IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 7544 of 2008. Decided on: 6th September, 2010. Manoj Kumar Kashmiri. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Respondent No. 2 published an advertisement No. 2/99 in the ‘Giriraj Weekly Newspaper’, dated 17.03.1999, whereby applications were invited for filling up 31 posts of Physical Education Teachers in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100/-. The essential qualification prescribed was matriculation with one year Physical Education Course or equivalent from any recognized University/Institution. Petitioner submitted his application and he appeared for physical screening test on 06.11.2000. The result of the same was published on 05.01.2001. He was asked to appear for personal interview on 22.01.2001. He was informed by the interview Board that the certificate of Physical Education obtained by him was not recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 2. The respondents have filed a detailed reply. According to the reply, the petitioner was not qualified and eligible for the post of Physical Education Teacher. However, fact of the matter is 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. that now on the basis of the same qualification, the petitioner has been appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 16.07.2010. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client is entitled to arrears of salary etc. from the date when the persons were appointed as Physical Education Teachers on the basis of advertisement published on 17.03.1999. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to any arrears of salary. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner, on the basis of the same qualification which he was possessing in the year 1999/2001, has been appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 16.07.2010. In these circumstances, the action of the respondents of not offering him appointment in the year 2001 was arbitrary and discriminatory. 7. Since the petitioner has not worked against the post of Physical Education Teacher from 2001 till 2010, he is only held entitled to seniority w.e.f. the date the appointments were made to the posts of Physical Education Teachers on the basis of interview held on 22.01.2001 pursuant to advertisement dated 17.03.1999. He is also entitled for counting of this period for the purpose of increments. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 06, 2010. (bhupender)