Rohit Saini and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rohit Saini and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay-condonation applications disposed of (one held misconceived as the appeal was filed within limitation after excluding certified-copy time; in the other, delay condoned and appeal ordered registered); leave to appeal granted to the applicants, strictly confined to the grievance that seniority/consequential benefits were extended to the private respondents (GVU/PAT) from 18.12.2014, prior to the applicants' regular appointment; the appeals (including newly registered LPA/45435/2024 and LPA/43008/2024 and LPA No.2 of 2025) are to be considered together on 26.05.2025. No relief on merits at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants (Vinod Kumar and others), regularly appointed through the prescribed agency (H.P. Service Selection Board) under the R & P Rules and not arrayed as parties in the writ petitions, are entitled to leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20.09.2024, limited to the grievance that seniority and consequential benefits were extended to the private respondents (GVU/PAT categories) from 18.12.2014, a date prior to the applicants' regular appointment. +1 more

Court's answer

Prima facie there is force in the applicants' plea; leave to appeal is granted only to the limited extent of challenging the extension of the benefit of seniority to the private respondents prior to the date of regular appointment of the applicants.

Ratio / Principle

The application for condonation of delay in filing LPA No.2 of 2025 is misconceived because the appeal was filed within 30 days after deducting the time taken to obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment; the application is disposed of accordingly.

Key takeaways

In CMP(M) No.1903 of 2024, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is to be registered.ratio¶41
Granting leave does not mean the applicants' plea has been accepted on merits; the application is allowed on a prima facie (not ex facie) basis and the appeal shall be decided on its own merit.ratio¶36
The applicants shall not have any right to agitate any other issue in the appeal except the issue which has a direct impact on their service career, i.e., grant of seniority to the private respondents above the applicants.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law - Regularization - Seniority - By judgment dated 20.09.2024 in CWP No.7913 of 2022 and CWP No.3280 of 2022, the learned Single Judge quashed the decision to regularize the writ petitioners (Gram Vidya Upasaks (GVU)/Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT)) prospectively w.e.f. 20.08.2020 as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and directed regularization with consequential benefits from 18.12.2014 - Teachers regularly appointed through the H.P. Service Selection Board under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R & P Rules), who were not arrayed in the writ petitions, sought leave to appeal on the ground that back-dated seniority would adversely affect their service careers - Held: (i) the delay application in LPA No.2 of 2025 was misconceived, the appeal having been filed within 30 days after deducting the time taken to obtain the certified copy; (ii) in CMP(M) No.1903 of 2024 delay stood condoned; (iii) prima facie force existed in the applicants' plea and leave to appeal was granted, but only to the limited extent of the seniority benefit extended to the private respondents prior to the applicants' regular appointment; (iv) grant of leave is not acceptance of the plea on merits, the appeal to be decided on its own merit; and (v) the applicants cannot agitate any issue other than the seniority issue directly affecting their service careers - Appeals and connected matters listed for consideration on 26.05.2025. (Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge)

Vinod Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others a/w connected matters

CMP(M) No. 1903 of 2024, CMP No.22380 of 2024 and LPA No.2 of 2025

CMP(M) No. 1903 of 2024

02.04.2025 Present:

Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr.Sparsh, Advocate, for the applicants.

Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr.Kush Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 14.

CMP No.22380 of 2024

Mr.Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate, for the applicants.

Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr.K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, alongwith Ms.Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 41.

LPA No.2 of 2025

Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the appellants.

Mr.K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, alongwith Ms.Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the respondents.

CMP(M) No. 9 of 2025 in LPA No.2 of 2025

This application has been filed for condonation of

delay in filing the appeal. As a matter of fact, judgment was pronounced on 20.09.2024. Copy whereof was applied on

04.10.2024, which was attested on 06.11.2024. Appeal has

been preferred on 20.11.2024, therefore, it has been filed within 30 days after deducting time taken to obtain the

certified copy of the impugned judgment. Therefore, this application is misconceived and is disposed of accordingly.

LPA No.2 of 2025

List for consideration on 26.05.2025 alongwith connected matters.

CMP No.163 of 2025 in LPA No.2 of 2025

Reply to the application, as prayed, be filed within four weeks.

List for consideration alongwith main appeal on next date of hearing.

CMP No.24129 of 2024 in LPA/45435/2024

This application has been filed seeking leave to appeal to assail judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.7913 of 2022, whereby following relief has been granted to the private respondents:-

“22. In the light of above discussion, petitions are allowed. The decision of respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners prospectively w.e.f. 20.08.2020 is quashed being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of their respective services of 8/10 years, as adopted in the cases of GVU and Para Teachers. Since, the respondents have already granted such bnenefit ot the Para Teachers w.e.f. 18.12.2014, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from the date i.e. 18.12.2014. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

Ground of the applicants is that they were regularly appointed through prescribed Agency, i.e. H.P.

