Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

(Oral)

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

“(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to take the petitioner on her services as contract basis as per Annexure P-4 ofÏce order dated 21.02.2014 with all consequential bene 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.”¹Whether 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 Sch.eduled 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 petit ion, the petitioner had qualified Bachelor of Arts and Masfters 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 auppointed as Language Teacher as well as TGT. Laterono, 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.g

3. The petitioner was interviewed for the post of iLanguage Teacher, conducted by the respondents in the month of February, 2014 and after verifying the documents submitted by her, she was offered appointment vide ofÏce 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 OfÏce of respondent No.3 on 22.01.2015, since a complaint dated 04.03.2014 had been received from one Sh. Deep P.rakash, who raised objections regarding her appointment. Though the petitioner belonged to the SchedHuled Tribe category, she was offered appointment as Lang uage Teacher from the quota of General category. The peftitioner had qualified the TET under Scheduled Tribe category by obtaining 89 marks, whereas minimum 90t marks was required for the candidates belonuging to General category.

4. Roespondent No.3 vide ofÏce order dated 31.01.2015 withdrew the ofÏce order dated 21.02.2014 with immediate effect, resulting the removal of the petitioner hfrom services. The petitioner has averred in the petition that gthe action on the part of the respondents is highly unjust, iillegal, 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 wa s fully eligible. It has also been averred that no fraudf was committed by the petitioner and further nothing was concealed from the selection committee, thetrefore, her appointment could not have been withdruawn.

5. Tohe respondents-State filed reply to the petition and have not disputed the fact that the petitioner did not conceal any facts. However, a stand had been taken that hthe petitioner was mistakenly appointed against the General gcategory (UR) post of