IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8782/2008 Reserved on: 29.12.2010 Decided on:6.1.2011 _____________________________________________ Baldev Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 15.11.1984. He was promoted subsequently as Head Constable on 26.2.1994. He applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T). He was interviewed on 26.4.2000 and was selected as Physical Education Teacher. Pursuant to which he joined his duties in the Education Department. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his pay has not been protected by the respondent-State. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. Ms. Archana Dutt has strenuously argued that the services rendered by her client were to be counted and his pay was to be protected. 3. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner had appeared as sponsored candidate from Employment Exchange, Ghumarwin and his application was not routed through proper channel. In other words, his submission is that he has not been issued ‘no objection certificate’ by the previous employer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. There is no material on record to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has ever sought ‘no objection certificate’ from his previous employer to be considered for the post of Physical Education Teacher. In fact, his candidature had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Ghumarwin vide registration No. 4265/96. The Education Department has considered him, as a direct candidate. In view of this, the petitioner cannot be treated as a departmental candidate. It was necessary for the petitioner to obtain ‘no objection certificate’ from his employer and his application was required to be routed through his employer. The ‘no objection certificate’ issued 3 on 5.9.1989 was for the post of Hostel Superintendent-cum- P.T.I., that too, in Technical Education Department. The Education Department is different from Technical Education Department. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 6.1.2011 *awasthi*