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
74. TARA DEVI W/O SH. NARESH KUMAR
R/O VILLAGE CHANDRU, P.O. SANJI,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
75. AMAR SINGH S/O SH. GUSAUN RAM,
VPO MAHDEV, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
76. DHARMENDER KUMAR, S/O SH.
BHAGAT RAM R/O VPO MAHDEV,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
8
77. NARPAT RAM S/O SH. DAYA RAM, R/O
VILLAGE RAMPUR, P.O. KANAID,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
.
78. NAROTTAM RAM, S/O SH. TULA RAM,
R/O VILLAGE KANYATI, P.O. JUGAHAN,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
[
79. RAJU RAM S/O SH. BHADAR SINGH R/O
VILLAGE CHOWK, P.O. MAHADEV,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
80. VRENDER SINGH S/O SH. TEJ
BAHADUR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE
CHOWK, P.O. MAHDEV, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
81. RAMESH KUMAR, S/O SH. DIWAN
CHAND, R/O VILLAGE UPPER BELHI,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
82. TEK CHAND S/O SH. MOHAN LAL, R/O
VPO DIARGI TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
[
83. OM PRAKASH S/O SH. NIKKA RAM, R/O
VILLAGE DOMEHAR, P.O. KADHARGAT,
TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
84. DEVINDER KUMAR, S/O SH. LUDHAR
SINGH R/O VILLAGE GARSHEEL, P.O.
RAJWARI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
[
85. RAM KRISHAN, S/O SH. DUMNU RAM
R/O VILLAGE RAO, P.O. DIARGI, TEHSIL
BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
86. GANGA SINGH S/O SH. CHAMARI RAM
R/O VILLAGE BHADROUN, P.O. CHAIL
CHOWK, TEHSIL CHACOUT, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
87. BRIJ LAL, S/O SH. RAM SINGH R/O
VILLAGE TAMROH, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
9
88. BHIM SINGH S/O SH. DHANI RAM R/O
VILLAGE SALI, P.O. SIANJI, TEHSIL
BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
89. TARA CHAND, S/O SH. INDER SINGH
.
R/O VILLAGE GOWAT, P.O. DURAH,
TEHSIL NITHER, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.
90. DALEEP SINGH, S/O SH. TIKAM RAM,
R/O VPO DEEM, TEHSIL NIRMAND,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.
91. RAKESH KUMAR S/O SH. SNUK RAM
R/O VILLAGE BHENABRAHMANA, P.O.
AND TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT
BILASPUR, H.P.
92. RAJ PAL, S/O SH. LEKH RAM R/O
VILLAGE JEJWIN, P.O. JEJWIN, TEHSIL
KALOL, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
93. SURENDER PAL SINGH S/O SH. DHAIN
SINGH R/O VILLAGE CHOTIBELLAR,
P.O. JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR,
H.P.
94. SHER SINGH S/O SH. DASS R/O
VILLAGE BHYARTA, P.O. CHAVNAHAN,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
95. THAKUR SINGH S/O SH. ISHROO RAM,
R/O VILLAGE TAMROH, P.O. DIARGI,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
96. JAGDISH CHAND S/O SH. CHET RAM,
R/O VILLAGE SETHAL, P.O. RAJWARI,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
97. RAJ KUMAR S/O SH. CHET RAM R/O
VILLAGE SETHAL, P.O. RAJWARI,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
98. LAXMAN SINGH S/O SH. SANT RAM R/O
VILLAGE NAGWAHAN, P.O. MAHADEV,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
99. NARAIN SINGH S/O SH. KUNDAN LAL,
R/O VPO LOHARA, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
10
100. NARENDER KUMAR S/O SH. RAGHU
RAM R/O VILLAGE DHANOTU, P.O.
MAHADEV, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.
101. MAHENDER KUMAR S/O SH. NANAK
CHAND, R/O VPO MAHADEV TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
102. RAKESH CHANCHAL, S/O SH. KARAM
CHAND R/O VPO SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
103. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SH. RAM SINGH
R/O VPO KOT, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
104. SANTOSH DEV, S/O KHEM CHAND, R/O
VILLAGE GUDHAN, P.O. SARKI DHAR,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
105. TARSAM LAL, S/O SH. PARMA RAM R/O
VILLAGE JAIROUT, P.O. BALT, TEHSIL
BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
106. GULAB SINGH S/O SH. MISHARU RAM,
R/O VILLAGE RAKAR, P.O. KANAID,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
107. VIJAY KUMAR S/O SH. CHET RAM R/O
VILLAGE RAKAR, P.O. KANAID, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
108. KUNDAN LAL, S/O SH. GOVIND RAM
R/O VILLAGE HALEL, P.O. KANAID,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
109. GULAB SINGH S/O SH. HUKAM CHAND
R/O VILLAGE CHANDRU, P.O. SANJI,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
110. PARDEEP KUMAR S/O SH. KARAM
SINGH R/O VILLAGE TAMROH, P.O.
DIARGI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
111. KRISHAN KUMAR S/O SH. PREM SUKH,
R/O VPO KUMMI, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
11
112. KALI DASS S/O SH. GARDITTA RAM R/O
VILLAGE BARI, P.O. SUNDERNAGAR,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
.
113. MOTI RAM S/O SH. BANGALI RAM R/O
VPO KUMMI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
114. SANJEEV KUMAR THAKUR S/O SH.
RAM SINGH R/O VPO KOT, TEHSIL
DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
115. DAYA RAM S/O SH. MOTI RAM R/O
VILLAGE DOMEHAR, P.O. KANDAGHAT,
TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
116. MURARILAL, S/O SH. BHAGAT RAM R/O
VILLAGE KUFER BHAWANA, TEHSIL
SHIMLA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
117. PAWAN KUMAR S/O SH. BHAGAT RAM
R/O VILLAGE KUFER BHAWANA,
TEHSIL SHIMLA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
118. RAJINDER KUMAR, S/O SH. NARU RAM
R/O VPO DUBLOO, TEHSIL JUNGA,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
119. CHANCHALA KUMARI, D/O SH. GULJAN
LAL, W/O SH. RAJ KUMAR, R/O
VILLAGE BASADHAR, P.O. DRANG,
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
....PETITIONERS
(MR. ONKAR JAIRATH ADVOCATE WITH MR.
SHUBHAM SOOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, H.P. AT LALPANI SHIMLA-
01.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, MANDI,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
12
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA,
H.P.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, KULLU,
DISTRICT KULLU.
6. SH. KARAN SINGH S/O SH. GOPAL
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE LANI, P.O. BAMTA, TEHSIL
CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P-
171211.
7. SH. VIJAY KUMAR S/O SH. ROUDA RAM
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VPO
JHARET, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P-176060.
8. SMT. SHAILJA KIRAN, W/O SH. VIPAN
KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE KOPARA, P.O. CHAUKATH,
TEHSIL JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P-176036.
