IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 752 of 2008. Date of decision: 28.2.2011. Rajinder Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. Bhim Raj, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that despite his selection and appointment as Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) in Government Primary School, Quir, Education Block Garola, District Chamba, he has not been allowed to join as such. He has prayed for a direction to respondents to take the joining of the petitioner as per selection letter Annexure A-2 and appointment letter Annexure A-3. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the month of September 2009, the respondents had notified one vacancy of PAT to be filled in Government Primary School, Quir, Education Block Garola. The petitioner was fully eligible for appointment as PAT. He Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… applied for that post and the respondents on the basis of interview conducted declared the result on 10.10.2007 and petitioner was selected as PAT. The appointment letter was issued on 29.12.2007. However, petitioner was not allowed to join the duties. In these circumstances, the petition was filed. 3. The respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed joint reply and have stated that petitioner was selected as PAT by the duly constituted committee under the Chairmanship of S.D.O. (Civil) on 10.10.2007, but appointment could not be offered to the petitioner due to the reason that in the meantime code of conduct was in force in the State on 11.10.2007. Thereafter, State took policy decision to review all such selection processes and interviews held. The government had also issued letter dated 16.1.2008 intimating that all ongoing selection process including interviews be stopped and all result withheld. The government, however, decided that where the results have been declared the appointment be withheld pending review. 4. The petitioner was selected as PAT, but joining was withheld by the department after the abovementioned policy decision of the government. It has been stated that this court had earlier decided a similar matter i.e. CWP(T) No. 496 of 2009 titled Ashok Kumar vs. State. The government has assailed the decision of this court in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has issued notice. In the supplementary affidavit dated 8.11.2010, it has been stated that on 6.10.2010, the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the impugned judgement. …3… 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has not been denied by the respondents that petitioner was selected and appointed as PAT in Government Primary School, Quir, Education Block Garola, District Chamba. The joining was refused to the petitioner on the ground that in the meantime on 11.10.2007, model code of conduct was imposed due to elections and the Government on 16.1.2008 had issued directions for reviewing all matters. The code of conduct and the instructions issued by the State government on 16.1.2008 have not been shown to this court. But prima facie, the code of conduct and instructions relied by the respondents are not applicable in the present case for the reason that petitioner had already been appointed, but he was not allowed to join. The code of conduct was applicable for ongoing process. In the case of the petitioner selection was before imposition of code of conduct. It has also not been made clear what happened to various appointments in view of directions dated 16.1.2008 of the Government. In CWP(T) No. 751 of 2008, the facts were very close to present case. The judgement dated 16.6.2010 in CWP(T) No. 751 of 2008 is as follows:- “The respondents have notified one vacancy of PAT to be filled in Government Primary School, Kuleth, Education Block Garola, District Chamba. The petitioner submitted application for considering her candidature. Petitioner’s name was recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committee vide Annexure A-2, dated 10th October, 2007. Thereafter vide office order dated 29th December, 2007, respondent No.6 has issued the appointment letter. …4… 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that despite her selection, respondents are not permitting her to join her duties in Government Primary School, Kuleth, Education Block Garola, District Chamba. The respondents have not chosen to file any reply. Once the selection process has been commended by the respondents, which has culminated in issuance of office order Annexure A-3, there is no reason why the petitioner has not been permitted to join her duties. The respondents cannot set the entire process to naught by not permitting the petitioner to join her duties as PAT in Government Primary School, Kuleth, Education Block Garola. A valuable right has accrued to the petitioner after her name was recommended by the Selection Committee as per Annexure A-2, which has resulted in issuance of office order Annexure A-3, dated 29th December, 2007. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join her duties as PAT in Primary School, Kuleth, Education Block Garola, District Chamba, within a period of seven days from today. No costs.” The facts of Ashok Kumar (supra) have not been placed before this court nor the order of the Supreme Court has been shown. 6. No other point has been urged. 7. The result of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join as Primary Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Quir, Education Block Garola, District Chamba in pursuance of Annexures A-2 and A- 3 within a period of two weeks from the date of supply of copy of this …5… judgement by the petitioner to competent authority. The petition stands disposed of on above terms. February 28, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.