Pankaj Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No.365 of 2026 Decided on : 18.06.2026

Pankaj Chauhan		...Appellant
	Versus
State of HP and Ors.		…Respondents.
Coram

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the appellant(s) : Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

¶8

By way of the present appeal, a challenge has been laid to the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2026, passed in CWP No.20062 of 2025, titled Pankaj Chauhan Vs. State of HP and Ors. , whereby writ petition preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed and the challenge laid therein to the appointment order of respondent No.9 dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure P-5 at page 97 of the paper book) has been rejected. Further a challenge made

¶9

to the 8^th Class Certificate of respondent No.9 has also been repelled/rejected and thereby order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure

¶10

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶11

-2-

¶12

P-1 at page 72 of the paper book) passed by the Director, School Education has been upheld.

¶13

The counselling/interview for the post of Part Time Multi Task Workers in Government Primary School Rajaina, Block Dadahu, District Sirmour, HP was held on 28.06.2022. At the said interview/counselling, the appellant and respondent No.9 had participated. Prior to the counselling/interview on 11.06.2022, the appellant had made a complaint to the SDM Nahan with respect to the 8^th Class Certificate of respondent No.9.

¶14

According to the appellant in his complaint so made, it had been stated that respondent No.9 had failed in Class-VIII examination in the year 2008. The same as per the complaint is evident from the School Leaving Certificate issued to respondent No.9 on 08.09.2020 by the Principal in Govt. Senior Secondary School Koti Dhiman. Subsequent thereto, as per the appellant, respondent No.9 had obtained a middle standard certificate from a private school i.e. Himalayan Public Senior Secondary School, Chowari, District Chamba, HP, during the Session 2011-12. Further according to the appellant on 12.02.2022, respondent No.9 had completed 18 years of age and hence, according to the appellant, he could not have been admitted in Class-VIII.

¶15

According to the appellant, in terms of the Right to

¶16

-3-

¶17

Education Act, 2009, after having attained the age of 14 years, respondent No.9 could not have been admitted in Class-VIII, hence, certificate obtained by respondent No.9 from Himalayan Public Senior Secondary School, Chowari, District Chamba, HP qua having passed Class-VIII, is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶18

Qua the authenticity of the 8^th Class Certificate of respondent No.9, it is evident that the BEEO Dadahu had written to the Principal, Himalayan Public Senior Secondary School, Chowari, District Chamba, HP. The Principal, vide response dated 28.06.2022 had verified according to the school record the details of the 8^th Class Certificate issued in favour of respondent No.9. The said finding of fact returned by the authorities below has not been interfered by the learned Single Judge. Even in appeal, no valid legal ground for interfering in the finding of fact so arrived by the authorities below has been pointed out by the appellant.

¶19

Other than the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has correctly observed that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been enacted in furtherance of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. The sole objective is to provide “ Free and Compulsory Education to all the Children of the age of 6 to 14 years. ” Further the learned Single Judge has correctly observed that there is no statutory bar

¶20

-4-

¶21

under the aforesaid Act, which restricts/prohibits an individual above the age of 14 years to seek admission in Class-VIII. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the Class-VIII Certificate obtained by respondent No.9 after having attained the age of 14 years is illegal and in violation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has been correctly rejected by the learned Single Judge.

¶22

Suffice it to state that numerous individuals, who join Government service, during the course of their employment, improve their qualification in accordance with the respective service rules.

¶23

It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that in terms of Section 10 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Ac, 2009, it is a duty of every parent/guardian to admit his/her child/ward for the purpose of obtaining elementary education in a neighbourhood school. Hence, it is contended that respondent No.9 should have done his Class-VIII from Govt. Senior Secondary School, Koti Dhiman. In this respect, reference can gainfully be made to para 12 of the appeal, wherein reliance has been placed upon a Writ Petition (C) No.95 of 2010 , titled Society for Unaided Private School of Rajasthan Vs. Union of

¶24

India and Another . From a perusal of the same, it would be

¶25

-5-

¶26

evident that Section 10 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been held to be directory and parents/guardians are free to admit their children in schools of their choice. In view thereof, contention so raised is rejected.

¶27

Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is bereft of merit, therefore, the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶29

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶30

18^th June, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)

Pankaj Chauhan v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Chauhan v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hpsebl Vs Ashwani Kumar

Hp State Forest Development Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs Onkar Singh

Ram Lal Vs Hpu and Others

Jarnail Singh Vs Hpsebl

Kusum Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others

Rakesh Rana Vs the State of Hp and Others