IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1216 of 2002 Decided on : August 18, 2008 Hem Prabha …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, with Ms Anita Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Writ petitioner has approached this Court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) That the order of the learned Tribunal dated 18.6.2002 passed in O.A. No.735 of 2001 may be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue as a J.B.T. teacher on contract basis till she is replaced by a regularly selected person. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to produce entire record pertaining to the case for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (iii) Any other writ, order or direction deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the light of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned here-in-above may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) The respondents may be burdened with the cost of this petition throughout.” 2. Facts relevant for understanding the controversy involved in the present matter may be noticed. Writ petitioner, alongwith some other persons, was appointed as a JBT, on contract basis vide order dated 23rd December, 1996, Annexure P-1, initially for a period of two years. The contract was renewed for another period of two years. It was again renewed vide order dated 22nd December, 2000, Annexure P-3, upto 31st March, 2001. Thereafter, it was not renewed. However, other teachers, who were appointed alongwith or subsequent to the writ petitioner, were allowed to continue in service and their contracts were renewed. Writ petitioner came to know, even before the date of expiry of her contract, i.e., 31st March, 2001, that she was likely to be thrown out of job, because the authorities had been collecting evidence about the genuineness of the degree of B. Ed. submitted by her, at the time of initial appointment in the year 1996. Therefore, she filed an Original Application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. An application seeking interim directions to the respondents, i.e., the State of Himachal Pradesh and others, not to throw her out of job, during the pendency of the Original Application, was also moved. A direction was issued to the respondents not to remove the writ petitioner from service. Despite such direction, the contract of the writ petitioner was not renewed beyond 31st …3… March, 2001 and thus she was rendered jobless. She also filed a contempt petition against the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. Respondents took the plea that the writ petitioner, being only a contract employee, had no vested right, muchless a constitutional or statutory right, and, therefore, she was not entitled to any relief. Also, it was stated that the degree of B. Ed. submitted by her was fake and the institution from which that degree had been obtained was also fake. 4. It may be stated that the writ petitioner obtained the B. Ed. Degree, Annexure P-10, in the year 1993 from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1994, the Government of Himachal Pradesh circulated a list of universities, which had been declared as fake universities by the University Grants Commission. One of the universities, mentioned in this list at Serial No.13, is Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad (U.P.) Open Vishwavidyalaya, Lucknow, U.P. The State and other respondents pleaded that the writ petitioner had obtained the degree, Annexure P-10, from this university, mentioned at Serial No.13 of the list of fake universities circulated, vide Annexure R-3 by the Government to various functionaries of the Government connected with the administration of Government run educational institutions. Respondents also placed reliance upon a letter of the H.P. University, Annexure R-1/A, per which the degree possessed by the writ petitioner, i.e. Annexure P-10, had not been recognized equivalent to B. Ed. Degree of Himachal Pradesh University, for the purpose of admission to higher classes. …4… 5. Learned Tribunal ultimately dismissed the Original Application filed by the writ petitioner holding that the degree possessed by the writ petitioner was fake and the university was also fake. 6. Writ petitioner has alleged that the only reason for her contract of employment having not been renewed was that the degree was assumed to be fake by the respondents. Her grievance is that she was not afforded any opportunity to explain and to prove that the degree possessed by her was not fake but genuine. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the only reason for which the contract of the writ petitioner was not renewed was that the degree of B. Ed. possessed by her, i.e., Ex. P-10, was assumed to be fake and even the university that issued the degree was taken to be a fake university. 9. The list of fake universities, which was circulated vide Annexure R-3 by the Directorate of Education to various functionaries of Education Department connected with the administration of the said Department shows that one of the universities included therein (the list) is named Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad (U.P.) Open Vishwavidyalaya, Lucknow, U.P. The writ petitioner obtained the degree Annexure P-10, from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. The name of this university is apparently different from the name appearing at Serial No.13 of the aforesaid list, because, as already noticed, the university …5… named in the said list is Open Vishwavidyalaya. Respondents then placed reliance upon a letter issued by the Himachal Pradesh University, i.e., Annexure R-2, dated 22nd February, 2001. This letter also nowhere says that the degree is fake nor does it say that the university from which this degree has been obtained is non-existent or fake. What is written in the letter is that the degree possessed by the writ petitioner is not recognized as equivalent to B. Ed. Degree of H.P. University and that too only for a limited purpose of admission to next higher class/course and not for the purpose of employment even against JBT post. We may notice that holders of B. Ed. Degrees are eligible for appointment as TGT. And the status and pay of a TGT are much higher than a JBT. 10. In view of the abovestated factual position, we are of the considered view that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the degree of B. Ed. possessed by the writ petitioner is fake having been obtained from a fake or non-existent university and, therefore, she is not entitled to any relief, is not based on correct reading and analysis of the material on record and hence illegal. So, it cannot be upheld. 11. It has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that the writ petitioner was only a contract teacher and on the expiry of the term of contract she had no vested right to seek renewal of her contract. 12. We are alive to the settled legal position that a contractual worker has no right to seek renewal of contract or to continue in service on the expiry of contract period, but in view …6… of the facts and the circumstances of this case, this principle is not attracted. As already noticed, it is made out from the material on record as also the pleadings of the parties that the sole reason for the non-renewal of the contract of the writ petitioner was the assumption that the B. Ed. Degree possessed by her was fake and it has been obtained from a non-existent or fake university. We have already noticed, hereinabove, that neither the degree is shown to be fake nor is the name of the university included in the list of the fake universities, which is annexed to Annexure R-3. It has not been denied that other teachers, who were employed on contract basis alongwith the writ petitioner or subsequent thereto, were allowed to continue in service by renewal of their contracts. The factual aspect of the matter suggests that the petitioner’s contract would have also been renewed beyond 31st March, 2001 had her degree not been wrongly assumed to be fake. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition, set aside the order of the learned State Administrative Tribunal and direct the respondents to treat the writ petitioner on par with other contract teachers, who were appointed at or about the time when the writ petitioner was appointed on contract basis and whose contracts were renewed beyond 31st March, 2001. We give one month time to the respondents to implement the aforesaid directions. However, nothing shall be payable, on account of salary etc., to the writ petitioner for the period she had not worked as contract teacher. This order, having been …7… passed in the peculiar facts and the circumstances of this case, shall not be used as precedent in any matter. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. August 18, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.