JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings.

3. The petitioner has come up before this Court seeking the following relief:-

“(A) That the act and conduct of the respondents of offering appointment to the petitioners on contract basis instead of giving regular appointment under “Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III [School and Inspection Cadre] Services Rules, 1973” may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of R&P Rules.

(B) That the respondents may kindly be considered the services of the petitioners on regular basis alongwith all consequential benefits as per the provisions of the “Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (School an Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973” since the date of their joining on contract basis.

(C) That the respondents may kindly be release the entire consequential benefits along will interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their joining to till the date of realization.

(D) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the same benefits to the petitioners as the respondents in LPA No.54/2013 and LPA No.500/2013 and the petitioners in the Civil Writ Petition No.414/2014, 416/2014 and 417/2014 has been held entitled by this Hon’ble Court and the same has been implemented vide office order dated 01.12.2023.”

4. In the background, of the reliefs prayed for above, the brief facts of the case is that the respondents commenced the selection process for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers [Medical/ Non Medical/Arts], on regular basis, in regular pay scale, under the batch-wise quota, by holding interview(s) between August to November, 2008 in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Education Department, Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre Services) Rules, 1973 but, instead of appointing them on regular basis, the respondents appointed them as Trained Graduate Teachers (M/NM), on contractual basis, on 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-1, colly). Left with no option, due to the unequal bargaining power, the petitioners joined the contractual appointment and they continued in service till they were regularized in accordance with the Policy of the Government with immediate effect on 22.6.2015.

5. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that though as per the Himachal Pradesh, Education Department Class-III [School and Inspection Cadre Service] Rules, 1973 once the petitioners had undergone the selection for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, on regular basis, but were illegally appointed on contract basis, dehors the Rules of 1973, ignoring the fact that the contractual mode of appointment for TGTs was introduced in Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department, Trained Graduate Teacher [Class-III-Non Gazetted] Recruitment and Promotion Rules on 22.10.2009, (Annexure P-2); then, the petitioners could not have been appointed on contract basis; meaning thereby, that the petitioners have a fundamental and legal right to be appointed as TGT (M/NM) on regular basis from the date of initial appointment on contract basis.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the inaction of the respondents in appointing the petitioners as TGTs on contract basis erroneously and dehors the Rule of 1973, when, the petitioners had a fundamental-legal right to be appointed as TGTs on regular basis, under the Rule of 1973; has resulted in depriving the petitioners of the regular appointment, regular status, higher pay fixation in regular pay scale of TGTs and the benefit of Assured Career Progression Schemes [of 8–16–24–32 years, which stood re-carved to benefits after 4–9–14 years service], by treating the petitioners as regular incumbents – TGTs from the date of initial appointment(s) in Augus