IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.7553 of 2010. Reserved on: 12.9.2011. Decided on: September 13,2011. Joginder Singh …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …….Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.: The petitioner was appointed against the post of JBT on contractual basis on 24.11.1999. The qualification prescribed at that time was Matric. However, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were amended and the qualification for JBT teacher was enhanced to 10+2 from Matric. The petitioner has filed the present petition claiming that he is entitled for regularization after having rendered eight years service as per the policy of the Government on 31.3.2008. 2. The respondents have resisted the claim set up by the petitioner that since he was not possessing the essential qualification on the date of confirmation, since the Recruitment and Promotion 2 Rules have already been amended in the year 2000 and the petitioner is not entitled to be confirmed accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this case is covered by the earlier judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.7583 of 2010, titled Paras Ram versus State of H.P. and another, decided on 30.8.2011, in which, in para 3 of the judgment, it was observed as under: “My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to a decision of this Court in CWP(T) No. 3214 of 2008 titled as Sita Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another, decided on 23.4.2010, wherein the matter was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, who after referring to the decisions of the Apex Court had concluded that once initially the petitioner was competent to be appointed to the post and after having gained experience, he cannot be denied the confirmation since the rules had been amended in the meanwhile. The petition is allowed to this extent that the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondents in the light of the above referred judgment, if it has attained finality and has not been set aside. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondents and he shall be confirmed ignoring the plea of the essential qualification as taken by the respondents. Impugned order Annexure P-6 is accordingly set aside. The respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within a 3 period of three weeks from today and pass appropriate order accordingly.” 4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to extend similar benefits to the petitioner herein also within a period of three weeks from today, in case he is similarly situated as the petitioner covered by the judgment referred to above. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 13, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.