9. SH. PARVEEN KUMAR S/O SH. SURESH
KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE KHABBER, P.O. KOTI, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P-176312.
10. SH. RAJESHWAR SINGH S/O SH.
RAJINDER SINGH, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-KEHRIAN, P.O &
TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA,
H.P-176023.
11. SH. RAMESH KUMAR S/O SH. NIKKA
RAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE SAYANH, P.O. LOHARA,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P-
175027.
12. SH. RAMESH CHAND S/O SH. RUDH
RAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BHATIYALI, P.O. DUGLI,
TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA,
H.P-176319.
13. SH. PAWAN KUMAR S/O SH. CHANDU
LAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VPO
JEHMAT, TEHSIL BALDWARA, DISTRICT
MANDI,H.P-175033.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
13
14. SMT. ARCHANA THAKUR, W/O SH.
HAMINDER THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, R/O THAKUR NIWAS, LOWER
SERI, NEAR VARINDAVAN COLONY,
.
SOLAN, H.P-173213.
15. SH. RISHI KUMAR S/O SURINDER
SHARMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O
VPO GUGGA SALOH, TEHSIL
PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P-
176102.
16. SH. KAUSHAL SHARMA, S/O SH. INDER
DEV SHASTRI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SHASTRI NIWAS, PARLA
BHUNTER, P.O. BHUNTER, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P-175125.
17. SH. THAKUR SINGH S/O SH. GURU DEV,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O VPO
CHANHOUTA, TEHSIL HOLI, DISTRICT
CHAMBA, HP-176309.
18. SH. SURESH KUMAR S/O SH. KISHAN
DASS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O
VPO SADWAN, TEHSIL NURPUR,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P-176202.
19. SH. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SH. KARAM
CHAND, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O
VPO GHANGOT, TEHSIL BARSAR,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HP-176039.
20. SH. KASHMIRI LAL S/O SH. SUNDER
RAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE HATWAR, TEHSIL
GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR,
H.P-174028.
21. SH. RAMESH CHAND S/O SH. LONGU
RAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VPO
DHABAN, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P-175027.
22. SH. RAJ KUMAR S/O LATE SH.
DASONDI RAM, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, R/O VPO KASHMIR, TEHSIL
GALORE, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HP-
177006.
23. SH. NARESH KUMAR S/O SH. PARMA
NAND, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE ANSWAI, P.O. GHARWASRA,
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
14
TEHSIL THIRA, DISTRICT MANDI, HP-
175025.
24. SH. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O SH. DAULAT
RAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O
.
VILLAGE KUDGAL, P.O. SIRHKUND,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P-
176310.
25. SMT. NIRMALA SHARMA W/O SH. SUNIL
KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE VPO DARPA, TEHSIL
SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HP-
175024.
26. SH. KULDEEP SINGH S/O LATE SH. DEV
RAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE KUNHANI, P.O. TIPPER,
TEHSIL BARSAR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,
HP-174312.
27. SH. VIVENDER SINGH S/O SH. JEEVAN
SINGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O
VPO BHALEI, TEHSIL SALOONI,
DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P-176308.
28. SH. HET RAM S/O SH. PARAS RAM,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VPO
KUNIHAR, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT
SOLAN, H.P-173221.
29. SH. VED PARKASH S/O SH. CHUNI LAL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O THALLI,
P.O. SUNNI, TEHSIL KARSONG,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P-171301.
30. SH. BHAGWAN DASS, S/O SH. SANT
RAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BADAHIN, P.O. KOT, TEHSIL
BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P-
175027.
31. SH. PAWAN KUMAR S/O RAKHA RAM,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
SADOH, P.O MANSAL, TEHSIL GALORE,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HP-177006.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL, FOR R-1 TO 5)
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
15
(MR. B.C. NEGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR. PRAVEEN CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 31).
.
2. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.5318 of 2019
Between:
1. JAGAT RAM SON OF SHRI SARDARU
RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PALAHOTA,
POST OFFICE UPPER BEHALI, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
2. JEEVAN LAL SON OF SHRI MULU RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANGRU, POST
OFFICE BAGGI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.r
3. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI PADAM
SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
PALAHOTA, POST OFFICE UPPER
BEHALI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
4. HEM RAJ SON OF SHRI JEET RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST OFFICE
RATTI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI,
HP.
5. RADHA KRISHAN SON OF SHRI GINTU
RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST
OFFICE MAHADEV, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
6. CHETAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI PREM LAL,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE LOHARA, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
7. LAL CHAND SON OF SHRI LEKH RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE KHAKHRIAN, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
8. VIRENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOHAN
SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANOTU,
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
16
POST OFFICE MAHADEV, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI.
9. SAROJ KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI
.
ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
CHATTER, POST OFFICE JUGAHAN,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
10. NAND LAL SON OF SHRI MOTI RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARWANI, POST
OFFICE UPPER BEHALI, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
11. NAND LAL SON OF SHRI SANT RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAMKAL, P.O.
UPPER BEHALI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
12. BASANT SINGH SON OF SHRI KURMU,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE MAHADEV, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
13. DINA NATH SON OF SHRI ANANT RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LOWER CHOWK
(DHANOTU) POST OFFICE MAHADEV,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
14. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI SANT RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE UPPER BEHALI, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
15. BEAS DEV SON OF SHRI JIWANU
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE CHUNAHAN, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
16. RAM SINGH SON OF SHRI SHANKAR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAO, POST
OFFICE DIYARGI, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
17. INDER DEV SON OF SHRI BASAKHU RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SERDH, POST
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
17
OFFICE SAINJI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
18. RUP LAL SON OF SHRI POSU RAM,
.
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SERDH, POST
OFFICE SAINJI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
19. SHYAM LAL SON OF SHRI KHEM CHAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NEHRA, POST
OFFICE CHAMBI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
20. PARAS RAM SON OF SHRI LONGU RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATTA, POST
OFFICE UPPER BEHALI, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
21. URMILA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RANJEET
SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARWANI,
POST OFFICE UPPER BEHALI, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
22. GOPAL SINGH SON OF SHRI KANAURU
RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAKKAR,
POST OFFICE RATTI, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
23. NAND LAL SON OF LATE SHRI LAXMAN
DASS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE CHUNHAN, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
24. SURENDER PAL SON OF SHRI LAXMAN
DASS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE CHUNHAN, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
25. NIRMALA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RUPESH
KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE HANETI (PURANA BAZAR),
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
26. PUSHAP LATA WIFE OF SHRI RAMESH
KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE BARSU, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
18
27. RAJINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI NIKKA
RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHATTER,
POST OFFICE JUGAHAN, TEHSIL
.
