IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6806 of 2011-H a/w 6807, 6808, 7068, 7332 and 7334 of 2011-H Decided on: 5th December, 2011. 1. CWP No. 6806 of 2011-H Balwant Singh Vs. State of H.P. & others 2. CWP No. 6807 of 2011-H Mehar Singh Vs. State of H.P. & others 3. CWP No. 6808 of 2011-H Bharat Bhushan Vs. State of H.P. & others 4. CWP No. 7068 of 2011-H Praveen Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others 5. CWP No. 7332 of 2011-H Ashok Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others 6. CWP No. 7334 of 2011-H Palam Singh Vs. State of H.P. & others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.D. Sud, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners approached this Court with certain grievances regarding admission to B.Ed. They all had been originally working as JBT. They were appointed as Language Teachers. However, when they sought admission to B.Ed, the stand taken by the Government is that there should be 2 five years of service as Language Teacher in order to claim admission as in-service candidate in view of the provisions in the prospectus. Having seen the material available on record, this Court on 19.9.2011 passed the following order:- “The Principal is present before us in this case. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner could not be admitted since at the time of joining he was L.T. teacher. Being an in-service candidate unless he completes five years as L.T. teacher, he is not entitled to get admission, it is submitted by the Principal. But, there is no dispute that on the date of submission of the application for B.Ed., he was JBT teacher and he had completed five years of service as JBT teacher. Going by the prospectus, the eligibility has to be determined based on the date of submission of the application only. Appointment in the meanwhile as L.T. teacher does not make the petitioner ineligible for admission to B.Ed. There will be a direction, hence, to admit the petitioner as a candidate against the quota meant for JBT teachers since we are informed that the seat is available. He shall also be entitled to attendance for the course w.e.f. 25th August, 2011.” 2. In view of the above interim order, we do not think that any further orders are required in these cases. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of interim order as above. 3. In view of the apprehension expressed by the learned Deputy Advocate General that on account of admission to B.Ed the petitioners might claim automatic appointment to the post of TGT, it is made clear that we have not gone into 3 that question. Their eligibility to appointment as TGT will depend on the eligibility as provided under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in that regard. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 5th December, 2011. (Justice D.D. Sud), (bhatt/vt) Judge.