IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2224 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 31, 2011 Miss Versha Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing Letter No. Shiksha-II Kha (2) 2 - 2001 dated 16th June, 2007 issued by the Under Secretary (Elementary Education) to the Govt. of H.P. (ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner in the matter of granting recognition to her diploma in Arts & Crafts (Drawing Teacher) which she obtained for the session 2005-2007 in accordance with law. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) Any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may be passed, in the interest of justice. (iv) Entire record pertaining to the present case may please be summoned and examined. (v) The writ petition may very kindly be allowed with cost in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. Keeping in view the reply filed by the respondent/State, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he presses relief No. 2 only. 3. In their reply respondents/State have made the following averments:- “3. That it is submitted that as per Annexure P-3, the Govt. vide letter No. Shiksha-II-Kha (2)2-2001 dated 11th June, 2007 has examined the matter carefully and after due consideration, it has been decided to give recognition to all such diploma awarded by deemed universities during the period 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005 for the purpose of employment under the State Government. 4. That it is submitted that this issue further arose when the petitioners in the CWP No. 2216/2007-titled as Babu Ram and others vs State and CWP No. 2279/2007-titled as Virender Kumar and others vs State were not held eligible for appointment as the diplomas possessed by them was issued after 31.8.2005. These CWPs came for final hearing on 25.9.2008 before this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court disposed of the 3 same with the direction to the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. to reconsider the matter in the light of the letter of the UGC and take a conscious decision as to whether this letter should be applicable only to the students who have been awarded diplomas during 1st June, 2001, to 31st August, 2005 or to those students who had been admitted by the deemed University during this period as per that decision of the U.G.C. 5. That it is submitted that in pursuance of the orders of this Hon’ble High Court, the Govt. vide letter No. Shiksha-11-Kha (2)2/2001 dated 27.12.2008 has decided that the students who have been admitted and who have been awarded diplomas during 1st June, 2001 to 31st August, 2005 by the deemed University are eligible for employment in the State of H.P. 6. That it is submitted that since the diploma possessed by the petitioner do not fall between the cut dates i.e. from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005, hence, her claim for appointment under Grant-in-Aid Rules is not maintainable and deserves dismissal.” 4. It appears that the stand taken in para 6 is contrary to the stand taken in para 4 of the reply. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that cases pertaining to those students who obtained their diploma after 31.8.2005 were considered and favourable action taken. It cannot be disputed that petitioner has also completed diploma though after 31.8.2005. 5. Consequently there shall be a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the decisions already 4 taken in the cases mentioned in para 4 of the reply. Before taking the decision petitioner/all concerned shall be afforded adequate opportunity of hearing/representation. The decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. 6. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 31, 2011 (PK)