Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Suneel Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others – Respondents
CWPOA No.6772 of 2020
Decided On : 04-11-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Devender Sharma and Mr. Anshul Gandhi Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel.
Central Government recognition of 10+2 certificate ipso facto applies to state employment per 1977 Office Memorandum; rejection of ex-serviceman's candidature lacking statutory basis for local board recognition quashed; nomination upheld leading to notional appointment.
Headnote:(A) Recognition of Educational Qualifications - 10+2 certificate from out-of-state board recognized by Central Government held ipso facto valid for state employment per Office Memorandum dated 30.09.1977 providing that Central orders apply automatically - No statutory mandate requiring separate recognition by state school board - Rejection of ex-serviceman petitioner's candidature for Junior Office Assistant (IT) post on contract basis quashed as arbitrary and contrary to recruitment rules mandating 10+2 from recognized board - Nomination by ex-servicemen cell after eligibility verification upheld - Petitioner also deemed graduate based on military service - Directed appointment from date of similarly placed candidates with notional benefits and seniority but without arrears. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Ex-serviceman petitioner passed 10+2 from out-of-state board recognized centrally for employment; registered with ex-servicemen cell; nominated for reserved post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) on contract; appeared for certificate verification; rejected as certificate not recognized by state school board despite central recognition.
Findings of Court:
Rejection order quashed; respondents directed to appoint petitioner against reserved post from date other nominated candidates appointed, on notional basis with seniority and pay fixation but without past arrears; process to complete by 31.12.2025.
Issues: Whether out-of-state 10+2 certificate recognized centrally is valid for state employment; whether state can mandate local board recognition absent rules; validity of rejecting nomination.
Ratio Decidendi: Central recognition ipso facto binds state per memorandum; recruitment rules require only recognized board qualification without local recognition clause; ignoring central orders and nomination vitiates decision; artificial distinctions defeating eligibility impermissible.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over delhi board recognition by hp board. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Petitioner, Suneel Kumar, has come up before this Court seeking the following relief(s):
(i). Quash the letter dated 24.04.2018 [Annexure A-9] for all intents and purposes.
(ii). Issue direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to treat the applicant’s certificate of 10+2 from Uchtar Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Delhi [UMSMD] to be genuine certificate in terms of communication dated 12.07.2012, issued by respondent No.5 for all intents and purposes.
(iii). In alternative consider the Graduation qualification of the applicant the requisite qualification for the post of Junior Officer Assistant (IT) for all intents and purposes.
(iv). Issue directions to the respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) on contract basis in furtherance of Annexure A- 6, immediately.”
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner passed 10+2 i.e. Senior Secondary Examination from Higher Secondary Education Board Delhi [UMSMD] with Centre at Naina Academy, Himachal Pradesh on 25.06.2013 as per Annexure A-1. It is averred that this Certificate was recognized for purposes of employment by Ministry of Human Resource Development [Department of Secondary and Higher Education dated 12.07.2012, Annexure A-2]. It is averred that the petitioner is an Ex-Servicemen and based on the requisition sent by the Ex-servicemen Cell to Respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, the name of the petitioner Suneel Kumar was nominated for appointment for the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) on contract basis on 06.10.2017 [Annexure A-6], with the direction to Director of Elementary Education to issue necessary appointment orders within 10 days. It is further averred that in November, 2017 [Annexure A-7], the petitioner, Suneel Kumar, was called for verification of certificates for the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) against the Ex-servicemen quota with directions to appear for verification on 12.12.2017. Consequently, the petitioner appeared for verification of documents but to the dismay of the petitioner, the respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education issued a Communication dated 24.04.2018 [Annexure A-9] treating the petitioner as held “Not Eligible for the Post”, on the ground, that the petitioner acquired 10+2 certificate from Higher Secondary Education Board Delhi, which was not recognized by Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharamshala. It is further averred that on the basis of aforesaid 10+2 Certificate and the fact that petitioner had rendered more than 15 years service in the Army, the petitioner was deemed to be a “Graduate” as per the certificate issued by Army Authorities on 16.02.2015 [Annexure A-1, Colly] and therefore, the rejection order was assailed by the petitioner herein.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 IN REPLY:
3. Respondents No.1 & 2 have filed the reply- affidavit dated 15.06.2019 of Director of Elementary Education.
Stand of respondents No.1 & 2 in the Reply-Affidavit is that the petitioner is an Ex-servicemen and his name was nominated by the Director of Sainik Welfare, Ex-Servicemen Cell for the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT), against the vacancy reserved for Ex-Servicemen on 06.10.2017. After nomination, the petitioner was called for counselling/verification, of qualification certificates on 12.12.2017 and during verification the Committee observed that the petitioner had passed 10+2 from Higher Secondary Education Board, Delhi which is not recognized by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharamshala. Based on this verification-cum-counselling carried by the department, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.
REPLY-AFFIDAVIT BY RESPONDENT NO.3- DIRECTOR, SAINIK WELFARE EX-SERVICEMEN EMPLOYMENT CELL:
4. Director, Sainik Welfare-cum-Ex-Servicemen Employment Cell, being the Respondent No.3 filed
