Court rules that selection process mandates regular appointments under existing recruitment rules, making contractual appointments illegal. Petitioners entitled to deemed regularization from their initial appointment date.

Ranjan Sharma, J.

1. 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 peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings.

3. The petitioners, being Trained Graduate Teachers, have filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer(s):-

“(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial engagement/appointment with all consequential benefits on the principle of equality as they are appointed on b atch wise basis under same requisition of seats under category of ward of ex-serviceman as per un-amended Rules.

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial engagement/appointment with all consequential benefits in term of the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP/ 7602/2010, titled as Om Parkas Vs State of H.P. & Others, and connected matters, CWP No.3144 of 2011, titled as Anju Devi Versus State of H.P and Others and CWP No.3143 of 2011, titled as Manju Devi vs State of H.P. and others.

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their initial appointment to till the date of realization.

(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to extend same and similar benefits as has been extended to Ms. Rakhi (LT), Mr. Tej Ram (LT) & Mr. Kuldip Chand (TGT, now Lecturer) in terms of judgments passed in CWP/7602/2010, titled as Om Parkash Vs. State of H.P. & Others, and connected matters, CWP No.3144 of 2011, titled as Anju Devi Versus State of H.P. and Others by this Hon’ble Court.”

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 appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in 2008-2009, under ward of Ex-Servicemen on Batch wise Basis, on regular basis, in Department of Education, of the State Government 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 as Trained Graduate Teachers they were appointed on contractual basis on 19.06.2010, 30.11.2009 and 29.01.2010. The petitioners continued as such and they were regularized in the year 2020.

5. Now, the only grievance of the petitioners is that though as per the Himachal Pradesh, Education Department Class-III [School and Inspection Cadre] Service Rules, 1973, the petitioners had undergone the selection for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers in 2008-2009 under ward of Ex-Servicemen on batch wise basis, on regular basis but, were wrongly and illegally appointed on contract basis when, contractual mode-nomenclature of appointment was introduced in the Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department, Trained Graduate Teachers [Class-III] [Non Gazetted], Recruitment and Promotion Rules on 22.10 .2009 and once these Rules of 2009 were only prospective in nature then, the petitioners could not have been appointed on contract basis, meaning thereby, that the petitioners had a right to be appointed on regular basis from the date of initial appointment.

In this background, the action of the respondents in denying the “deemed regular appointment to the petitioner, as Trained Graduate Teachers in 2008-2009” from the date they were appointe