Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp

“i) That the respondents may be directed to consider and then to give the resultant appointment to the petitioners as TGT (Arts) on regular basis, in the regular pay scale and all other service benefits as admissible to regular employees in accordance with the R&P Rules of 1973 vide Annexure P-4 w.e.f. their respective joining on post of TGT (A) as in Annexure P-7, with all consequential benefits forthwith.

¶18

ii) That the respondents may be directed to modify the appointment of the petitioners from contractual TGT to regular TGT’s or to treat the petitioners as Regular TGT (Arts) w.e.f. the

¶19

2024:HHC:8855

¶20

date of joining as in Annexure P-7, with all consequential benefits forthwith.

¶21

iii) That the letter or decision taken by the respondents on 16.6.2008 (including the decision dated 4.6.2010) which provides for filling up the posts of TGT (A) on contract basis vide Annexure P-10 being contrary to and inconsistent with the R&P Rules of 1973 vide Annexure P-4 {whereby 75% posts of TGT’s were to be filled by direct recruitment on regular basis, in regular pay scale, with all other service benefits as admissible to regular employees} then, any such order, letter or decision may kindly be quashed and set-aside forthwith.

¶22

iv) That as sequel to (iii) above; any other order, letter or decision which overrides the Rules issued under Article 309; which amends and supplants the Rules; which curtails or restricts the operation of the Rules; which sets at naught the method of recruitment as prescribed in the Rules; which curtails or takes away their right to be considered for selection on the basis of Rules in force on the date of commencement of selection process; which tends to amend the Rules without following the prescribed process of resorting to amendment; when such norms could not be applied in an unequal or discriminatory manner to the disadvantage and prejudice of the petitioners; when, the same are arbitrary, unconscionable and opposed to public policy then, any such order or decision is illegal and may kindly be quashed and set-aside forthwith.

¶23

v) That the respondents may be directed to decide the representations dated 26.8.2010 vide Annexure P-8 and on 3.2.2014 vide Annexure P-9 and to give the benefits as in (I) to (iii) above forthwith.”

¶24

2. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted

¶25

that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment dated 2.5.2012, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No. 7602 of 2010,

¶26

titled as, Om Prakash versus State of H.P. & others,

¶27

against which, LPA No. 21 of 2013, titled as “State of HP & others versus Ravinder Kumar”, alongwith connected matters, was filed, before this Court. The

¶28

2024:HHC:8855

¶29

aforesaid LPAs were also dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 4.10.2019.

¶30