IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8871 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 24.2.2011 Date of decision: 26.2.2011 Rattan Chand and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the Petitioners : Mr. M.C.Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioners in the petition have made several prayers but at the time of hearing of the petition, they have confined their claim only with respect to seniority from the date of their initial appointments. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer pleadings in detail on other aspects pleaded in the petition. 2. The brief relevant facts are that the petitioners, who were qualified as Shastri/L.T./O.T./PTI/Art & Craft Teachers were appointed as follows:- Sr. Name Qualifications Date of Date of grant of No. appointment as JBT special JBT certificate. 1. Rattan Chand Art & Craft - 80 18.03.81 01.06.95 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 2. Sulekh Chand PTI - 81 14.03.83 01.06.95 3. Raj Kumar Art & Craft – 81 25.07.86 25.07.96 4. Om Parkash Art & Craft -81 03.03.86 03.03.96 5. Subhash Chand Art & Craft -81 24.05.89 24.05.99 6. Mohinder Kumar PTI -85 31.10.89 31.10.99 7. Chamaru Ram Shastri - 88 23.04.89 23.04.99 8. Shakti Prasad Shastri -83 19.08.87 19.08.97 9. Kartar Singh Shastri -87 29.10.88 29.10.98 10. Kamaleshwar Art & Craft – 81 09.03.83 29.06.95 11. Tej Singh Art & Craft – 80 March 81 10.07.97 12. Hans Raj Shastri - 87 17.07.89 17.07.99 13. Raj Singh Art & Craft - 81 26.11.86 26.11.96 14. Tilak Raj Shastri - 87 22.07.88 22.07.98 15. Ghinder Singh Art & Craft – 81 01.03.86 01.03.96 16. Ghindro Ram Shastri - 86 08.09.88 08.09.98 17. Chaman Singh Shastri - 85 28.07.86 28.07.96 18. Naresh Kumar Shastri - 89 26.10.89 26.10.99 19. Rattan Chand Art & Craft -80 12.03.81 02.09.95 20. Sant Singh Art & Craft – 81 17.07.86 17.07.96 3. The decision to appoint C & V category of teachers to the posts of JBTs was taken in early eighties and the appointments on adhoc basis ordered accordingly at the initial of the pay scale. It has been alleged that the Education Department introduced Volunteer Teachers Scheme, 1985 for untrained unemployed educated youth in the schools and to provide additional teachers in the primary schools. The Volunteer teachers were appointed at a monthly honorarium of ` 200/- per month. The Education Department in view of good results of 1985 Volunteer Teachers Scheme came forward with another scheme of Volunteer Teachers in 1991 with slight modification. The Volunteer teachers in this scheme were also appointed on monthly honorarium. 3 4. The C & V teachers like the petitioners were recruited at the initial of the basic pay of JBT teachers with allowances, they through their union and other forum prayed the State Government to treat them as JBT teachers and grant them the regular scale and seniority from the date of their appointments on JBT posts as they were all trained and better qualified than JBT teachers. 5. On 31.8.1995 C & V categories of teachers like the petitioners, who were working on JBT posts were ordered to be regularised after 10 years of service. On 15.12.1995 the Government took another decision that the Volunteer Teachers who have put in atleast ten years of service be also granted the special JBT certificates and those who have taken part in Shaksharta compaign for two years will be issued the special JBT certificates after nine years of service as Volunteer teachers. On 11.12.1998 the Government decided to regularise the Volunteer teachers and allowed the grant of special JBT certificates to Volunteer teachers after five years of service. 6. The petitioners were better trained and qualified than the JBT teachers inasmuch as it takes atleast 4 to 6 years to qualify Shastri degree after matriculation and the course of Art & Craft teacher is of two years minimum duration after matriculation. 7. The teachers who were really untrained, vide Annexure A-45 have been granted special JBT certificates after five years of service and the injustice has been done to the petitioners inasmuch as their degrees/diplomas were not taken into consideration while 4 taking the decision to grant special JBT certificates to untrained teachers. 8. The petitioners due to their qualifications both academic and professional were entitled to regularisation with effect from the dates of their appointments against JBT posts but they have been regularised after 10 years of services on the JBT posts considering them lower in educational sphere than even the Volunteer teachers, even though the petitioners were senior in service to other untrained Volunteer teachers. 9. The names of the petitioners and some of the Volunteer teachers are mentioned in the tentative seniority list circulated by respondent No.3 vide memo dated 1.7.2000. It has been alleged that about 604 Volunteer teachers have been assigned seniority w.e.f. 1.8.1998 and all of them became senior to the petitioners even though they were appointed in the year 1992 much later than the petitioners. On these facts, the petitioners have filed the petition seeking several reliefs but ultimately confined their relief to seniority only. 10. