IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8152 of 2008, Decided on: 29.05.2009. B.R. Joshi. .… … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? No.1 For the petitioner: Mr. Yogesh K. Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc/tenure basis in the month of September 1983. It appears from the pleadings that subsequently he was appointed as Language Teacher on ad hoc basis in the year 1996. He was appointed against the sanctioned post of Shastri in the year 1998. He is claiming seniority w.e.f. September 1983 to 1996 for the period when he was working as Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc basis. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Mr. Yogesh K. Chandel, Advoate has strenuously argued that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits of the services which he has rendered as Junior Basic Trained Teacher w.e.f. September 1983 till 1996 on ad hoc/tenure basis. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was working in different cadre i.e. Junior Basic Trained Teacher, his services cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Shastri. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed initially as Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc/tenure basis in the year 1983. He discharged his duties on ad hoc basis till 1996. He was appointed as Language Teacher on ad hoc basis in 1996. He was regularized against the sanctioned post of Shastri in 1998. The petitioner cannot get his services counted for the period when he has worked as Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc basis for the prupose of seniority. The Junior Basic Trained Teacher is a different and distinct cadre from the cadre of Shastri. The services rendered in another cadre i.e. Junior Basic Trained Teacher cannot be clubbed for the purpose of seniority of the post of Shastri. It is stated in the reply by the State that in case the petitioner had been appointed as Shastri on ad hoc basis and was regularized as such i.e. Shastri in that event the benefit of ad hoc services could be considered. The plea raised by Mr. Chandel is misconceived. He could not substantiate the basis seeking clubbing of seniority of Junior Basic Trained Teacher with Shastri. - 3 - Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. May 29, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 4 - - 5 - - 6 -