CWP(T) No. 6914 of 2008 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. Puneet Rajta, Advocate, vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. For the post of Trained Graduate Teacher petitioner was selected and his name was recommended by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission in June, 1997. The respondents did not issue any letter of appointment. Consequently petitioner was constrained to file O.A. No. 1892 of 1997, titled as Shri Yashpal Singh versus State of H.P. and others in which the following directions were issued:- “In view of the reasoning given in Rejinder Singh Verma’s case we accept the application and direct the respondent state to issue appointment letter to the applicant if his name has been duly recommended by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and if he not been issued appointment to the applicant only on the ground that his degree of B. Ed. has been obtained through correspondence courses from Maharishi Dayanand University Rohtak and not through a regular course. Necessary appointment letter be issued to the applicant within a period of one month from today. The appointment shall be subject to the decision arrived at in Special Leave Petition Kaushalaya Kalta and others already pending in the Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CWP No. 287 of 1997 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others versus Rajinder Singh Verma also pending in the Supreme Court as per the averments made by the respondents.” -2- 2. Petitioner was given appointment in terms of letter dated 3.4.1999 (Annexure A-3). It is his grievance that appointment ought to have been made w.e.f. 5.12.1998 and not 3.4.1999. 3. Inspite of opportunities granted to the respondents reply has not been filed. 4. The order reproduced hereinabove is evidently clear that the letter of appointment had to be issued to the petitioner within one month from the date of order. Consequently a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner’s appointment w.e.f. 6.12.1998 instead of 3.4.1999. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Necessary action shall be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 13, 2010 (PK)