IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWPOA No.6636 of 2019 Decided on: 11th May, 2026 Renuka Sharma .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Ankit Dhiman, Advocate.

For the respondentsu: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4.

None for respondent No.5.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.6.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

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

“(i) That the impugned action of the respondent No. 4 & 5 for appointment of Respondent No. 6 for the post of Art & Craft Teacher (Drawing Teacher) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the applicant to discharge her duties in the said school.”

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

2. The facts, which emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was appointed by the School ManPagement Committee (SMC) i.e. respondent No.5 as Drawing. Master in the month of September, 2013 in respondent No.4-school. The petitioner has served till 27.11.2015, when respondent No.6 has been appointed at her place.

3. The grievance of the p etitioner is that her services could not have been replraced by respondent No.6 and her services can only be replaced by a regular hand, as per instructions dated 21.11.2014. The instructions dated 21.11.2014 provide that the permission under the SMC can be grant ed in case the post remains vacant for over two years on dated 16.08.2014. Since the petitioner was already working as Drawing Teacher, appointment of respondent No.6 is arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed replyto the petition and averred that the appointment of the petitioner by respondent No.5 was in violation of the policy framed by the Government, since she had not qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test, which is a necessary requisite qualification under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post. Moreover, the petitioner had been appointed in the non-tribal area in contravention of the policy provisions. Further, as per Resolution No. 39 dated 13.09.2013, appointmenPt of the petitioner was made for the purpose of remunera.tion to be paid by the parents of the students, until and unless regular teacher does not join in the school. Since the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the provisions of the policy, no record was maintained and t hus, no relief can be granted to her. The petitioner remrained out of merit in the interview conducted by the SMC on 03.11.2015 under the Chairman ship of the SDM(Civil) Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. and hence, she was not eligible for appointment to the post.

5. Respondent No.6, who has been selected in place of petitioner, filed separate reply, wherein it has been averred that petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that once the petitioner had participated in the interview and remained unsuccessful, she cannot approachthis Court. It has further been averred that the petitioner cannot turn around and lay challenge to the same on account of the fact that she could not be selected in the process. It has further been averred that respondent No.6 has been selected after the interview and as many as 12 persons had participated in the process and the selection committee had recommended her and, thereafter, she has been offered appointment vide letter dated

27.11.2015 (Annexure R-6/2). Before conductPing the interview/wide publicity was done and the peti.tioner had participated in the interview and she has deliberately concealed these material facts from the Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record care fully.

7. It is not in rdispute that the petitioner had participated in the