IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3680 of 2008 (OA(D) No.124 of 1996 Date of decision: 16.7.2010 Virender Pardhan ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P.& Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J( Oral) In the petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure P-14 dated 7.2.1996 and seniority list Annexure A-7 with the prayer that respondents may be directed to fix seniority of the petitioner on the basis of his date of joining on 1.12.1967/28.3.1968. 2. The facts in brief are that in order to solve the shortage of Science and Mathematics teachers, Lieut. Governor Himachal Pradesh was pleased to relax the training qualification prescribed for recruitment of Science and Mathematics teachers against the sanctioned posts of trained graduate and post-graduate teachers for the purpose of allowing them the initial higher start of Rs.110/- fixed, subject to the condition that Science Master should be B.Sc. and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… Mathematics Master. The respondent-State after relaxation of rules, appointed the petitioner as teacher vide Annexure A-2 dated 28.3.1968. It is also the case of the petitioner that petitioner qualified B.Ed on 26.7.1970 and certificate to this effect is Annexure A-5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given seniority from the date of his initial appointment; he has been given seniority from the date of qualifying B.Ed. 3. The petitioner had filed several representations. Thereafter he filed O.A. No.353/95 which was decided on 21.3.1995 and erstwhile Tribunal directed that his application be treated as representation to the Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh who will consider the case of the petitioner on merits and decide the same within a period of three months with liberty to the petitioner to approach again on the same cause of action. In pursuance of order of the erstwhile Tribunal the representation of the petitioner was decided on 7.2.1996 vide Annexure A-14 and the same was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. The respondents have filed reply and contested the petition. It has been submitted in the reply that during the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 untrained graduate teachers of Science and Mathematics were recruited to overcome the shortage of Science and Math teachers in the schools. Their appointments were at Rs.110/- fixed in the pay scale of Rs.110-250. The appointment did not make the concerned persons entitled for the seniority in the cadre of Trained Graduate Teachers from the date of their appointments on …3… the fixed initial start. The seniority in the cadre of Trained Graduate Teacher was admissible from the date of passing B.Ed degree which is essential for holding post of TGT. 5. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties. The issue involved in the case is from which date the seniority of the petitioner is to be reckoned. The Lieut. Governor of Himachal Pradesh relaxed the training qualification prescribed for recruitment of Science and Mathematics teachers against the sanctioned posts which is clear from communication dated 22.10.1964 Annexure A-1. 6. It has not been denied that petitioner was B.Sc. at the time of his initial recruitment. The petitioner was appointed vide Annexure A-2 dated 28.3.1968. The perusal of appointment order dated 28.3.1968 of the petitioner indicates that petitioner was selected in the interview held on 28th and 29th of February, 1968 for the posts of Trained Graduate and he was offered temporary post in school in the pay scale of Rs.110-250. It was made clear that untrained Science and Maths candidates will be entitled to the pay of Rs.110/- fixed per month till such time they qualify B.Ed./B.T examination. The condition of fixed pay was only till the petitioner had qualified B.Ed qualification. 7. The petitioner qualified B.Ed in the year 1970 as per Annexure A-5. The appointment letter Annexure A-2 nowhere stipulates that the petitioner shall not be entitled to seniority from his initial appointment or till he qualifies B.Ed. In fact the appointment order dated 28.3.1968 makes it clear that the petitioner was selected against the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. …4… 8. In view of above, there is no manner of doubt that petitioner is entitled to seniority from the date of his initial appointment dated 28.3.1968. This aspect has not been properly considered in Annexure A-14 and therefore, Annexure A-14 is not sustainable and is accordingly quashed. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already retired. 9. In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for giving him seniority from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 28.3.1968 as held above and rectify the seniority of the petitioner in the seniority list with all benefits flowing from such placement in three months. No costs. July 16, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.