IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 529 of 2019 Decided on : 18.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________

Anita Devi H ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

...Respondents ____________________________ ________________________________

Coram t Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

H “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to take the petitioner on her services as contract basis as per Annexure P-4 office order dated 21.02.2014 with all consequential benefits and Annexure P-6 passed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the petitioner belongs from the ST category so the relaxation in the eligibility criteria should be given to the petitioner.

(iii) That the petitioner belongs from the ST category so 7.5% reservation should be given in that recruitment, as 15% quota has been given to the Scheduled Caste.”

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner, who belonged to Scheduled Tribe category had applied for the post of Language Teacher to be filled up by the respondents, on bHatch wise selection. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner had qualified Bachelor of Arts and Masters of Arts in Hindi and thereafter got her name registered with the Employment Exchange, Kullu in thet year, 2000. The petitioner was qualified to be appointed as Language Teacher as well as TGT. Lateron, the petitioner had qualified Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred as TET) in the year, 2012 (Annexure P-2), making her eligible for appointment as hLanguage Teacher and as a TGT Arts.

3. The petitioner was interviewed for the post of Language Teacher, conducted by the respondents in the month of February, 2014 and after verifying the documents submitted by her, she was offered appointment vide office order dated 21.02.2014 (Annexure P-4) and was posted in Government Sen. Sec. School Chansari, under complex Govt. Sen. Sec. School Kharahal, Distt. Kullu (HP), where she joined her duties. However, vide communication dated 19.01.2015, the petitioner was directed to attend the Office of respondent No.3 on 22.01.2015, since a complaint dated 04.03.2014 had been received from one Sh. Deep Prakash, who raised objections regarding her appointment. Though the petitioner belonged to the SchedHuled Tribe category, she was offered appointment as Language Teacher from the quota of General category. The petitioner had qualified the TET under Scheduled Tribe category by obtaining 89 marks, whereas minimum 90t marks was required for the candidates belonging to General category.

4. Respondent No.3 vide office order dated 31.01.2015 withdrew the office order dated 21.02.2014 with immediate effect, resulting the removal of the petitioner hfrom services. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the action on the part of the respondents is highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing, her appointment was withdrawn. The petitioner was appointed by a duly constituted committee and since her services are governed by the Constitution of India, the impugned order is bad. The petitioner has also averred that she is a widow and her husband was an employee in the Education Department, so she also deserves to be appointed on compassionate basis. It has also been averred that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, hence enHtitled to a special relaxation of 5% marks and thus was fully eligible.