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply. It has been alleged that the petitioners were not having JBT qualification though they were having diploma in Shastri/L.T./O.T/PTI/Art and Craft teachers. As per the policy of the Government, the petitioners were appointed against the post of JBT teachers. Thereafter, in view of Govt. order dated 31.8.1995 the persons/candidates having qualifications of Shastri/L.T./O.T./PTI/Art and Craft teachers were granted the special JBT certificates after 5 completion of 10 years of service. Therefore, in view of Government order dated 31.8.1995 special JBT certificates were granted to the petitioners and they were appointed on regular basis as JBT teachers. In these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to appointment as JBT teachers from the date of their initial appointments nor they are entitled to seniority and pay fixation from their initial appointments. The petitioners cannot equate their cases for regularisation of their services at par with Volunteer teachers appointed under Volunteer Teachers Scheme, 1985 and 1992 respectively to whom the special JBT certificates were granted after completion of five and ten years of service as per policy of the Government. 11. The petition is barred by delay and laches. A person who has passed JBT course can only be appointed against JBT post on regular basis. The petitioners were not having qualification of JBT course but were having diploma in Shastri/DM/PTI etc. were appointed against the post of JBT teachers. The special JBT certificates were granted to them and thereafter they joined as JBT teachers on regular basis. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief much less seniority from the date of their initial appointments. 12. I have heard Mr. M.C.Verma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions has relied Uma Dutt Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 1268 and has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to 6 seniority from the date of initial appointments. On the contrary, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the petitioners were not qualified to be appointed as JBT teachers at the time of their initial appointments, they were given special JBT certificates after 10 years of service as per the policy of the Government and only after acquiring the eligibility qualification for appointment as JBT teachers, the petitioners can be given seniority and not from any earlier date 13. It is common case of the parties that petitioners were appointed against posts of JBT teachers. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had qualified JBT course at the time of initial appointments. It is not denied that the petitioners were given special JBT certificates after 10 years service and thereafter they were appointed on regular basis against JBT posts. The posts meant for JBT teachers can only be filled by such candidates who have successful JBT training. It appears, there was paucity of teachers and in order to accommodate unemployed youths, the Government took the decision to employ Shastri/DM/O.T./L.T./PTI/C & V teachers against JBT posts. The petitioners were given special JBT certificates after 10 years of service as per policy of the Government. The petitioners accepted the grant of special JBT certificates after 10 years of service and took benefits thereof. Now, the petitioners cannot be heard to take a turn and submit that they are entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointments. The petitioners have raised grievance against the Volunteer teachers. In case the plea of the petitioners for grant of seniority from their initial date of 7 appointments is accepted, then petitioners will certainly supersedes several persons. The petitioners, however, not impleaded even a single person by way of representative in petition who will be affected in case petitioners are granted seniority as claimed by them. In absence of those persons, the petitioners otherwise cannot be granted seniority as claimed by them. 14. In Uma Dutt Sharma (supra) the petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher on 16.7.1983 on adhoc basis. On 21.4.1990 he was appointed on tenure basis as Shastri. He was regularised on 4.12.1995 with effect from 21.4.1994 as Shastri but the period with effect from 21.4.1990 to 21.4.1994 was not counted by the respondents for the purpose of seniority and increment. This was challenged, the respondents in that case were directed to count the period with effect from 21.4.1990 to 4.12.1995 for the purpose of increments. The seniority as claimed by the petitioner in that case was not granted to him. In the present case, the petitioners were not having the eligibility and qualification for appointment as JBT teachers, even though they were appointed against JBT posts. The petitioners qualified for appointment against JBT posts lateron, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointments. There is no merit in the petition. 15. No other point was urged. 16. The result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ), February 26, 2011 Judge. (GR)