Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J., Ranjan Sharma, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Appellants
Versus
Yog Raj and others - Respondent
LPA No. 194 of 2023, LPA No. 14 of 2025, LPA No.11 of 2025, LPA No.12 of 2025, LPA No.13 of 2025, LPA No.15 of 2025, LPA No.16 of 2025, LPA No.17 of 2025, LPA No.18 of 2025, CWP No.1756 of 2023, CWP No.1759 of 2023, CWP No.1809 of 2023, CWP No.1897 of 2023, CWP No.2821 of 2023, CWP No.5663 of 2022, CWP No.6475 of 2022, CWP No.6476 of 2022, CWPOA No.5740 of 2020
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta and Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocates

No vested right to appointment after consideration under one-time qualification relaxation; such measure not perpetual for future vacancies; ineligible candidates cannot claim parity or court-mandated relaxation.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment and Promotion Rules - Relaxation in minimum educational qualification - One-time relaxation granted for filling specific number of posts (50% direct recruitment, 50% batch-wise) limited to those posts - Cannot be extended perpetually for future vacancies - Candidates possessing one-year diploma ineligible under new rules requiring two-year diploma - Considered under relaxation but not selected due to lower batch-wise seniority - No vested right to appointment, only right to fair consideration - Rule 18 confers discretionary power on government to relax rules upon formation of opinion based on necessity/expediency after consultation - Court cannot mandate relaxation or substitute its opinion.

(B) Precedent - Judgment directing consideration under relaxation without adverting to rule 18 or limited nature of one-time measure - Dismissal of special leave petition in limine neither declares law nor binds as precedent under Article 141 - No parity with beneficiaries of such judgment as it perpetuates illegality.

(C) Future vacancies - Cannot be filled from candidates not selected in concluded process or ineligibles - Must follow extant rules on date of fresh selection - NCTE regulations mandating two-year diploma bind state - No mandamus to fill vacancies unless rules require.

Facts of the case:
Aspirants with one-year diploma under repealed rules claimed relaxation as per notification following cabinet decision for 125 posts, citing parity with others appointed. Considered for batch-wise posts but unsuccessful. Rejection orders quashed by single judge directing consideration against vacancies. State appealed.

Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment erroneous; one-time relaxation exhausted upon filling specified posts; ineligibles have no claim against future vacancies; parity impermissible.

Issues: Whether one-time relaxation extendable indefinitely; vested right to appointment post-consideration; parity with earlier appointees; court power to direct relaxation and filling future vacancies.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere participation confers no appointment right; relaxation discretionary and finite; ineligible candidates cannot claim against future vacancies dehors rules; parity with illegals invalidates statutory qualifications.

Result: Appeals allowed; writ petitions dismissed; single judge judgment quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. connected cases adjudicated by common judgment. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioners claim relaxation under old rules. (Para 4)
3. one-time relaxation for specified teacher posts. (Para 5)
4. parity sought with saroj kumar appointees. (Para 6 , 16 , 17)
5. no vested right to appointment post-consideration. (Para 12)
6. relaxation discretionary, not perpetual or mandamus. (Para 13)
7. slp dismissal without reasons not precedent. (Para 14)
8. future vacancies filled per current rules. (Para 15 , 18)
9. ncte mandates two-year diploma qualification. (Para 19)
10. impugned judgment quashed; writs dismissed. (Para 20 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Since factual matrix and issues involved in above cases is common, therefore, with consent of Learned Counsels for the parties herein, all these cases are taken up together for adjudication by a common judgment.

2. For convenience sake, LPA No 194 of 2023, In Re: State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors versus Yog Raj and others is treated as the “Lead Case” so as to adjudicate all connected cases altogether.

3. The State of Himachal Pradesh, being the appellant, has come up before this Court, in Intra Court Appeal, in the Lead Case herein, assailing the judgment dated 19.07.2022, passed by Learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 3573 of 2019 and other connected matters, In Re: Yog Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh whereby, the order dated 10.07.2018, [Annexure A-9], rejecting the claim of the Respondents-Aspirants for appointment as Physical Education Teacher(s), was quashed and set aside and the State Authorities were directed to consider and decide the cases of the respondents herein for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teachers, on Batch Wise Basis, after having granted them relaxation in minimum qualification, in terms of the Notification dated 15.02.2011, [Annexure A-2] and pursuant to the counseling done on 14.07.2014, [Annexure A-6] with the further directions that the needful be done by the State Authorities within a period of four weeks.

FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT:

4. In CWPOA No. 3573 of 2019, Respondent Yog Raj and others, in lead case, have set up a case that they passed one year’s Diploma in Physical Education Teacher from Pune (Maharashtra) during the year 1997-98 and thereafter got their names registered with the respective employment exchanges so as to consider their cases for appointment as Physical Education Teachers as and when, the recruitment was made either by Direct Recruitment or on Batch Wise Basis, for which they were eligible in-accordance with the RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES dated 28.12.1973 [referred to as the Old R & P Rules of 1973]. It is averred that after repealing of the Old Rules, the State Authorities had notified the New Recruitment & Promotion Rules on 10.01.2011 [Annexure A-1, in writ file], rendering them ineligible for post of Physical Education Teacher, by prescribing the Minimum Educational Qualification of 10+2 and Diploma in Physical Education Teacher [DPET] of a duration of two academic years from a University/Board recognized by Himachal Pradesh Government, besides the other alternative Educational Qualifications of Bachelor’s Degrees [which are not relevant for purposes of adjudication of the instant matters]. It is averred that the State Authorities took a decision on 15.02.2011, [Annexure A-2/T in writ file] for filling up various posts in Classical and Vernacular {C & V} Cadre which included the posts of Physical Education Teachers, in-accordance with Old and New RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES but with the rider that the teachers so recruited under the Old Rules, will have to improve their Educational Qualifications within five years from the date of appointment. It is averred that based on relaxation granted on 15.02.2011, [Annexure A-2], the State Authorities had granted an opportunity to the Respondents-aspirants and other like candidates to seek consideration for direct recruitment and for Batch Wise Recruitment but