IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP Nos. 538/2000, 573/2000 & 132/2001 Date of Decision: 1.7.2008 ________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 538 of 2000. Nazar Singh … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. … Respondents. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 573 of 2000 Shashi Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. … Respondents. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Onkarjairath, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 132 of 2001. Dev Raj … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. … Respondents. - 2 - For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. These three writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one order passed by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 416 of 1989. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the three petitioners herein, filed a joint Original Application being OA No. 416 of 1989 before the Tribunal. In this application, they contended that they had passed their certificate course in Physical Education from the Physical Training College, Muzaffarpur which was affiliated to the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. Though the petitioners had joined their training in the year 1974, they were appeared in the final examination in the year, 1975 and passed the said course. According to the petitioners, 173 - 3 - other students from Himachal Pradesh also obtained their certificates in Physical Education on having passed their Physical Education training from Bihar School Examination Board. In Himachal Pradesh the criteria for recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher is that 50% posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment through the H.P. Public Service Commission and the remaining 50% are to be filled up departmentally by the District Education Officer. The departmental recruitment is made on batch- wise or session- wise basis. According to the petitioners, out of 173 students, who had passed their physical education, 105 were offered appointments as Physical Education Teacher either through the H.P. Public Service Commission or on departmental basis. The petitioners allege that in 1989, when fresh departmental recruitment was to take place and their turn was likely to come up for recruitment, they came to know that their candidatures may not be considered on account of the fact that the State of H.P. was taking a stand that the certificate course offered by the Bihar School Education Board, was not recognized. In fact this was the stand taken by the respondents in their reply filed in OA before the Tribunal. - 4 - However, the respondents admitted that a large number of candidates who had obtained similar certificates from the same Board had already been appointed. During the pendency of the O.A., the petitioners were offered appointment as Physical Education Teacher and they joined as such. Shri Dev Raj petitioner was offered appointment in the year 1997 and the other two petitioners in the year 1998. In view of this development, the learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. on the ground that nothing further survives in the Original Application since the relief has been granted to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the said order by filing these three writ petitions before this Court. According to the petitioners, the respondents should be directed to appoint them as Physical Education Teachers on session-wise basis w.e.f. the date the candidates belonging to the academic session 1974-75 were appointed with all consequential benefits. It would be pertinent to mention that there is nothing on record either in the O.A. or in the writ petitions filed before this Court to show when the persons junior to the petitioners were appointed on batch-wise basis. The petitioners have not given any detail of the candidates - 5 - who were from junior batches and who have been appointed prior to them. The petitioners no doubt have given details of persons of their batch who were appointed much earlier but no details have been given of any person junior to the petitioners who have been appointed prior to the petitioners on batch-wise basis. The present writ petitions are in the nature of writs of certiorari for quashing the order of the learned Tribunal. There was no material placed before the learned Tribunal showing that the persons junior to the petitioners already stood appointed prior to the petitioners. In the absence of such material, the learned Tribunal had no other option but to dispose of the petition by holding that since the petitioners have been granted the relief, the O.A. does not survive. Even in the present writ petitions, no such material has been placed on record. Therefore, there is no merit in these writ petitions which are accordingly rejected with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. July 1, 2008. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. s. - 6 -