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
28. GIRJA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI MANOJ
KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADYAL,
POST OFFICE TIKKAR, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
29. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI KHUB RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE MAHADEV, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
30. RAJENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI SANT
RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHATTER,
POST OFFICE JUGAHAN, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
31. SANT RAM SON OF SHRI BIRBAL RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RARU, POST
OFFICE JUGAHAN, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
32. NARENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI KHUB
RAM WALIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
RARU, POST OFFICE JUGAHAN, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
33. NAGINDER PAL SON OF SHRI BHADER
SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
NAULAKHA, POST OFFICE MAHADEV,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
34. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI DEV
KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE KAROT, TEHSIL SUJANPUR
TIHRA, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
35. RAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI NEGI RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE LOHARA, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
19
36. RAMESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI DIWAN
CHAND RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
PALAHOTA, POST OFFICE UPPER
BEHALI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
.
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
37. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI PRAKASH
CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE RATTI, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
38. DURGA SINGH SON OF SHRI PURAN
CHAND RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
MANGLOH, POST OFFICE MAIRAMASIT,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
39. JAGDISH CHAND SON OF SHRI SUKH
RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DADOL,
POST
OFFICE MERASIT, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
40. SARWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOHAN
LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE SHAMSHI, TEHSIL BHUNTER
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.
41. INDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI HIRA SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE KANAID, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
42. MADAN LAL SON OF SHRI MUNSHI RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE STOH, POST
OFFICE RAJGARH, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
43. PAWAN KISHORE SON OF SHRI BANSI
RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUGRAIN
POST OFFICE KANAID, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
44. SURENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI DUNI
CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
DINKARDA, POST OFFICE KANAID,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
20
45. RAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI MED RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DINKARDA, POST
OFFICE KANAID, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.
46. GIAN CHAND SON OF SHRI SHANKRU,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JALAH, POST
OFFICE LOHARA, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
....PETITIONERS
(BY MR. R.L. CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-171001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
3. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.6281 of 2020
Between:
1. SATISH KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAI SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATHLAG, POST
OFFICE PADHIUN, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
2. SHIV LAL, SON OF SHRI BASANTA RAM,
RESIDENT OF JAGDISH COTTAGE, RAM
NAGAR, PHAGLI, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
21
3. DEVKI NANDAN, SON OF SHRI HEM
PRABH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST
OFFICE BRIKHMANI, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
.
4. SURENDER KUMAR SON OF LATE SH.
UTTAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
DABRATHU, POST OFFICE LOHARA,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
5. KAPIL DEV, SON OF SHRI CHET RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE KUMMI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
6. SUSHIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI GANGA
SAGAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
CHHATER, POST OFFICE JALPEHAR,
TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
7. SANJAY KUMAR, SON OF SHRI NAKBINU,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOMAHAR, POST
OFFICE & TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT
SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
8. PARAM DEV, SON OF SHRI NIRANJAN
SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATHYAL,
POST OFFICE KUMMI, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
9. SATISH KUMAR, SON OF SHRI JAI RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHATTA, POST
OFFICE KUMMI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
10. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI MAHANT
RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAWANA,
POST OFFICE DHABAN, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
11. INDER SINGH SON OF SHRI JAWAHAR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHARDWAN,
POST OFFICE KANAID, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
12. BANSI LAL SON OF SHRI MAGHU RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANDHYA, POST
OFFICE JUGHAN, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
13. RANI DEVI W/O NARESH KUMAR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAWANA, POST
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
22
OFFICE DHABAN, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
14. ANJANA KUMARI W/O SHRI HEM SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANGU, POST
.
OFFICE RATTI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
15. HIMACHALI DEVI W/O SHRI HUKAM
CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
GADWAHAN, POST OFFICE REWALSAR,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
16. SAROJ KUMARI W/O SHRI ISHWAR
DASS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST
OFFICE CHAIL CHOWK, TEHSIL
CHACHYOT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
17. HEMANT KUMARI W/O OF SHRI DINA
NATH SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
MANNER, POST OFFICE BERI, TEHSIL
SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
18. DAYA DEVI W/O SHRI JITENDER KUMAR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAKARAI, POST
OFFICE SURAHA, TEHSIL BALH,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
....PETITIONERS
(MR. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY(EDUCATION )
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-2, H.P.
2. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA-1,
H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
4. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.6526 OF 2020
Between:
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
23
1. DHANI RAM SON OF SHRI DUMNU RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST OFFICE
UPPER BEHLI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
.
2. KANTA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI GIAN
CHAND RANA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
& POST OFFICE UPPER BEHLI, TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
3. BRIJ LAL SON OF SHRI BHADAR
SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LOWER
BEHLI, POST OFFICE UPPER BEHLI,
TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
4. SNEH LATA WIFE OF SHRI SHAKHER,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST OFFICE
UPPER BEHLI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
....PETITIONERS
(MR. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY(EDUCATION )
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-2, H.P.
2. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA-1,
H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
5. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5212 of 2021
Between:
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
24
1. SHRI BIPAN KUMAR S/O SHRI LEKH RAM,
R/O VILLAGE KAPAHI, PO SARI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.
2. SHRI NARINDER CHAUHAN, S/O SHRI
SOHAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE DEOTHI, PO
MAJHGAON, TEHSIL RAJGARH VIA
BALAG, DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P).
3. SHRI BRESTU RAM S/O SHRI CHHATRU
RAM, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
PARALA, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT
SHIMLA, (HP).
4. SHRI GOVERDHAN SINGH S/O SHRI HARI
SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
RATI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI(HP).
5. SHRI RANGEELA RAM S/O SHRI SWAMI
RAM, R/O VILLAGE SANOUR, PO SARI
TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI
(HP).
6. SHRI TEK SINGH S/O SHRI MUNI LAL R/O
VILLAGE MANDIR TANDA, PO LOHARA,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI (HP).
7. SHRI MANI RAM S/O SHRI PARJANU
RAM, R/O VILLAGE MANDIR TANDA, PO
LOHARA, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI
(HP).
8. SHRI KARAM SINGH S/O SHRI PREM
SINGH, R/O VILLAGE SYANH, PO
LOHARA, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI
(HP).
9. SHRI SURENDER KUMAR S/O SHRI GIAN
CHAND, R/O VILLAGE DHANOTU, PO
MAHADEV, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI (HP).
10. SHRI HARVINDER KUMAR S/O SHRI
BALAK RAM, R/O VILLAGE TAWAN, PO
KUMMI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI
(HP).
....PETITIONERS
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
25
(MR. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE WITH MR.
SHUBHAM SOOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
.
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-01.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
6. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7334 of 2021
Between:
SH. RAM DASS, S/O SH. TARA CHAND, AGED
44 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE
BALH, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
....PETITIONER
(MR. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE WITH MR.
SHUBHAM SOOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-01.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
26
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
7. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7671 of 2021
.
Between:
SH. RAM KRISHAN S/O SH. RAM DASS,
AGED 44 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DUGHA, PO
CHOWAI, TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT KULLU,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
....PETITIONER
(MR. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE WITH MR.
