IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.4256 of 2008(OA No.575/97 Date of decision: 21.7.2009 Sandla Devi …….Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and another ....….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) The case of the petitioner is that she had passed B.Ed. examination from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in the year 1983, her name was sponsored to the Education Department by the Employment Exchange, Kullu for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. The Director of Education vide letter dated 26.12.1995 had sent interview call to the petitioner for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. The interview was to be held in the office of District Education Officer, Kullu on 8.1.1996. The petitioner had appeared before the interview Board on 8.1.1996 and presented her all original certificates mentioned in the interview letter alongwith Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 photocopies of those certificates. The petitioner even submitted her backward class certificate showing her as (Ghirth) to the interview Board. The petitioner belonged to backward class of 1983 batch and was eligible for appointment alongwith backward class candidates of 1983 batch The interview was conducted for batch- wise recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers. The candidates of general category upto the batch of 1982 were considered and appointed. The candidates belonging to the backward class upto 1983 batch were considered and appointed, but the petitioner was not appointed. 2. The backward class candidates of 1983 batch were appointed in August, 1996 but the petitioner was not appointed. She submitted a representation on 27.8.1996 to the Director of Education but no action was taken for appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner ultimately filed O.A No.575 of 1997 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was abolished later on. The cases of the Tribunal were transferred to this Court in view of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008 and OA No.575 of 1997 on transfer has been registered in this Court as CWP(T) No.4256 of 2008. 3. The petitioner in the petition has prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the rightful claim of the petitioner for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher against the category of backward class like other backward candidates of 1983 batch who had already been appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers in August, 1996 and assign her appropriate place in the 3 seniority to which she is found to be entitled along with all consequential benefits like pay fixation, etc. 4. The respondents had filed application dated 31.10.1997. In the application, the respondents have stated that the case of the petitioner was not considered at the time of interview with other backward class candidates. The mistake was rectified later on and the petitioner was given appointment against backward class candidates as Trained Graduate Teacher vide order dated 18.10.1997 and she was posted at Govt. Senior Secondary School, Salooni, Distt Chamba. Later on, the respondents have filed additional reply dated 1.12.1997 and have contested the claim of the petitioner for seniority and arrears of pay fixation etc. 5. The Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh had filed affidavit dated 4.5.2009 and has stated that the petitioner was eligible to be appointed against the post of Trained Graduate Teacher against OBC quota in the year 1996, had she been considered against the OBC quota. He has also stated that in view of the confession of the mistake by the department, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for granting benefits from the date of appointment of other OBC candidates who were interviewed with the petitioner in the year 1996. So far as other notional benefits such as seniority etc. are concerned, these can be granted to the petitioner as this Court deems fit. 6. The petitioner in her reply affidavit dated 7.7.2009 has stated that OBC candidates of 1983 batch were appointed on 3.8.1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to all service benefits from 3.8.1996. 4 7. In view of candid admission of mistake by the respondents for not appointing the petitioner alongwith the candidates of 1983 batch in OBC category, there is now no dispute so far appointment of petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher with 1983 OBC batch is concerned. The OBC candidates of 1983 batch were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers on 3.8.1996. The petitioner was appointed on 18.10.1997, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to all service benefits such as seniority, pay fixation etc from 3.8.1996 when her batch mates were appointed. However, since the petitioner was actually appointed on 18.10.1997 she shall not get any salary from 3.8.1996 to 18.10.1997. The respondents are directed to count the seniority of the petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher from 3.8.1996 and fix her pay accordingly within a period of three months from today. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. July 21, 2009 (sks)