Rajo Devi vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Satyen Vaidya, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs: -

“(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued, directing the respondents department to give appointment to the petitioner against the post of Junior Basic Teacher from the due date i.e., 18.02.2014 in District Sirmaur, with all consequential benefits in light of the principles of parity and in view of the fact that the respondents authorities issued the notification on 12.09.2012 to fill up 1308 posts of Juniro Basic Teacher in the State of Himachal Pradesh and 134 posts were allotted to District Sirmaur and respondents department after completing the selection process offered the appointment in terms of office order dated 18.02.2014 only to 75 candidates against 134 vacancies and petitioner who was meritorious, they were not offered the appointments without any justification and the said appointments was offered to the petitioner after the delay of 1 year on 01.05.2015; and/or.

ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the due date i.e. 18.02.2017 with all consequential benefits, when the respondent department has regularized the services of similarly situated candidates who were given appointment from the same selection process on 18.02.2014 and in other districts, the appointments were also given to the selected candidates against the post of JBT with the rider that the said appointments will be subject to the outcome of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the writ petitions, but the Respondent No.3 has not made the appointment of the petitioners without any justification from the due date i.e. 18.02.2014 and same was delayed by 1 years and was given w.e.f. 01.05.2015; and/or

iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued, directing the respondents department to treat the petitioner as having been appointed as JBT on contract basis in District Sirmaur, at par with other candidates, who were appointed in District Sirmaur on 18.02.2014 on the basis of conselling process and consequently treat the regularization of the petitioner at par with other candidates who were regularized on 18.02.2017 i.e., after 3 years of service with all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary and incremental benefits .”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Judgment passed in CWP No. 7794 of 2021 (Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. State of H.P. & Ors.), on 24.03.2022. He further submits that petitioner shall be content in case the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in time bound manner in light of judgment ibid.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without making any comments on the merits of the case of the petitioner. It is directed that respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in CWP No. 7794 of 2021 (Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. State of H.P. & Ors.), on 24.03.2022, within eight weeks from today and will decide the same by passing a speaking order. In case, the petitioner is found similarly situated as petitioner in CWP No. 7794 of 2021 (Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. State of H.P. & Ors.), on 24.03.2022, she will also be granted the same benefits as granted to petitioner in above referred case.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. .