Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2069

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:13793

CWPOA No.439 of 2019

Decided on :25.04.2026

Ritu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of HP and others ...Respondents

Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

For the petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan and Ms. Shikha Rajta, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prem P. Chauhan, Shikha Rajta
For the Respondents: Hemant Kumar Verma

An appointment made in good faith after document verification, where no misrepresentation existed, cannot be terminated after many years of service without a proper show-cause notice and adherence to the principles of natural justice, especially if the employee has gained long-term experience and professional standing.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Right to employment - Termination of service - Petitioner appointed as Language Teacher based on qualifications vetted by Selection Committee - Termination order issued three years later without show cause notice - Court finds no misrepresentation by petitioner at time of appointment - Petitioner subsequently acquired higher qualifications - Held, termination after 26 years of service without proper enquiry and opportunity of being heard is arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras 8, 11, 13)

(B) Service Law - Recognition of Qualifications - Whether degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is valid - Held, while previous judgments questioned validity of such degrees, government notifications and university correspondence recognized the degree for higher studies and employment - Principles of natural justice and protection of long-serving employees override strict technical interpretation in this specific instance. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having obtained a Shiksha Visharad degree, was appointed as a Language Teacher in 2000 after her credentials were verified by a Selection Committee and local educational officers. Three years later, the authorities sought to terminate her services, claiming the degree was not recognized or equivalent to the required qualification. The petitioner approached the administrative tribunal, which granted an interim stay, allowing her to continue service for over 26 years.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents verified the petitioner’s credentials at the time of appointment and failed to issue a show-cause notice before issuing the termination order. Recognizing the petitioner's long tenure and her acquisition of further educational qualifications, the court ruled the termination order invalid.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner's degree was valid for the post of Language Teacher and whether the 2003 termination order was legally sustainable after decades of continued service without misrepresentation.

Ratio Decidendi: An appointment made after due verification of testimonials where no misrepresentation existed cannot be disturbed after many years of service, particularly when the state fails to provide a show-cause notice and evidence of intentional wrongdoing by the employee.

Result: The petition is allowed and the termination orders are quashed.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

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

“(a) Quash the impugned order A-13 and A-15 issued arbitrarily, malafide and illegally by the respondents;

(b) Direct the respondents to permit the applicant to discharge the duties as Language Teacher with all the consequential benefits and in case the services of the applicant are terminated during the pendency of this OA the respondents may kindly be directed to reengage the applicant on same post at same place with all the consequential benefits;”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner after acquiring the qualification of matriculation in the year 1989, did her 10+2 in the year 1991 and thereafter Bachelor of Arts in the year 1995 from Himachal Pradesh University. Later on, the petitioner did her degree of Shiksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag (Allahabad) in the year 1997 (Annexure A-7 & A-8). After obtaining the degree, she got her name enrolled with the Employment Exchange, District Employment Officer, Una, H.P., on 02.08.2000. The degree of Shiksha Visharad is equivalent and superior than the course of Language Teacher and a person possessing the said qualification is eligible to be appointed as Language Teacher. The name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Una, for the post of Language Teacher on the requisition sent by the respondents-State, and the petitioner was interviewed by the duly constituted Selection Committee on 25.04.2000. After a perusal of all the certificates produced by the petitioner, she was offered appointment, vide office order dated 26.09.2000 (Annexure A-11) and was posted at Government High School, Sanoli, District Una, H.P. The petitioner joined in sequel to the said office order on 04.10.2000 and before that the then District Education Officer, Una, H.P. (now respondent No.3), had checked all the testimonials, which were found to be correct. Vide communication dated 05.08.2003, respondent No.3 had written to respondent No.4, that neither the degree obtained by the petitioner is equivalent to Language Teacher nor is recognized, since she has obtained the degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag (Allahabad). Thereafter, vide notice of termination issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3 on 21.08.2003, the services of the petitioner have been terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on her.

3. It seems that the petitioner had given reply to the said termination order on 22.08.2003 through respondent No.4, stating therein that she had joined her duties on 04.10.2000, and now after three years of her joining, the communication has been issued. Further the petitioner had obtained the degree of Shiksha Visharad after doing her Bachelor of Arts and the subjects she has studied in Bachelor of Arts are equivalent to the subjects taught in Shiksha Visharad. Since respondent No.3 had already taken the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner, the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of termination dated 21.08.2003 had preferred an Original Application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal). The Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2003, issued notice in the Original Application and in the meantime, status quo was ordered to be maintained. By virtue of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still working with the respondents-State.

4. The petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned order on the ground that as per the communication dated 11.11.1997 (Annexure A-16) , issued by the Registrar, Himachal Pradesh University, the degree obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag (Allahabad) has been recognized and the same is equivalent to the corresponding examination of the University for the purpose of admission to the next higher course of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document