Service Selection Board by adopting due process as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short R & P Rules). However, private respondents, who were appointed under various policies, including Gram Vidya Upasaks (GVU)/Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT), have been granted all consequential benefits including seniority from a date prior to the date of appointment of present applicants and, thus, in case seniority is granted to the private respondents from such date, it will have adverse impact on the service career of the applicants. But, such benefit has been directed to be extended to the private respondents without arraying the applicants or their representatives as party in the main petition.

Prima facie, there is force in the plea of the applicants, therefore, they are permitted to file appeal against the impugned judgment only to the limited extent with respect to the extension of benefit of seniority to the private respondents but prior to the date of regular appointment of the applicants.

Private respondents have filed replies to the application repelling the plea of the applicants questioning their entitlement/locus to assail the judgment.

Learned counsel for the private respondents submit that all consequential benefits have been granted to the private respondents on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court and as per policy adopted by the State, extended to other similarly persons of different categories of

GVU/PAT, who were similarly situated being appointed under different Scheme adopted by the State.

Grounds taken in the replies and argued during hearing are to be considered on merit in the hearing of main appeal.

Rival contentions of the parties, including the applicants have to be considered in the main appeal and allowing this application does not mean that plea of the applicants has been accepted on merit but application is being allowed considering prima facie case but not ex facie, and appeal shall be decided on its own merit.

Thus, applicants shall not have any right to agitate any other issue in the appeal except the issue which has direct impact on their service career, i.e. grant of seniority to private respondents above the applicants.

With aforesaid observations, leave to appeal is granted to the applicants to assail the judgment supra.

Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

CMP(M) No.1903 of 2024

For the reasons stated in the application and considering submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Appeal be registered.

Application stands disposed of.

LPA No. of 2025 (LPA45435/2024)

List for consideration alongwith LPA No.2 of 2025

on the date already fixed.

CMP No. of 2025(CMPST/45458/24)

Reply to the application be filed within four

weeks.

List for consideration alongwith main appeal and connected matters on the date already fixed.

CMP No.22380 of 2024 (in LPA/43008/2024)

This application has been filed seeking leave to appeal to assail judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.3280 of 2022, whereby following relief has been granted to the private respondents:-

“22. In the light of above discussion, petitions are allowed. The decision of respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners prospectively w.e.f. 20.08.2020 is quashed being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of their respective services of 8/10 years, as adopted in the cases of GVU and Para Teachers. Since, the respondents have already granted such bnenefit ot the Para Teachers w.e.f. 18.12.2014, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from the date i.e. 18.12.2014. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

Ground of the applicants is that they were regularly appointed through prescribed Agency, i.e. H.P. Service Selection Board by adopting due process as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short R & P Rules). However, private respondents, who were appointed under various policies, including Gram Vidya Upasaks (GVU)/Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT), have been granted all

consequential benefits including seniority from a date prior to the date of appointment of present applicants and, thus, in case seniority is granted to the private respondents from such date, it will have adverse impact on the service career of the applicants. But, such benefit has been directed to be extended to the private respondents without arraying the applicants or their representatives as party in the main petition.

Prima facie, there is force in the plea of the applicants, therefore, they are permitted to file appeal against the impugned judgment only to the limited extent with respect to the extension of benefit of seniority to the private respondents but prior to the date of regular appointment of the applicants.

Private respondents have filed replies to the application repelling the plea of the applicants questioning their entitlement/locus to assail the judgment.

Learned counsel for the private respondents submit that all consequential benefits have been granted to the private respondents on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court and as per policy adopted by the State, extended to other similarly persons of different categories of GVU/PAT, who were similarly situated being appointed under different Scheme adopted by the State.

Grounds taken in the replies and argued during hearing are to be considered on merit in the hearing of main appeal.

Rival contentions of the parties, including the applicants have to be considered in the main appeal and allowing this application does not mean that plea of the applicants has been accepted on merit but application is being allowed considering prima facie case but not ex facie, and appeal shall be decided on its own merit.

Thus, applicants shall not have any right to agitate any other issue in the appeal except the issue which has direct impact on their service career, i.e. grant of seniority to private respondents above the applicants.

With aforesaid observations, leave to appeal is

granted to the applicants to assail the judgment supra.

Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

LPA No. of 2025(LPA/43008/2024)

Be registered.

Parties are duly represented.

List for hearing/consideration alongwith LPA No.2

of 2025 on the date already fixed.

Reply to the application be filed within four

weeks.

List for consideration alongwith main appeal on 26.05.2025.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

April 2, 2025 (Purohit)