IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 2645 of 2008 (OA(M) No. 491 of 2007. Judgement reserved on: 20.8.2009. Date of decision: 28.8.2009. Sat Pal Singh Bhardwaj …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The OA (M) No. 491 of 2007 was filed before H.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal). The Tribunal was abolished and O.A.(M) No. 491 of 2007 was transferred to this court in view of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008, and was registered as CWP(T) No. 2645 of 2008. 2. The petitioner has prayed that respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed to offer appointment to him as Trained Graduate Teacher (Science Non-Medical) from general IRDP category from retrospective date from which his junior respondent No.4 and others Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… were selected/ appointed in 1995 batch alongwith all benefits such as seniority etc. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that after completing his BSc (Non-medical), he did his B.Ed. course from University of Kashmir in September 1995. He got himself registered with employment exchange as Trained Graduate Teacher (Science Non- Medical) for appointment in H.P. Education Department under IRDP general category. He waited for interview and appointment on batch- wise seniority as Trained Graduate Teacher (Science Non-Medical) under relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. 4. The respondents No. 1 to 3 had notified some posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (Science Non-Medical) for recruitment on batch-wise basis and called the names of eligible candidates through employment exchange. The interview for the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers was conducted in the office of respondent No.3. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 2.11.2006 and submitted copies of relevant documents, the selection committed was satisfied that petitioner had passed B.Ed course in the academic session 1994-95. The respondent No. 4 had also appeared in the interview. 5. The result was declared but the name of the petitioner did not figure in the successful candidates although candidates junior to petitioner like respondent No. 4 and others were appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Science Non-Medical). The petitioner had represented to the respondents and applied for supply of documents under the Right to Information Act. The respondent No. 2 …3… had replied on 21.7.2007 to the representation of the petitioner. The department had also supplied information regarding the criteria of selection and list of selected candidates. The information supplied to the petitioner by the department has been placed on record as Annexures P-5 to P-6. The petitioner was having five years teaching experience, which was also ignored by the department. The petitioner issued notice dated 2.7.2007 and thereafter filed the petition. 6. The respondents No. 1 to 3 did not file reply, but respondent No.4 has contested the petition by filing reply. According to respondent No.4, the petitioner had not passed B.Ed course in the year 1995. He has taken the plea that his selection has been made in accordance with the criteria fixed, which is fully legal and valid. In the end, the respondent has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7. The Director (Elementary Education) has filed supplementary affidavit dated 19.6.2009 and has submitted that petitioner had appeared in the examination for B.Ed course 1994-95 in Kashmir University and was placed under compartment in Paper-III. The petitioner was allowed to appear in compartment examination in September, 1995 and he was declared successful on 2.3.1996. The petitioner had passed B.Ed examination on 2.3.1996. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not have been appointed in the batch of 1994-95. In the affidavit, it has been stated that for batch- wise appointment, the date of passing B.Ed examination is the basic criteria. The year January to December of the date of declaration of B.Ed result is the batch and inter-se seniority in the …4… same batch on the basis of merit is the criteria of batch-wise appointment. 8. The petitioner has filed reply dated 3.8.2009 to the supplementary affidavit dated 19.6.2009 and has placed on record Annexure PA marks certificate dated 25.10.1996 issued by the University of Kashmir to respondent No. 4 for qualifying B.Ed examinations. He has also placed on record Annexure PB marks certificate of petitioner dated 2.3.1996 showing petitioner having passed B.Ed examination from University of Kashmir. 9. The Director (Elementary Education) in his affidavit has stated that year January to December of declaration of B.Ed. result is the batch. The marks certificate Annexure PA of respondent No.4 is dated 25.10.1996 and marks certificate Annexure PB of petitioner is dated 2.3.1996. In view of Annexure PA and Annexure PB, it can be safely inferred that B.Ed examination results of respondent No. 4 and petitioner were declared on 25.10.1996 and 2.3.1996 respectively, therefore, both of them are of the year 1996 batch as per the criteria. The inter-se seniority in the same batch on the basis of merit is the criteria of the batch-wise appointments as per supplementary affidavit of Director (Elementary education). 10. There is no whisper in the petition that respondent No. 4 was not better in merit in comparison to petitioner, nor it has otherwise been established by petitioner that he was better in merit as against respondent No. 4. The petitioner has projected his case that he is of 1995 batch and respondent is of 1996 batch, therefore, he should have been appointed in 1995 batch. As per list of selected …5… candidates Annexure P 7, the respondent No. 4 has been placed at Serial No. 17 in the merit number, whereas petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 45 and both of them were appointed in 1996 batch. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of any relief. 11. No other point was urged. 12. The result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. August 28, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.