SHUBHAM SOOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE
ADDITIONAL
r OF
CHIEF to
H.P. THROUGH
SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-01.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
8. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7672 of 2021
Between:
1. MS. ABIDA BANO W/O SHRI AJIJU
REHMAN, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O
VISHWAKARMA CHOWK, WARD NO. 8,
DEHRADUN ROAD PAONTA SAHIB,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR (HP).
2. MS. PREM LATA, D/O SHRI TEK CHAND,
W/O SHRI NARESH SHARMA, R/O
VILLAGE NAGOTHI, PO BRADHA, TEHSIL
BHUNTER, DISTRICT KULLU, (HP).
....PETITIONERS
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
27
(MR. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE WITH MR.
SHUBHAM SOOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
.
1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-01.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
9. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7674 of 2021
Between:
1. SHRI DALIP SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI
SHEESH RAM THAKUR AGED 53 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE TUNAN,
TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. SHRI DHARAM CHAND BHARDWAJ, S/O
SHRI GOPAL DUTT SHARMA, R/O
VILLAGE TIKRI, PO ARSU, TEHSIL
NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
3. SHRI SAT PAL VERMA S/O SHRI KEWAL
RAM VERMA, R/O VILLAGE REMU, PO
NISHANI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU (HP).
4. SHRI RAJ KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI VIR
SINGH, R/O VILLAGE SADHAGHARAT,
PO SHARVI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
5. SHRI NARESH KUMAR S/O SHRI
ANIRUDH SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
28
TIKKRI, PO ARSU, TEHSIL NIRMAND,
DISTRICT KULLU (HP).
6. SHRI GOVIND RAM S/O SHRI NARAN
DASS, R/O VILLAGE KHAJERA, PO
.
ARSU, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU (HP).
[
7. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR S/O SHRI DHARAM
DASS, R/O VILLAGE SHARTI, PO
DURAHA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
8. SHRI RAJINDER SINGH S/O SHRI
SUNDER SINGH, R/O VILLAGE THANS,
PO ARSU, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU (H.P).
9. DINESH KUMARI W/O SHRI BUDH RAM,
R/O VILLAGE RANDAL, PO RAMPUR,
TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU
(HP).
10. NEEL CHAND THAKUR S/O SHRI KAUL
RAM THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE GOWAL, PO
DURAHA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU (H.P).
11. MS. SUNDER LATA W/O SHRI FC
BHARDWAJ, R/O VILLAGE AWERI, PO
NOGLI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU (H.P).
12. MS. ANITA DEVI W/O SHRI KARAM
CHAND NEGI, R/O VILLAGE & POST
OFFICE JARI, TEHSIL BHUNTER,
DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
13. SHRI TEJ RAM S/O LATE SHRI MANSA
RAM, R/O VILLAGE KHAJERA, PO ARSU,
TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
14. SMT. ANITA KUMARI W/O SHRI RAJ
NARAYAN, R/O VILLAGE NORE, PO
SHAMANI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS
29
15. MS. JANTA DEVI D/O SHRI KHELU RAM,
R/O VILLAGE THANS, PO ARSU, TEHSIL
NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU (H.P).
.
16. JAI PAL S/O SHRI GOPAL DUTT, R/O
VILLAGE TIKRI, PO ARSU, TEHSIL
NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU (H.P).
17. SHRI RUPESH CHAND S/O SHRI HIRA
CHAND, R/O VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE KALWARI, TEHSIL BANJAR,
DISTRICT KULLU(HP).
....PETITIONERS
(MR. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE WITH MR.
SHUBHAM SOOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
ADDITIONAL
r CHIEF SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-01.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
Whether approved for reporting?
These petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
CMP-T No.744 of 2021 in CWPOA No. 3573 of 2019 By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicants/proposed respondents for their impleadment as respondents in CWPOA No.3573 of 2019.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 302. All the applicants, in the instant application, are seeking their impleadment on the ground that they are fully qualified in terms of new R&P Rules, .
notified in the year 2011, but are not being appointed because of interim order dated 26.8.2021, whereby direction has been issued to the respondent-State to maintain status quo qua the recruitment to the post of PET.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents states that he does not intend to file reply to the application and has no objection in case the prayer made in the instant application is allowed.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present application is allowed and applicants/ proposed respondents, as detailed in the application, are ordered to be impleaded as respondents No.6 to 31. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of the parties on the basis of the amended memo of parties annexed with the application.
5. Mr. B.C.Negi, learned Senior Counsel representing the newly impleaded respondents, states that he does not wish to file separate reply to the petition and be permitted to adopt the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State.
His statement is taken on record. The reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State is ordered to be treated as reply on behalf of the newly impleaded respondents.
Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.3573 of 2019 A/W CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.5318 of 2019, CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.6281 of 2020, CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.6526 OF 2020, CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5212 of 2021 CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7334 of 2021, CIVIL WRIT PETITION ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 31 No.7671 of 2021 , CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7672 of 2021 AND CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7674 of 2021.
6. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in the above .
captioned petitions and petitioners in all the petitions are aggrieved with the order dated 10.07.2018, passed by Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners to consider their case in light of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.8022 of 2012, titled as Saroj Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 9.1.2013, all the cases were clubbed and heard together and are now being disposed of vide this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of CWP No.3573 of 2019, titled as Yog Raj and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others are being discussed herein below.
7. After having passed one year diploma in physical education in the years 1996 to1999, petitioners got themselves enrolled with the employment exchanges of their respective areas for their appointments as Physical Education Teacher ( for short 'PET') on batch-wise basis. Though, initially as per R& P Rules, essential qualification for the post of 'PET' was matric with one year diploma in Physical Education Training from a recognized University/ Institutions or its equivalent or Ex-servicemen with a pass in PTI course of the Army school, Physical Education Pune, however, in the year 2011 old R& P Rules came to be repealed and State Government introduced new R&P Rules 2010, whereby 50% of posts are to be filled up on the batch wise basis from amongst eligible persons having essential qualification of 10+2 with 50% marks and diploma in physical ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 32 education (D.P.Ed) of a duration of two academic years, as a consequence of which, candidates having one year diploma in the year 1997-98 were rendered .
ineligible to be appointed as Physical Education Teacher in school cadre. Since petitioners, as detailed hereinabove, had also done their one year diploma in physical education, they also became ineligible amongst other candidates to be appointed against the post of Physical Education Teacher and as such, represented to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. State Government having realized that on account of incorporation of new R&P Rules, 2010 many candidates, who had got themselves enrolled for appointment as Physical Education Teacher on batch wise basis have rendered ineligible, decided to relax the condition of qualification in terms of Section 23 Sub-rule 2 of Right to Education Act, 2009 and accordingly vide communication dated 15th February, 2011(Annexure A-2), directed all the Deputy Directors of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh to appoint Classical and vernacular teachers ( for short 'C&V') including PET on the basis of their old qualifications, but subject to the condition that they all shall have to improve their educational qualification within a period of five years from the date of appointment.
