IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5861 of 2008. Decided on: 14.06.2010. Ravi Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. None for respondent No. 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Respondent No. 3 invited the applications for filling up the post of T.G.T. (Arts). Petitioner submitted application for the post in question. He appeared in the screening test on 22nd February, 1998. He qualified the same. He was called for interview vide letter dated 9th October, 1998 (Annexure A-2) for 27th October, 1998. He appeared in the interview on 27th October, 1998. His name was recommended by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent-State for appointment as T.G.T. (Arts) in the month of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - November, 1998. However, in view of the decision dated 27th February, 1999 (Annexure A-3), petitioner was not offered appointment to the post of T.G.T. (Arts). 2. It will be apt at this stage to refer to the decision rendered by this Court in Asha Thakur versus H.P. Public Service Commission, 1996 (1) Sim. LC 56, holding that the degree of B.Ed. awarded by Maharishi Dayanand University by way of correspondence course is duly recognized for the purpose of employment. The respondent-State preferred an S.L.P. against the decision dated 27.07.1995. The S.L.P. was subsequently withdrawn by the State. Consequently, the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of T.G.T. (Arts) vide order dated 4.12.2001. He joined his duties on 12.12.2001. Petitioner ought to have been offered appointment on the basis of the recommendations made by the respondent No. 3-Commission in the month of November, 1998. The process has been unduly delayed by the respondent-State. The respondents at their own level have offered appointment to the petitioner on 4.12.2001, as noticed above after withdrawal of the S.L.P. by the respondent- State. However, fact of the matter is that the appointment of the petitioner should relate back to the recommendations made by the respondent No. 3-Commission in the month of November, 1998. It is also clarified that the petitioner’s qualification at the time when he appeared in the interview on 27th October, 1998 was the same as on 4.12.2001, when he was offered the post of T.G.T. (Acts) by the respondent-State. Petitioner cannot be put to disadvantage for the delay on the part of the respondent-State for offering the appointment to the petitioner on 4.12.2001 instead of 1998. - 3 - 3. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the seniority as per merit determined by respondent No. 3-Commission pursuant to the recommendations made in November, 1998 and this period shall be counted for the purpose of pay fixation. However, it is clarified that the petitioner is not held entitled for arrears of salary. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 14, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 -