IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 2401 of 2008. Decided on: 17.03.2009. Sunita Kumari … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and Other. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? yes . For the petitioner: Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner was appointed as a clerk from 12.9.1988. She was serving in Indira memorial High School, Sanshi, District, Hamirpur, H.P. This Institute was upgraded to high standard, vide Notification, dated 12.1.1990. The services of the -2- petitioner were not taken over by the State Government. However, Mr. Shankhyan has drawn the attention of the Court to the pleadings, whereby two persons namely Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, T.G.T. (Arts) and Shri Karan Singh, Peon-cum-Chowkidar were offered appointment by the State Government after upgradation of the school. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General was directed to seek instructions, why the petitioner’s services have not been taken over by the State Government at par with Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, T.G.T. (Arts) and Shri Karan Singh, Peon-cum-Chowkidar. The respondent State has filed the supplementary affidavit. It is evident from Annexure R.3 and R.4 that Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma was offered appointment on tenure basis as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) and was posted against vacant post of T.G.T. (Arts) in Chamba District. However, Shri Karan Singh, Peon-cum-Chowkidar was offered regular appointment by the State Government in the pay scale of Rs.750-1350, vide order dated 12.3.1993. The petitioner was similarly situated vis-a-vis Ramesh Chand Sharma, T.G.T. (Arts) and Shri Karan Singh, Peon-cum-Chowkidar. It is a case of invidious discrimination. The State cannot be permitted to treat equals as unequals. In case the services of two persons are taken over by the State Government after the upgradation of the private school, there is no reason, why the petitioner’s services have not been taken over. The action of the respondent of not taking over the services of the petitioner at par with two persons -3- mentioned here-in-above is declared arbitrary. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of clerk on the analogy of Annexure R.3 and R.4, dated 25.9.1992 and 12.3.1993, within a period of six weeks from today. No Costs. March 17, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge.