The court emphasized that backdoor entries in public employment violate constitutional provisions and undermine merit, necessitating strict adherence to recruitment rules.

dated October, 2016 constraining him to once again file O.A. No.5998/2016, which was disposed of by the learned erstwhile Tribunal on the request of the present petitioner vide order dated 25.09.2018. This time again the petitioner pleaded that he was similarly situate as the petitioner in CWP No.11731 of 2011, titled as Pushpender Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, therefore, subject to verification and on finding the petitioner to be similarly situated as Pushpender Kumar, the erstwhile Tribunal directed that similar treatment be extended to the petitioner also.

4 The Competent Authority again rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide order dated 23.7.2019 and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No. 2771/2019 for grant of following reliefs:-

“i. that the office orders dated 23rd July 2019 Annexure P- 12 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may very kindly be directed to re-engage the applicant in Govt. Senior Secondary School Dharwar Thach as TGT Non-medical with immediate effect.

ii. that the respondents may be directed to release the “grant in aid” admissible to the petitioner from initial date of engagement till date.”

5 As observed above, the learned writ court dismissed the writ petition constraining the petitioner to file the instant appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

7 At the outset, it needs to be noticed that these repeated petitions on behalf of the petitioner were in fact not maintainable. This is evident from the fact that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2005 by the Local PTA as TGT (Non-Medical), on the fixed monthly honorarium of Rs.1500/- and then his services were dispensed with when a regular teacher joined on 7.6.2006. Thereafter vacancy had arisen in the year 2014, for which the petitioner had applied before the SDM concerned, who had no authority whatsoever to order reengagement of the petitioner on the said post that too after 8 years of earlier appointment having come to an end. The SDM concerned was required to follow the law by giving firstly wide publicity to the vacancy so accrued and thereafter calling for applications from the eligible persons.

8 Clearly, appointment of the petitioner in the year 2014 was illegal as rightly held by the learned writ court also.

Once that be so, the petitioner had no right whatsoever to seek reappointment only because he had served the school in question for a brief period in the year 2005-2006 and had been reappointed illegally by the S.D.M. concerned in the year 2014. This is what has been held not only by the competent authority but by the learned writ court.

9 Notably, in the previous proceedings, the petitioner pleaded before the erstwhile Tribunal that he was similarly situated to one Pushpender Kumar and his petition was accordingly disposed of, however the competent authority in its order after assigning various reasons had come to the conclusion that the petitioner in fact was not similarly situated as Pushpender Kumar. The competent authority had held that services of Pushpender Kumar were terminated on the basis of findings returned by the Inquiry Committee and therefore, in terms of the communication of Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 25.8.2014, he was required to be reappointed, whereas this was not the case of the petitioner herein, whose services as observed above, were terminated by the competent authority as the petitioner was not similarly situated to Pushpender Kumar on joining regular teacher.

10 Thus, there is no infirmity or for that matter, illegality in the findings returned by the competent authority so as to warrant for any interference by the learned writ court.

Thus, in such circumstances, the learned writ court has rightly dismissed the petition.

However, before parting we too share the concern expressed by the learned writ court, whereby it has adversely commented upon the practice of the Educati