IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 208 of 2023 Decided on: 11.12.2023 Smt. Moni Sharma …. Appellant Versus .

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …. Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting¹ :

For the Appellant : Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. tRamakant Sharma, Additional Adrvocate General. Sandeep Sharma, J Instant Letters Patent Appeal, lays challenge to judgment dated 11.08.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.1834 of 2023 titled Smt. Moni Sharma versus State of H.P. and others, having been filed by the appellant- petitioner, praying therein to quash the impugned order dated 27.03.2023, whereby appellant-petitioner was relieved from her duties.

2. For having bird’s eye view, facts which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that on 29.07.2013, appellant-petitioner came to be appointed against the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) on temporary basis under Self Financing Scheme. Appellant-petitioner continued to discharge her duty in Physics Department of the respondent-College till the year,

1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?

2020. On 6.10.2020, person namely, Ms. Naresh Bala, the then officiating Principal rejoined Physics Department after being relieved from the duty of officiating principal, as a result thereof, total strength of teachers in physics department became f.our i.e Ms. Naresh Bala, Ms. Indu Bala, Ms. Hani Sharma and Ms. Moni Sharma (appellant-petitioner). Since only three teachers were required for teaching physics to the ostudents of B.Sc. Classes and Ms. Naresh Bala was working as Associate Professor under 95% the GIA Rules and Ms. Indu Bala was fully qualified to be appointed as Assistant Professour, respondent-College with a view to avoid any controversy, relieved the appellant-petitioner as well as another person namely, Ms. Hani Sharma.

3. On 7.10.2020, Principal of the College sought permission from the Managing Committee for advertising the posts of Assistant Professors in Physics as per UGC norms. Pursuant to aforesaid proposal, advertisement for walk-in-interview for the posts Hwas published in the newspaper and three candidates, including the appellant-petitioner, appeared in the walk-in-interview conducted on 12.10.2020. Out of the three candidates, Dr. Surinder Paul was considered eligible as per UGC/HP Govt. norms, whereas appellant- petitioner was at position No.2. Since above named Dr. Surinder Paul did not join, appellant-petitioner being at position No.2 was offered appointment as Assistant Professor (Physics) but on temporary basis under Self Financing Scheme. At this stage, it is apt to take note of the fact that appellant-petitioner was only M.Sc. (Physics) and as such, was not eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professor (Physics) as per UGC/HP Govt. norms, but yet was engaged, so that studies of the students do not suffer. . 4. In December,2021, Principal of the College received a communication from the Secretary, H.P. Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission (oHPEIRC), inter-alia stating that the College should recruit teaching faculty as per UGC/other applicable regulatory norms and as such, respondent-College published an advertisuement for filling up posts sanctioned under the GIA Rules. Interestingly, appellant- petitioner did not apply for these posts of Assistant Professor (Physics) and on 27.03.2023, the respondent-College issued office memorandum informing the appellant-petitioner that academic session 2022-2023 was over and her services were not required any longer.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid Hdecision dated 27.03.2023, appellant-petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.1834 of 2023, praying therein for following relief:

“A. That the writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may