Mrs. Anjana Kumarai vs State of H.P.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexures P-2

i.e. order dated 24.8.2009 and Annexure P-3 i.e. standard form contract, terms and conditions to the extent they pertain to offering appointment to the petitioner on a contract basis.

(ii) Direct the respondent authorities through a writ of mandamus to give all consequential benefits of seniority, pension etc., w.e.f. from 11.12.2002.

In a nutshell, the petitioner has claimed that 227 posts of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) Non-Medical were to be filled in on regular basis by the respondents. She applied for the same and successfully qualified the written examination conducted by the Subordinate Staff Selection Board, Hamirpur. She was called for interview by the said Board and was finally selected. According to the petitioner, her name alongwith similarly situate candidates was recommended to the respondents for being appointed as TGT Non-Medical, but appointment letter was not issued to her till 24.8.2009, on which day though offer of appointment was made to her vide Annexure P-2, however, on contract basis, i.e. on fixed contractual salary of Rs. 8220/- per month. She has assailed her appointment on contract basis being illegal on the ground that as per the advertisement issued to fill up the posts, in question, these were to be filled in on regular basis and not on contract basis. It is in this backdrop that the present petition came to be filed in this Court for the grant of reliefs, as pointed out hereinabove at the very outset.

No reply has been filed by the respondents and this writ petition after its admission came to be listed today for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment dated 14.11.2011 of learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1811 of 2008 titled Dev Raj Vs. State of H.P. and its connected petitions and contended that the issues involved in this petition are squarely covered thereunder.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition is even covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP No. 3912 of 2009 titled Joginder Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others, and its connected petitions on 6.5.2010.

Learned Deputy Advocate General has fairly conceded the law laid down in the judgments of this court referred supra and has stated that a direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner accordingly.

In view of the above position, it is ordered that in case the petitioner herein is also similarly situated as the petitioners in the above referred to decisions, similar treatment shall also be extended to her as extended to the petitioners in the above referred to decisions. The needful action, as above, shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and a copy each of both the decisions referred to above, by the petitioner before the second respondent.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.