8. In view of aforesaid relaxation in qualification granted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, numbers of candidates having one year diploma throughout the State came to be appointed as PET teachers on batch wise basis, but interestingly, petitioners, who belong to batches of 1996 -1998 were ignored and persons junior to them on batch wise seniority were appointed and as such, some of persons approached this Court by way of CWP No.8022 of ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 33 2012, titled as Saroj Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others (Annexure A-3). Division Bench of this Court having taken of the decision taken by the .
Government of Himachal Pradesh to grant one time relaxation vide communication dated 15.02.2011, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teachers in light of the decision so taken by the Government, within a period of three months.
9. Though, aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Saroj Kumar's case (supra) came to be laid challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of SLP filed by the respondent-State, but same was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure A-4). Since despite there being dismissal of SLP, no steps were being taken by the respondents to implement the judgment passed in Saroj Kumar's case (supra), petitioners in that case were compelled to approach this Court by way of Execution Petition No.4012 of 2013, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 26.03.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court (Annexure A-5). Perusal of aforesaid judgment reveals that the then learned Additional Advocate General stated at bar that respondents are taking steps to comply with the court directions contained in judgment dated 9.1.2013 passed in CWP No.8022 of 2012 and as such, it is not in dispute that after passing of aforesaid judgment, Government of Himachal Pradesh considered the case of the petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case and offered them appointment vide office order dated 5th April, 2014, as a consequence of which, petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case(supra) came to be appointed as PET in different schools in State of Himachal Pradesh. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that compliance in case of Saroj ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 34 Kumar's case (supra) came to be made by the respondents on the basis of decision taken in the cabinet, wherein cabinet gave approval for appointment of 20 .
persons, who were petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case (supra).
10. Petitioners being similar situate persons belonging to batch of 1996 to 1998 also approached this Court by way of CWP No.2300 of 2014, seeking therein direction to the respondents to grant them benefits in terms of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Saroj Kumar's case (supra), which came to be disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Saroj Kumar's case (supra), in a time bound manner. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.2300 of 2014 remained unchallenged and as such, same has attained finality. Since no steps were being taken by the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in CWP No.2300 of 2014 in light of Saroj Kumar case (supra,) they were compelled to approach this Court by way of various contempt petitions, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide common order dated 1st July, 2015 in COPC No.160 of 2015, titled Dharmender Kumar and others versus Sh. P.C. Dhiman and the connected maters. Order dated 1st July, 2015 reads as under:-
"Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General stated at the bar that the respondents have passed the order and complied with the directions contained in the judgments passed by this Court. His statement is taken on record. He has also produced the copy of order dated 30th June, 2015, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Education), in the open Court, made part of the file, which shall govern all the Contempt Petitions.
In view of the order passed by the respondents dated 30th June, 2015 referred to above, coupled with the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Contempt petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. However, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same in case they are still aggrieved".::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 35
11. Apart from above, another contempt petition bearing COPC No.4 of 2015, titled Gagan Kumar versus P.C. Dhiman and others and the connected .
matters, came to be disposed of in following terms":-
"Mr. P.C.Dhiman, Secretary Education, present before the Court in person stated at the Bar that he has taken steps to comply with the directions issued by this Court, which required nod of the Cabinet and seeks three weeks' time to do the needful. His statement is taken on record.
Accordingly, these contempt petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to comply with the directions issued by this Court, within three weeks from today and report compliance before the Registrar (Judicial).
The Registry to convey the order to the respondents and also the learned Additional Advocate General. The petitions stand disposed of."
12. Careful perusal of aforesaid orders passed in contempt petitions from time to time reveal that though respondent No.1 i.e. Sh.P.C. Dhiman, the then, Additional Chief Secretary (Education) undertook before this Court that order passed in CWP No.2300 of 2014, whereby direction came to be issued to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Saroj Kumar's case ,would be compiled with after having taken nod from Cabinet, but interestingly vide order dated 30.6.2015 (Annexure A-7), rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are not similar situate to the 20 petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case (supra).
13. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order dated 30.6.2015, petitioners herein again approached erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No.2781 of 2015, which came to be allowed vide common judgment dated 28.04.2017 (Annexure A-8). Vide aforesaid judgment tribunal below quashed the order dated 30th June, 2015 and while directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioners afresh within ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 36 forty five days also directed the respondents that batch-wise appointment to the posts of Physical Education Teachers (PETs) initiated under the memo dated 18th .
April 2017 shall remain in abeyance till the matter is considered and decided by the respondent/competent authority. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment rendered by Tribunal below has attained finality because at no point of time same came to be laid challenge by way of Civil Writ Petition before this Court.
14. Though, judgment passed by Tribunal below on 28.04.2017 was to be complied within 45 days, but such direction came to be complied with after inordinate delay of one year that too after filing of COPC No.387 of 2017 in Original Application No. 2781 of 2015 before Tribunal below. Vide order dated 10.12.2018 (Annexure A-10 in the case of Jagat Ram in OA No.2781 of 2015), respondents rejected the case of the petitioners on the same and similar grounds as were raised while passing order dated 30.6.2015, which otherwise stood quashed vide judgment dated 28.4.2017, passed by Tribunal in Original Application No.2781 of 2015. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:-
"i). That the impugned order dated 10.07.2018(Annexure A-9) may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
ii) That the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the applicants against the post of Physical Education Teacher as per batch wise seniority.
15. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 3716. Before ascertaining the correctness of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that in the .
year 2014, Deputy Directors of Elementary Education of concerned Districts conducted counseling for appointment to the post of PET, wherein all the petitioners were also considered for appointment on batch wise basis on the basis of old R&P Rules, as is evident from Annexure A-6, but they were never offered appointment.
17. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in order dated 10.07.2018 (Annexure A-9) passed by the respondents because by no stretch of imagination, petitioners herein can be said to be similar situate to the petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case (supra). Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that leaving everything aside, no positive direction ever came to be issued to the State of Himachal Pradesh to grant similar benefits to the petitioners herein, as was granted in Saroj Kumar's case, rather direction was only to consider the case, which has been done in the case at hand. Mr. Bhatnagar, further argued that petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case approached this Court well within time and as such, their case came to be considered in light of Notification dated 15th February 2011 (Annexure A-2), whereby one time relaxation was given by the State of Himachal Pradesh to the candidates, who did not possess requisite qualification in terms of new R& P Rules, notified in the year 2011, whereas petitioners in the instant case kept on sleeping and they after passing of directions in Saroj Kumar's case, approached this Court in the year 2014, by which time, notification dated 12.11.2014 came to be issued by National Council for Teacher Education ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 38 (for short 'NCTE'), thereby directing the State not to give further relaxation in the appointment of PET as far as minimum qualification is concerned.
.
