IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973, and the legal right of the petitioners to be appointed on a regular basis.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 order intended to be passed herein.

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

“(i) That appointment of petitioners from initial date of appointment (since they joined as TGTs on contract basis) may be considered as regular appointment in accordance with R&P rules of 1973, and contract appointment of petitioners may kindly declared as illegal, null and void being contrary to R&P rules.

(ii) Respondents further directed to regular appointment to petitioners from give initial date of appointment or contract appointment of the petitioners may kindly be treat as regular appointment against the post of Trained Graduate Teacher from the initial date of their appointment with all consequential benefits.

(iii) That the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits like seniority, arrears, increment, interest @9% per annum with effect from the date when the same fell due till its actual realization.

(iv) That in alternate petitioner may be deemed to be regular appointees from initial date of appointment for all intent and purpose like seniority, pay fixation, increments etc in accordance with old R&P rules, they may be given same treatment to petitioner as given to respondents of LPA 54/2013 and connected matters, as well petitioners of CWP 414/2014, CWP 3144/2011, along with all consequential benefits.”

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 (Arts/NM), on contractual basis, in the years 2008 and 2009. Left with no option, due to the unequal bargaining power, the petitioners joined the contractual appointment and they continued in service till they were regularization 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, de hors the Rules of 1973, in view of 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-4); 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 (Arts/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 de hors 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 recarved to benefits after 4–9–14 years’ service], by treating the petitioners a