Ramesh Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

"(i) That the impugned order dated 09.09.2014 (Annexure A-10), may kindly be partly quashed and set aside, since the same has been passed without taking into consideration actual facts and circumstances of the case of the applicant.

(ii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to give appointment to the applicant as Drawing Master in view of the fact that applicant belongs from 2005-2007 batch of Drawing Master and as per batch-wise seniority, the applicant is entitled to get the said appointment."

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the main grouse/grievance of the petitioner is that though he belongs to 2005-2007 batch but till date he has not been considered for the post of Drawing Master on batch-wise basis whereas, persons of batches junior to him have been offered appointment. Besides above, petitioner has also sought quashment of order dated 9.9.2014 passed by Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in compliance of judgment dated 4.8.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5436 of 2014 filed by the petitioner alongwith a person namely Sanjay, prior to filing of the petition at hand, whereby Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with the direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP NO. 1924 of 2014, titled Shiv Lal & others vs. State of H.P. & others.

Perusal of order dated 9.9.2014 clearly reveals that pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by Division Bench of this Court, representation of the petitioner was duly considered by the authority concerned and it arrived at a definite conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits as have been prayed for in the petition, but for that the petitioner will have to wait for his turn. Having regard to the nature of controversy inter se parties, this Court, vide order dated 7.9.2020, specifically directed the learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions as to why the petitioner has not been considered for appointment to the post of Drawing Master on batch wise basis till date, especially when persons of his junior batches have been offered appointment.

Pursuant to aforesaid order, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 8.9.2020 sent by the Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof reveals that no person junior to the petitioner under SC Category has been appointed against the post of Drawing Master on batch wise basis. It has been stated that at present running batch of Drawing Masters under SC Category is of the year 1998, as such, it cannot be said that any person junior to the petitioner has been offered appointment, as is alleged by the petitioner. Besides above, it has been further detailed in the communication (supra) that private respondents Nos. 4 and 5 namely Jai Nand and Khub Ram were offered appointment against reserved posts of ex-servicemen, arising out of backlog of ex-servicemen quota, after recommendation of their names by Director, Sainik Welfare Cell, Hamirpur in compliance to direction contained in CWP No. 147 of 2011 titled Gian Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others Though, in the aforesaid communication, respondent Department has claimed that R&P Rules for the post of Drawing Master were repealed by the Government vide Notification dated 18.11.2000 and as per these Rules, minimum qualification for the post in question is 10+2 with 50% marks and two year diploma in Art and Craft or its equivalent from a University/Institution recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh or Bachelor of Arts with Visual or Fine Arts (Painting & Sculpture) or its equivalent from a University/Institution recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and since the petitioner did not possess minimum qualification as per these Rules, hence, is not eligible to be appointed against the post of Drawing Master. However, aforesaid claim of the respondents does not appear to be tenable on account of judgment dated 9.1.2013 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8022 of 2012, titled Saroj Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others wherein Division Bench of this Court having taken note of affidavit dated 9.10.2012 filed through Deputy Director of Elementary Education, wherein it has been stated that decision has been taken that teachers recruited on the basis of pre-amended Rules would be required to complete the eligibility criteria of essential qualification within a period of five years, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of P.E.T. in light of decision taken by the Government.

Since as per aforesaid judgment, teachers recruited on the basis of pre-amended Rules would be required to complete eligibility criteria of essential qualification within a period of five years from the date of their appointment, necessary condition with regard to qualification as contained in amended R&P Rules shall not come in the way of the petitioner, who otherwise after having been offered appointment, would be required to complete eligibility criteria of essential qualification.

Consequently, in view of above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition, which is disposed of alongwith all pending applications. Liberty though is reserved to the petitioner to avail legal remedy qua his surviving grievances, if any.