IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) Nos. 4856 of 2008 (OA No. 114 of 1998), 4857 of 2008 (OA No. 116 of 1998) and 4859 of 2008 (OA No.118 of 1998). Date of decision: 1.9.2009. 1. CWP(T) No. 4856 of 2008 (OA No. 114 of 1998). Kamlesh Kumari …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. …. Respondents. 2. CWP(T) No. 4857 of 2008 (OA No. 116 of 1998). Geetanjli …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. …. Respondents. 3. CWP(T) No. 4859 of 2008 (OA No. 118 of 1998). Geeta Devi …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The O.A. Nos.114, 116 and 118 of 1998 were filed before H.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal). The Tribunal was abolished and OA Nos.114, 116 and 118 of 1998 were Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… transferred to this court in view of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008, and were registered as CWP(T) Nos. 4856, 4857 and 4859 of 2008, respectively. 2. This judgement shall dispose of three petitions i.e. CWP(T) Nos. 4856 of 2008 (OA No. 114 of 1998), 4857 of 2008 (OA No. 116 of 1998) and 4859 of 2008 (OA No.118 of 1998). The precise case of the petitioners is that they had done their two years duration Basic Training Course (BTC) from Union Teachers Training Institute, Rajpura (Punjab). A prayer has been made in the petitions that respondents may be directed to consider the petitioners for the posts of J.B.T. teacher on the basis of Basic Training Course (BTC). 3. The respondents have contested the petitions and raised an objection that Basic Training Course (BTC) from Union Teachers Training Institute, Rajpura (Punjab) has not been recognized by respondent No.1, and, therefore, on the basis of Basic Training Course (BTC), the petitioners cannot be considered for the posts of JBT teacher. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents has submitted that earlier some students, who did their Basic Training Course (BTC) from Union Teachers Training Institute, Rajpura (Punjab), were employed in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The respondents had received some complaints that the certificates issued by Union Teachers Training Institute, Rajpura (Punjab) were not genuine, therefore, their services were terminated. The said decision of termination of services was challenged and the petitions were allowed by the High Court. The …3… respondents challenged the order of High Court in the Supreme Court and Supreme Court has held that inquiry be conducted whether the certificates issued by Union Teachers Training Institute, Rajpura (Punjab) are genuine or fake. The respondents conducted the inquiry and found that the certificates issued by Union Teachers Training Institute, Rajpura (Punjab) were fake. 4. The petitioners have placed nothing on record to show that two years Basic Training Course (BTC) is equivalent to J.B.T. course, and therefore, the prayer of the petitioners that since they have qualified Basic Training Course (BTC) from Union Teachers Training Institute, Rajpura (Punjab), they should be considered for appointment against the posts of JBT teachers cannot be entertained. In addition to this, as submitted by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, the State has already come to the conclusion that certificates issued by Union Teachers Training Institute, Rajpura (Punjab) are fake. There is no merit in the petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. Let a certified copy of this judgement be placed on the files of CWP(T) Nos. 4857 and 4859 of 2008. September 1, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.