18. At this stage Shri Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing for the petitioners submitted that at no point of time notification, as claimed to have been issued by NCTE in the year 2014, ever came to be placed on record. Even today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General was unable to place on record aforesaid notification, but submitted that there is reference of aforesaid communication in order dated 30th June, 2015, passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation of the petitioners came to be rejected. Lastly, Mr. Bhatnagar, argued that orders dated 30.06.2015 and 10.7.2018 passed by the respondent-State in compliance of directions issued by this Court in CWP No.2300 of 2014, clearly reveals that no persons junior to the petitioners ever came to be appointed on batch wise basis on the basis of old R&P Rules, save and except one person namely Amrik Singh, whose appointment order was also withdrawn, but such decision was stayed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in Original Application having been filed by that person.
19. While inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 595, Mr. Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, stated that the State Government is under obligation to act as per the notifications issued by NCTE, which is an academic authority. Learned Additional Advocate General also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 31st July, 2014, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3598 of 2014, titled ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 39 as Meenaxi Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others, to demonstrate that appointment to the post of PET is governed under the Recruitment and Promotions .
Rules, notified by the Government and the persons having not minimum qualification, as provided under R& P Rules cannot be given appointment.
20. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioners duly assisted by Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Mr. Kush Shamra and Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocates while refuting aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respondent-
State, vehemently argued that impugned order dated 10.7.2018 is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as law laid down by this Court in Saroj Kumar's case. Above named counsel further argued that since vide Notification dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure A-2), respondents themselves decided to give relaxation to such candidates, who had passed one year diploma for appointment against the post of PET subject to the condition that they will have to improve their educational qualification within a period of five years, cases of the petitioners ought to have been considered for appointment of PET among other eligible candidates. While making this Court to peruse the pleadings, learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that it is not in dispute that petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case are similar situate to the petitioners herein because admittedly they all were not having qualification as prescribed under new R& P Rules 2010, notified in the year, 2011 and as such, petitioners, who were awaiting their appointment since the year 1996-97 should have been also given appointment as PET. While inviting attention of this Court to orders dated 30.6.2015 and 10.7.2018 passed in purported compliance of repeated directions issued by this Court as well as Tribunal, learned counsel for ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 40 the petitioners submitted that grounds raised for rejection of the case of the petitioners are not tenable in light of the decision taken by the Government to give .
one time relaxation to the candidates having one year Diploma in physical education teacher from the recognized University.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though there is no notification as is being claimed to be issued by NCTE in the year 2014, directing therein State to not give appointment to the persons having qualification as prescribed under old R& P Rules, but even otherwise petitioners are entitled to have relaxation in qualification in terms of notification 15th February, 2011,which was to be applied uniformly in the case of all the candidates, who prior to promulgation of new R& P Rules 2010 had acquired minimum qualification of one year diploma. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that as of today more than 800 posts of PETs are lying vacant in the State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, similar situate persons, who may not be more than 350 can be easily adjusted/given appointment against the post of PET reserved for this category i.e. 50% on batch wise basis.
22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that all the petitioners herein after having passed one year Diploma in Physical education in the year(s), 1996-99 got their name registered in different employment exchanges across the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that prior to the introduction of new R&P Rules 2010, notified in the year, 2011 essential qualification to the post of Physical Education Teacher as per old R&P Rules was matric with one year diploma in physical education training from a recognized ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 41 University/ institution or its equivalent. Though, qualification provided in old R&P Rules, as detailed hereinabove, came to be changed/substituted after introduction .
of new R&P Rules 2010, whereby essential qualification for the post of PET came to be prescribed as 10+2 with 50% marks and two years diploma in physical education, but State Government having realized difficulty of persons, who had acquired one year diploma and got themselves registered in various employment exchanges, itself took a conscious decision to give relaxation in qualification and issued notification dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure A-2), exercising power in terms of Section 23 sub rule (2) of Right to Children's Free and Compulsory Education Act.
23. Careful perusal of aforesaid communication dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure A-2) clearly reveals that State Government while deciding to grant relaxation to the persons having qualification of one year diploma, specifically ordered that such persons may have to improve their qualification as provided under new R&P Rules within a period of five years from the date of appointment. It is not in dispute that at the time of issuance of this communication, names of all the petitioners stood registered with the employment exchanges across the State for appointment as 'PET' on batch wise basis.
24. No doubt, new R&P Rules 2010 were notified in the year, 2011 wherein qualification as provided under old R&P Rules was substituted from one year diploma to two years diploma, but once respondent-State by way of issuing order dated 15.2.2011, itself decided to give relaxation to all such candidates, who were having one year diploma, it ought to have granted such relaxation to all the persons, especially whose names stood registered in the employment exchanges prior to promulgation/introduction of new R&P Rules,2010. Though, it has been ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 42 strenuously argued on behalf of the respondent-State that relaxation granted vide order dated 15.2.2011 was one time relaxation, but even then, such onetime .
relaxation was to be given to all the persons including the petitioners, whose names stood registered with the employment exchanges. Though, now at this stage it is being claimed by respondent-State that in view of Notification dated 12.11.2014 issued by NCTE no further relaxation could be given, but petitioners herein are otherwise entitled to benefit of relaxation granted vide notification dated 15.2.2011 (Annexure A-2) because notification by NCTE came to be issued on 12.11.2014. Though, as has been observed hereinabove, at no point of time notification dated 12.11.2014 has been placed on record, but even if it is presumed that aforesaid notification has been issued, same was issued in the year 2014, meaning thereby notification dated 15.2.2011 issued by the respondent-State was very much in existence till issuance of notification dated 12.11.2014 and as such, petitioners, who had approached this Court in the year 2013-14 ought to have been given benefit of aforesaid notification dated 15.2.2011
25. Leaving everything aside, it is not in dispute that 20 similar situate persons approached this Court by way of CWP No.8022 of 2012, titled as Saroj Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and their case was ordered to be considered in light of notification dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure A-2), issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh, thereby relaxing condition of minimum qualification. Though, at first instance judgment passed in Saroj Kumar's case came to be laid challenge up till Hon'ble Apex Court, but as has been noticed hereinabove, SLP having been filed by the respondent-State was dismissed, as a consequence of which, respondent-State was compelled to ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 43 consider the case of the petitioners in terms of Saroj Kumar's case in light of notification dated 15.02.2011. Since, it is not in dispute that petitioners are similar .
situate to the petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case, respondents are otherwise duty bound to give similar benefit to the petitioners. Through, Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while inviting attention of this Court to order dated 30.06.2015, passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Education) vehemently argued that petitioners are not similar situate to that of the petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case, but once it is not in dispute that all the petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case had one year diploma in physical education and they were not having requisite qualification as provided under new R&P Rules, 2010, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents-State to claim that petitioners herein are not similar situate to the petitioners in Saroj Kumar' case. Factum with regard to the petitioners being similar situate to petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case is not to be determined on the basis of the date of their enrollment with the employment exchange, rather factum with regard to their being similar situate in the context of present controversy is to be determined from the fact that they both possessed similar qualification or not. Undisputedly, in the case at hand all the petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case were also having one year diploma like petitioners and they were given appointment to the post of PET on the basis of relaxation granted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 15.02.2011. Lastly, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General also argued that since petitioners are fence-sitters, they cannot be given benefit, as is being claimed by them. In support of his aforesaid submissions, he placed reliance upon the ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 44 judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others (2015) 1Supreme Court Cases 347.
