Point of Law: Criminal Law - Present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The National College, Amb, District Una, was taken over by the respondents, through a notification of 27.6.1997. The writ petitioner, was working, as a Lecturer (Physics), in the afore taken over college. Her services were taken over , through Annexure P-1. However, the taking over of the services of the writ petitioner, was, with a condition that she alongwith one Darshan Kumar, would clear SET/NET, within a year, after their services are taken over. However, a notification, issued on 14.6.2006, by the University Grants Commission, notification whereof, is, borne in Annexure P-4, discloses that the appointees holding M.Phil degree, in, the subject concerned, became exempted from taking NET, and, yet only upon theirs’ imparting teachings to the under graduate classes. However, the writ petitioner acquired the M.Phil qualification, in the subject concerned, in March, 2019, and, hence much belatedly from the issuance, on 14.6.2006, of Annexure P-4, Annexure whereof became adopted, by the Himachal Pradesh University, through Annexure P-5, made on 27.6.2006.

2. The respondents, denied the grant of annual increments to the writ petitioner, and, has led the writ petitioner, to, approach this Court, for bestowal, of, the afore benefits upon her, w.e.f. June, 1997, whereat through Annexure P-1, the services of the writ petitioner, were taken over by the respondents, as Lecturer (Physics) College Cadre, in Government College, Amb. Since the termination of the services of the writ petitioner, by the respondents became earlier challenged by the writ petitioner, through hers instituting OA bearing No. 2025 of 1997, before the learned Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, (i) and, whereon the order of termination, as, made upon the writ petitioner, became conclusively and finally quashed and set aside, (ii) and with a further direction that her services be deemed to be taken over on 18.6.1997. Consequently, the afore conclusive verdict, does prima-facie, disable the learned Addl. A.G., to contend that for want of satiation, by, the writ petitioner, of, the imperative condition, borne in Annexure P-1, inasmuch as, hers, within a year, of, taking over of her services by the respondents, and, hers not clearing SET/NET, rather, not entitling the writ petitioner to remain, in service.

3. Since as above stated, the conclusive and binding verdict made, upon OA No. 2025 of 1997, mandates, that the writ petitioner is to be treated at par, with those erstwhile employees of the National College, Amb, whose services became hence, taken over by government of H.P. in the year 1997, hence only the legitimacy of the claim(s), raised in the writ petition, and, appertaining to denial to the writ petitioner, of, annual increments, from 18.6.1997, is, to be adjudicated.

4. As above stated, the non-satiation, of the afore imperative condition carried in Annexure P-1, inasmuch as the writ petitioner clearing SET/NET, within a year thereafter, for hence, hers being retained in service, does not, work against the writ petitioner, as the order of termination, made upon her, for want of hers’ accomplishing the afore imperative condition(s), became annulled, through a conclusive order, made on OA No. 2025 of 1997. Moreover, she through the operative of the verdict, made upon OA No. 2025 of 1997, became entitled to all the benefits, as were, granted to alike her appointees.

5. Nonetheless, the writ claim, as propagated in the writ petition, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner, being entitled to seek bestowal, of, annual increments w.e.f. 1997, is, to be adjudged. The appointees concerned, holding M.Phil. degree in the subject concerned, became exempted, through, Annexure P-4, from taking NET, only upon, them provenly imparting teachings, to, under graduate classes. However, the writ petitioner has acquired the M.Phil. qualification, only in the year 2009, hence, the writ petitioner, is contended by the learned counsel, for the respondents, to