IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 15038 of 2008. Decided on: 07.07.2010. Varinder Kumar and others. …Petitioners. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioners. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioners have qualified the C.P.Ed. courses from the Director of Sports, Youth Services, Maharashtra in the academic session 1997-1998. The result was declared on 03.12.1999. The respondent-State has taken a decision to fill up the posts of P.E.Ts. on batch-wise basis, for which the interviews were held on 30.04.2003. However, the case of the petitioners was not considered by the respondents. Petitioners approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. Nos. 2531, 2532 and 2533 of 2003. The Original Applications were disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 08.06.2006 by treating the same as representations to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 decided the same on 17th 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. January, 2007. Thereafter, he took up the matter with the State Government for necessary approval/sanction on 18th May, 2007. The State Government accorded sanction on 05.10.2007. Thereafter, the model code of conduct was imposed, which further delayed the appointment of the petitioners. Ultimately, the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 02.01.2008 and they joined their duties on 04.01. 2008. Petitioners though have been appointed, but they have not been given the benefits from anterior date, i.e., from the date their juniors were appointed. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that once the petitioners have been treated of 1997-1998 batch, they should be deemed to have been appointed in the year, 2003, with all consequential benefits. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioners have been appointed only in the year, 2008, they cannot be given the benefits from back date. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioners have been treated by the respondents belonging to 1997-1998 batch. The interviews for filling up the posts of P.E.Ts. were conducted on 30.04.2003. However, the petitioners were left out. It is only after the petitioners had approached the learned Tribunal, which led to the decision dated 17th January, 2007. Once the petitioners have been treated belonging to 1997-1998 batch, they cannot be discriminated by the respondents. They have to be treated at par with those candidates, who were appointed in the year, 2003 belonging to 1997-1998 batch. The action of the respondents of denying the appointment to the petitioners by treating them of 2002 batch instead of 1997-1998 batch, is declared illegal and arbitrary. They are to be treated of 1997-1998 batch for all intents and purposes. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioners shall be deemed to have been appointed in the year, 2003 by treating them of 1997-1998 batch. However, the consequential benefits are restricted to seniority and counting the period w.e.f. 2003 to 4th January, 2008 for the purpose of increments only. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 07, 2010. (bhupender)