.
26. Having considered the facts of the case in its totality, aforesaid submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General deserves outright rejection. Admittedly, in the case at hand notification relaxing thereby condition of minimum qualification came to be issued in the year, 2011(Annexure A-2) and petitioners after having acquired requisite qualification in terms of old R&P Rules had got themselves registered in the different employment exchanges across the State in the year,1996-97. All the petitioners after having enrolled themselves in different employment exchanges were awaiting their appointment on batch wise basis. Till the year, 2011, when old R&P Rules came to be repealed and new R&P Rules were notified, prescribing therein new qualification, petitioners had no knowledge that their claim for appointment on batch wise basis would stand defeated on account of amendment in R&P Rules, which otherwise came to be notified in the year 2011. Moreover, respondents themselves after having realized difficulty of persons, who had requite qualification in terms of old R&P Rules decided to give relaxation in minimum qualification and issued notification dated 15.2.2011, specifically stating therein that persons having qualification in terms of old R&P Rules would be appointed against the post of classical and vernacular teachers including PET, subject to improvement in their qualification in terms of new R&P Rules within five years from the date of their appointment. Once, after promulgation of new R&P Rules, notified in the year 2011 Government itself decided to relax the condition of minimum qualification as prescribed under new R&P Rules vide notification dated 15.02.2011, claim of petitioners cannot be ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 45 allowed to be defeated on the ground of delay and laches, especially when they after having gathered knowledge/ information with regard to issuance of .
notification dated 15.02.2011 approached this Court well within time, seeking therein directions to the respondents to consider their cases in light of relaxation granted by the State of Himachal Pradesh in terms of notification dated 15.02.2011. Learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to dispute that notification dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure A-2) has been not withdrawn till date, rather his specific case is that with the issuance of notification dated 12.11.2014 earlier notification dated 15.2.2011 stands repealed, but such plea of him cannot be accepted for the reasons that notification dated 15.2.2011 came to be issued by Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereas notification dated 12.11.2014 was issued by NCTE, wherein it came to be notified to all the States that no further relaxation shall be given in qualification for the appointment of classical and vernacular teacher including PET.
27. At the cost of repetition, it is once again stated that though aforesaid notification dated 12.11.2014 is not available, but even if it is presumed that same was issued, that can be only given effect from the date of issuance but definitely not prior to that and till the time notification dated 15.02.2011 is in force, which has been otherwise not withdrawn, respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Saroj Kumar's case (supra), which has attained finality.
28. Leaving everything aside, once it is not in dispute that petitioners herein are similar situate to the petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case, they are also entitled to be given relaxation in minimum qualification in terms of notification ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 46 dated 15.02.2011, issued by State of Himachal Pradesh. Denying benefit in terms of notification dated 15.02.2011 to the petitioners not only amounts to .
discrimination but also violates their right of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution of India and against the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion as provided under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in The State of Mysore and another versus .P. Narasinga Rao AIR 1968 Supreme Court 349, wherein it has been held as under:-
" The relevant law on the subject is well-settled. Under Art. 16 of the Constitution, there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State or to promotion from one office to a higher office thereunder. Article 16 of the Constitution is only an incident of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Art. 14 thereof. It gives effect to -the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. It follows that there can be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointment or promotion. The concept of equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only when the promotees are drawn from the same source. 'This Court in dealing with the extent of protection of Art. 16(1) observed in General Manager, Southern Rly. v. Rangachari,1962(2) SCR 586 at P.596 (AIR 1962 SC 36 at pp.40-41).
"Thus construed it would be clear that matters relating to employment cannot be confined only to the initial matters prior to the act of employment. The narrow construction would confine the application of Art. 16(1) to the initial employment and nothing else; but that clearly is only one of the matters relating to employment.
The other matters relating to employment would inevitably be the provision as to the salary and periodical increments therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as to pension and as to the age of superannuation. These are all matters relating to employment and they are, and must be, deemed to be included in the expression 'matters relating to employment' in Art.16(1).................. This equality of opportunity need not be confused with absolute equality as such. What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity and nothing more. Article 16(1) or (2) does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for selection to any employment or appointment to any office. Any provision as to the qualifications for the employment or the appointment to office reasonably fixed and applicable to all citizens would certainly be consistent with the doctrine of the equality of opportunity; but in regard to employment, like other terms and conditions associated with and incidental to it, ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 47 the promotion to a selection post is also included in the matters relating to employment, and even in regard to such a promotion to a selection post all,that Art. 16(1) guarantees is equality of opportunity to all citizens who enter ser- vice............... In this connection it may be relevant to remember that Art.
.
16(1) and (2) really give effect to the equality before law guaranteed by Art. 14 and to the prohibition of discrimination guaranteed by Art. 15(1). The three provisions form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. If that be so, there would be no difficulty in holding that the matters relating to employment must include 'all matters in relation to employment both prior, and subsequent, to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of terms and conditions of such employment."
The argument was stressed on behalf of the respondent that success in the S.S.L.C. examination had no relevance to the post of tracer and the tracers of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad who were allotted to the new State of Mysore were persons similarly situated and there was no justification for making a discrimination against only some of them by creating a higher pay scale for tracers who had passed the S.S.L.C. examination. It was contended for the respondent that all, the tracers who were allotted to the new State of Mysore were persons who were turning out the same kind -of work and discharging the same kind of duty and there was no rational basis for making two classes of tracers, one con- sisting of those who had passed the S.S.L.C. examination and the other consisting of those who had not. In our opinion, there is no justification for the argument put forward in favour of the respondent. It is well-settled that though Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Art. 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule. As we have already stated ' Arts. 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. In other words, Art. 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Art. 14 and it should be construed as such. Hence, there is no denial of equality of opportunity unless the person who complains of discrimination is equally situated with the person or persons who are alleged to have been favoured, Article 1.6(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection. It is true that the selective test adopted by the Government for making two different classes will be violative of Arts. 14 and 16 if there is no relevant connection ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 48 between the test prescribed and the interest of public service. In other words, there must be a reasonable relation of the prescribed test to the suitability of the candidate for the post or for employment to public service as such. The provisions of Art. 14 or Art. 16 do not exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the .
Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such qualifications need not be only technical but they can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate for public service as such. It is therefore not right to say that in the appointment to the post of tracers the Government ought to have taken into account only the technical Proficiency of the candidates in the particular craft. It is open to the Government to consider also the general educational attainments of the candidates and to give preference to candidates who have a better educational qualification besides technical proficiency of a tracer.
