IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3392 of 2008 Reserved on: 18.11.2010 Decided on 29.11.2010 Yog Raj and another …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. Yes For the petitioners : Mr. I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondents No. 4 to 6. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners had qualified their Shastri examination in the month of June, 1978. They have registered their names with the Employment Exchange. The respondent/State has taken a decision to fill up the vacant post(s) of J.B.T./Language Teachers from the category of Shastries. Petitioners' name were sponsored by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Employment Exchange, pursuant to which they were interviewed and appointed on tenure basis as Language Teachers. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on tenure basis as Language Teacher on 30.4.1988 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Language Teacher on tenure basis on 3.3.1987. 2. Mr. I.D. Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that respondents No. 4 to 6 were junior to them, however, their services have been regularized vide Annexure-PH w.e.f. 1.4.1994. He then contended that the petitioners' cases were required to be considered for regularization before respondents No. 4 to 6. He further contended that in the case of respondents No. 4 to 6, they were regularized after the completion of three years' service. However, in the case of the petitioners, as per Annexure-PJ, condition of ten years' service has been imposed for regularization against the post of Language Teacher. He lastly contended that his clients are entitled to get the benefit of period of tenure, followed by regularization, for the purpose of increments. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioners have been appointed on tenure basis, pursuant to their interviews. He then contended that petitioners have not assailed appointments of respondents No. 4 to 6. He lastly contended that respondents No. 4 to 6 were appointed as Shastries on ad-hoc basis and their services have been regularized as per office order dated 11.1.1996. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. -3- 5. The petitioners have been appointed as Language Teachers, as is evident from Annexure-PE, dated 30.4.1988. Respondents No. 4 to 6 were appointed on ad-hoc basis. The State Government has taken a decision to regularize the services of those Shastries, who were appointed on ad-hoc basis in pursuance to Annexure-PH, dated 11.1.1996. Since, respondents No. 4 to 6 were appointed as Shastries, they have been regularized as Shastries. The petitioners had been appointed as Language Teachers and for them also, the State Government has framed policy/guidelines for their regularization, in the month of November, 1995. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners have also been regularized as Language Teachers vide Annexure-PJ. 6. Petitioners have not assailed the appointments of respondents No. 4 to 6. There is no material on record to prove that the petitioners have ever applied against 50% posts to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. It was always open to the petitioners to compete with other candidates including respondents No. 4 to 6 for appointment to the post of Shastri. They have chosen to be appointed as Language Teachers on tenure basis and their services have thus rightly been regularized as Language Teachers. Since, the petitioners belong to different streams of Language Teachers, they can not claim parity with Shastries. Though, respondents No. 4 to 6 may have passed Shastri Examination after the petitioners, but as a matter of fact, they have been appointed as Shastries and the petitioners have been appointed as Language Teachers. Accordingly, appointment of -4- respondents No. 4 to 6 can not be quashed and the petitioners can not be directed to be regularized before them. 7. Now the Court will advert to the submission whether the petitioners are entitled to count their tenure period followed by regularization for the purpose of increments. This Court in Paras Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, has held that the teachers are entitled to get the benefit of tenure service followed by regularization for the purpose of increments. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed with a direction to the respondent/State to grant increments to the petitioners after counting the period of tenure services rendered by them, within a period of two months, after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioners. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 29, 2010 (K. Attri)