IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No 4021 of 2008 Decided on : 28.10.2010 Dogar Chand and Others ..…Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. R.K. Bawa A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(i) That the seniority list of Head Teachers as it stood on 28.2.1995 dated 4.3.1996 be set aside and quashed. (Seniority list is available with Respondent No.3.) (ii) The Annexures A-3 and A-4, being illegal and unconstitutional deserve to be set aside and quashed as the Juniors to the applicants, have been promoted to the post of Centre Head Teachers. (iii) Annexures A-5 to A-8, be set aside as the directions given for the preparation of separate seniority lists of Head Teachers and Centre Heads Teacher is illegal and unconstitutional. (iv) That the Respondent No.3 may be directed not to promoted any junior official to the post of Centre Head Teachers as per information called for vide Annexure A-7, till the decision of present petition. (v) That the Respondents be directed that the applicants be promoted to the post of Centre Head Teacher from the dates the Respondents No. 4 to 7 have been promoted to the post of Centre Head Teachers, and all the due consequential benefits from 2 the due date alongwith arrears be paid to the applicants.” 2. In the reply furnished on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, it is stated as follows: “1. That the applicants have filed the instant OA for maintaining their seniority position as in the JBT cadre even through they have not joined on promotional posts of Head Teachers when offered to them in the year 1987 onward by the respondent number 3 and they claim that that respondent number 4 to 7 be kept junior to them which is not only wrong but a baseless claim keeping in view the various instructions and provisions of Service Rules and their Application should fail on this ground. 2. That the applicants claim to be JBT teachers, with telling it to this Hon’ble Court that this Scale of JSTC has been allowed to them on account of their higher qualifications keeping in view the instructions of the State Finance Department given in their letter of dated 27.9.1979. They are actually not JSTC teachers but working on JBT posts even though they had been allowed the higher pay scale by virtue of their qualifications as given by the State from time to time and therefore even these submissions have no force to claim seniority above the respondents number 4 to 7 because they were JBTs and promoted as Head Teachers from that very cadre. 3. That the applicants have woken after a deep slumber of more than 10 years when they were given the promotion s as Head Teachers and they did not join at that time and therefore this is all an afterthought for ;seniority without any base and their Application deserves dismissal on this ground too. 4. That as per their seniority position, the Applicants were promoted as Head Teachers according to their turn by respondent number 3 but they did not avail of the same for the reasons best known to them and those who had joined as Head 3 Teachers had naturally become senior to them. The JBT Teachers have presently there channels of promotions i.e Head Teachers, Centre Head Teachers and Block Primary Education Officers. There are separate set of R&P Rules for JBTs/Head Teachers/Centre Head Teachers and Block Pr4imay Education Officers and all posts are filled in a sper their seniority in respective cadres by applying 40 point roster. Thus the Application of the Applicant has no substance at all and the same is prayed to be dismissed in limine.” 3. In case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position it will be certainly open to him to approach the first respondent in which case the said respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within four months. 4. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge 28th October, 2010. Lsp* 4 4. Pending CMP, if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 3rd June, 2010. Lsp* 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1701 of 2010. Decided on: 20th May, 2010. Shilpa Aggrawal. …Petitioner. Versus HP Subordinate Service Selection Board. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is an applicant for selection to the post of TGT (Non Medical). She is a science graduate and she has passed B.Ed. She did her graduation with Chemistry Honours and the other subjects are Industrial Chemistry and Mathematics. It is the contention of the petitioner that going by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, ruling the field at the relevant time, namely, the date of submission of the application and the date of written test and interview, the petitioner satisfied the qualification of graduation in Science. However, the notification stipulated that the candidate should have specified the subjects. According to the learned 2 counsel for the State, the only intention was to clarify the position in view of the requirement of teachers in specialized subjects. 2. We have held in our decision dated 29.4.2010 in Kamlesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and anr, CWP No.3703 of 2009 along with connected matters that so long as the Rules governing the field required the qualification only of graduation in Science, the Selection Committee cannot improve the Rules and make their own amendments. We find that the petitioner in this case has come out successful in the written test and has also secured 150 marks in place of 143 marks for interview. 3. In the light of what is stated above, there will be a direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as duly qualified and take further steps in the matter of selection of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 20th May, 2010. (Justice Dev Darshan Sud), (tr) Judge. 6