The relevance of general education even to technical branches of public service was emphasised long ago by Macaulay as follows.
Men who have been engaged, up to one and two and twenty, in studies which have no immediate connection with the business of any profession, and the effect of which is merely to open, to invigorate, and to enrich the mind, will generally be found, in the business of every profession, superior to men who have,, at eighteen or nineteen, devoted themselves to the special studies of their calling. Indeed, early superiority in literature and science generally indicates the existence of some qualities which are securities against vice- industry, self-denial, a taste for pleasures not sensual, a laudable desire of Honourable distinction, a still more laudable desire to obtain the approbation of friends and relations. We, therefore, think that the intellectual test about to be established will be found in practice to be also the best moral test can be devised."
29. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another Vs. A.V.R. Siddhanti and others, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1755, wherein it has been held as under:-
" 24. It is not correct to say that all the employees of category(iii) were sub-standard in educational qualifications. Several persons in that category satisfied the educational norms. For instance, Sidhanti Respondent was F.A., while the minimum educational qualification requisite for the post of a Commercial Clerk was Matriculation or equivalent examination. Though sufficient data has not been brought on the record on the basis of which a firm finding can be given, yet three copies of notices (uncertified) have been filed by the Respondents which indicate that at some stage educational qualifications had been ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 49 relaxed to meet the extraordinary demand for personnel to man the posts of Ticket collectors and Guards etc. Regarding education, all that was required of the candidates was a "working knowledge of English". It was quite possible, that in categories (ii) and (iii), also, there were some whose qualifications were not in accord with the prescribed norms.
.
Educational qualifications being less than the requisite minimum was therefore not a feature, peculiar to category (iii), only. Indeed, it is not the case of the appellants that the classification of the grain-shop staff envisaged in the impugned proceedings, for the purpose of absorption and seniority in permanent departments, has been made on the basis of educational qualifications.
25. The fundamental right of equality means that persons in like situation, under like circumstances are entitled to be treated alike. "The Constitutional Code of Equality and Equal Opportunity", observed this court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosla, Civil Appeal No.2134 of 1972, D/-26-9-1973(reported in AIR 1974 SC 1), "is a charter for equals". So long as employees similarly circumstanced in the same class of service are treated alike,-the question of hostile discrimination does not arise. The equality of opportunity for purposes of seniority, promotion and like matters of employment is available only for persons who fall substantially, within the same class or unit of service. The guarantee of equality is not applicable as between members of distinct and different classes of the service. The Constitution does not command that in all matters of employment absolute symmetry be maintained. A wooden equality as between all classes of employees regardless of qualifications, kind of jobs, nature of responsibility and performance of the employees is not intended, nor is it practicable if the administration is to run. Indeed, the maintenance of such a 'classless' and undiscerning equality' where, in reality, glaring inequalities and intelligible differential exist, will deprive the guarantee of its practical content. Broad classification based on reason, executive pragmatism and experience having a direct relation with the achievement of efficiency in administration, is permissible. That is to say, reasonable classification according to some principle, to recognise intelligible inequalities or to avoid or correct inequalities is allowed, but not miniclassification which creates inequality among the similarly circumstanced members of the same class or group.
30. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that persons in like situation, under like circumstances are entitled to be treated alike. So long as persons similarly circumstanced in the same class of service are treated alike, the question of hostile discrimination does not arise. The equality of opportunity for purposes of seniority, promotion and like matters of employment is available only for persons who fall substantially, within the same ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 50 class or unit of service. Though, reasonable classification to recognise intelligible inequalities or to avoid or correct inequalities is allowed, but not miniclassification .
which creates inequality among the similarly circumstanced members of the same class or group. In the case at hand, petitioners in Saroj Kumar' case possess one year diploma in Physical Education with matric and they all were offered appointment by the State on batch wise basis by extending benefit of relaxation in minim qualification in terms of notification dated 15.02.2011. Since petitioners, whose names also stood enrolled in the employment exchanges of the respective areas on the basis of qualification prescribed in old R& P Rules for their appointment as PET on batch wise basis, they also ought to have been given relaxation in minimum qualification after promulgation of new R& P Rules, notified in the year, 2011 issued by Director Elementary Education. Action of the respondents, whereby they have denied the relaxation in minimum qualification in terms of notification dated 12.11.2014 to the petitioners is not only amount to discrimination interse petitioners herein and petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case, but if permitted would also amount to infraction of their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
31. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others (supra), wherein it has been held as under:
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 51 India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court .
earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.
32. No doubt, in the aforesaid case Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit, but same is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced in to the same and woke up after long delay, they would be treated as fence-sitter and laches and delays would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 5233. In the case at hand, as has been noticed hereinabove, petitioners approached court of law well within time i.e. immediately after passing of judgment .
in Saroj Kumar's case. The petitioners approached this Court at first instance and thereafter after rejection of their claim by respondents, they approached erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, who while setting aside order darted 30.06.2015 passed in purported compliance of order passed by this Court, categorically held that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Saroj Kumar's case.
34. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 595, it has been held as under:-
"17. There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an 'academic authority' under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Central Government as well as under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011. The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. However, since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification dated 11th February, 2011 with regard to the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered with. Accordingly, while we uphold the view that qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding, requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement."
35. It has been categorically held in the aforesaid judgment that State Government is under obligation to act as per the notifications and instructions issued by NCTE from time to time because it acts as "an academic authority"
under section 23 of the RTE Act. However, in the instant case, aforesaid case has no application for the reasons that instructions/notifications, if any, to not give further relaxation in qualification for appointment to the post of PET came to be ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 53 issued in the year 2014, before which time Government of H.P., itself vide notification dated 15.02.2011 had decided to give one time relaxation to the .
persons having qualification as per old R&P Rules. In the case at hand, petitioners, who had approached this Court in the year 2013-14 are entitled to be given benefit of relaxation in minimum education qualification in terms of notification dated 15.02.2011, as has been done by State of Himachal Pradesh in case of petitioners in Saroj Kumar's case.
36. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that at present more than 870 posts of Physical Education Teachers are lying vacant in the State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, cases of the petitioners can be easily considered for appointment to the posts of PET on batch wise basis after granting them relaxation in minimum qualification in terms of notification dated 15.02.2011, as was ordered to be done by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9th January, 2012 passed in CWP No.8022 of 2012, titled as Saroj Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others, which has been further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court.
37. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, all the petitions are allowed and order dated 10.07.2018(Annexure A-9), is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teachers on batch wise basis after having granted them relaxation in minimum qualification in terms of Notification dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure A-2) and pursuant to counseling done on 14.7.2014 (Annexure A-6). Since, the petitioners have been fighting for their rightful claims for more than 7-8 years, this Court hopes and trust ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS 54 that needful shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim .
order, if any, is vacated.
19th July, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(shankar) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:33:24 :::CIS