IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5302 of 2010. Decided on 5.01.2011 Kamlesh Verma ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayer: “ It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Kalaha, Tehsil Bharmaur, District Chamba, H.P.” 2. In reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the following stand has been taken by way of preliminary submissions: “ That the present civil writ petition filed by the petitioner against the State of Himachal Pradesh is not maintainable. As a matter of fact that the petitioner was selected as Primay Assistant Teacher by the duly constituted Committed under the chairmanship of the SDO (civil) on 1.10.2007 for Govt. Primary School, Kalah, Block Gharola, District Chamba, but appointment could not be offered to the petitioner due to the reason that in the meantime code of conduct was in forced in the State on 10.10.2007. thereafter the State Government took 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 policy decision to review all such selection process and interview held or in the process and issued letter dated 16.1.2008 intimating that all on going selection process including interview be stopped and all result withheld it was also decided that in case where the results have been declared the appointment be withheld pending review. The petitioner was declared as Primary Assistant Teacher but appointment was withheld by the department after the above mentioned policy decision of the State Government. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court had earlier decided similar matter in CWP (T) No.496 of 2008 titled as Ashok Kumar versus State and the State Government has decided to assail these orders before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly the Hon’ble Apex Court has pleased to issue notice. ” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very out set that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 16.06.2010 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 751 of 2008, Kamlesh Kumari versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, text where of is as under: “The respondents have notified one vacancy of PAT to be filled in Government Primary School, Kuleth, Education Block Garola, District Chamba. The petitioner submitted application for considering her candidature. Petitioner’s name was recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committee vide Annexure A-2,dated 10th October, 2007. Thereafter vide office order dated 29thDecember, 2007, respondent No.6 has issued the appointment letter. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that despite her selection, respondents are not permitting her to join her duties in Government Primary School, Kuleth, Education Block Garola, District Chamba. The respondents have not chosen to file any reply. Once the selection process has been commended by the respondents, which has culminated in issuance of office order Annexure 3 A-3, there is no reason why the petitioner has not been permitted to join her duties. The respondents cannot set the entire process to naught by not permitting the petitioner to join her duties as PAT in Government Primary School, Kuleth, Education Block Garola. A valuable right has accrued to the petitioner after her name was recommended by the Selection Committee as per Annexure A-2, which has resulted in issuance of office order Annexure A- 3, dated 29th December, 2007. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join her duties as PAT in Primary School, Kuleth, Education Block Garola, District Chamba, within a period of seven days from today. No costs.” 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to herein above and she is also a similarly situate person as the petitioner in the said case, she shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of said judgment shall also be extended to her within one month from the date of production of copies of this judgment by the petitioner to respondent No.2, by taking into consideration office order dated 10.3.2008, Annexure P-4. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP (s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 5th January, 2011. (jai)