Indira Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the office order dated 30.12.2010, Annexure P-8.

(b) That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the policy decision of the state government applicable in so as it discriminates the petitioner by offering her appointment on contract basis vis a vis the regular JBT appointees particularly belong to the batch of the petitioner.

(c) That a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as JBT on regular basis as has been done in the entire batch of 174 candidates of the petitioner.

(There is typographical error and Annexure P-8 be read as Annexure P-7)

Annexure P-7 is the order whereby the petitioner''s request for regular appointment stands turned down. It is brought to my notice that the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.10.2011, passed in CWP No. 1170 of 2010-B, titled as Bhawana Sharma versus State of H.P. and others, copy of which is taken on record, wherein identical issue was involved, has issued the following directions:

Annexure P-10, recommendation from the Directorate, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh reads as follows:--

With reference to your letter No. EDN-C-B(2)-3/2005, dated 17.9.2007 regarding the subject cited above, it is to inform you that in the list of JBT qualified from RTTI, Kullu one name in the list of Bilaspur District has been mentioned/written twice at Sr. No. 1 and 4 and one name of Kullu District of Bhavna Sharma, d/o Surinder Kumar, w/o Sanjeev Bhardwaj, C/o Bhadwaj Sweets Akhara Bazar, Kullu has been left by mistake. The above candidate has passed JBT training from RTTI, Kullu during the year 2005 and her name was recommended alongwith with others by the Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Kullu to this Directorate. She has been registered with Employment Exchange, Kullu vide regd. No. W-685, dated 21.7.2005 and she is Matric pass. Her documents are enclosed herewith. So you are requested to accord permission in favour of Smt. Bhavna Sharma for her appointment as JBT teacher in Kullu district.

It is fairly clear that only on account of a mistake, that too bonafide mistake, the petitioner could not be appointed in the year 2007 alongwith others. In the reply, at paragraph 7, it is stated as follows:--

That this para also calls for no submissions, being a matter of record. However, in this regard it is submitted that the petitioner has passed 10+2 examination on 10.6.2008 and it is also further submitted that the government vide letter dated 25.4.2008 has decided to fill up all the posts in Department of Elementary Education on contract basis.

The facts being thus clear, in case any candidate who passed the qualifying examination in the year 2005 and his name was registered in the Employment Exchange in that year, has been offered regular appointment in the year 2007, the petitioner also ought to have been included in that batch, but for the mistake, referred to above, it is only matter of justice that the petitioner is also given the same treatment. Accordingly, Annexure P-7 is set aside.

There will be a direction to first respondent to act in terms of Annexure P-10 and in the light of the observations made above. In view of the recommendation(s) of the Director in the year 2007, she will be entitled to regular appointment in the year 2007, though it appears, she has been given contractual appointment in 2008.

In order to avoid any ambiguity with regard to the implementation of the judgment, it is clarified that the regular appointment of the petitioner shall be notional w.e.f. the date of appointment of her compeers in the year 2007 and the actual monetary benefits shall flow and follow only from the date of the appointment of all the petitioners in September, 2008, from which date she shall be entitled to all monetary benefits as a regular teacher.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.

It is seen that the petitioner in the said case was similarly situated as that of the present petitioner.

In the instant case, name of the petitioner was also not sponsored by the Employment Exchange alongwith the other candidates. She could not be given appointment in the year 2007 on regular basis. The mistake is bonafide. Petitioner is otherwise eligible for appointment on regular basis instead of contract basis, in accordance with law.

As such directions issued in Bhawna Sharma (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the case of the present petitioner also. Ordered accordingly. Necessary and consequential action shall positively be taken by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment, by the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.