Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhag Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 23 July, 2025
( 2025:HHC:23951 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No.343 of 2019
Decided on: 23rd July, 2025
Bhag Singh .......Petitioner
.
versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner:
For the respondents:
r to
Mr.Hamender
Advocate.
Mr.Seema
Advocate
Sharma,
General
Singh
Deputy
for
Chandel,
respondents No.1 to 3.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
Heard.
2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed
for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
"7.1) That the applicant may be held be appointed as JBT in
the respondent department w.e.f. 18.10.1989 (date of
joining on ad hoc basis) and the said ad hoc service
may be ordered to be counted for all intents and
purposes.
7.2) That the impugned seniority list dated 16.3.2006,
Annexure A-1, may be quashed and set aside to the
extent it excludes the benefit of ad hoc service rendered
by the applicant.
7.3) That any order passed consequent to the impugned
seniority list dated 16.3.2006, may also be quashed
and set aside.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
( 2025:HHC:23951 )
7.4) That the respondent department may be directed to re-
draw the seniority of JBT's in District Sirmour in
accordance with the aforesaid prayer."
.
3. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was
appointed as JBT Teacher on 29.09.1989 in Government
Primary School, Kotibounch, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour,
H.P. on ad-hoc basis. As per petitioner, his ad-hoc
appointment was made against a clear cut vacancy. He was
qualified to be appointed as JBT Teacher. He continued to
work in the same capacity till his appointment on regular
basis.
4. As per petitioner, he was appointed as JBT
Teacher on regular basis w.e.f. 01.03.1990.
5. In the year 2003, as per office memo dated
23.08.2003 issued by the Deputy Director (Primary
Education), District Sirmour to all the Block Education
Officers of the district, the ACRs of the JBTs were called for
the purpose of making promotion to the post of Head
Teachers. In the said memo, name of petitioner figured at
Serial No.46 and his date of appointment was shown as
18.10.1989. Later, vide office order dated 07.11.2003, JBT
Teachers were promoted/posted as Head Teachers and the
( 2025:HHC:23951 )
incumbent junior to the petitioner i.e respondents No.4 and 5
were promoted, whereas, petitioner was left out.
.
6. Petitioner made representation against the order
dated 07.11.2003. The petitioner vide order dated
20.11.2003 issued by the 3rd respondent was posted to work
as Head Teacher in Government Primary School, Bandali
Education Block, Shillai, District Sirmour. In compliance, the
17.12.2003, the
r earlier to
petitioner joined on 24.11.2003, however, vide order dated
order dated
withdrawn, which forced the petitioner to prefer Original
20.11.2003 was
Application No.66 of 2004 before the erstwhile H.P. State
Administrative Tribunal. By an interim order dated
08.01.2004, the operation of impugned order dated
17.12.2003 was stayed.
7. In the aforesaid factual background, the precise
claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled for consideration
of entire period of his ad-hoc services for the purposes of
seniority and other related service benefits.
8. The official respondents have filed reply and have
contested the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that
initially the appointment of the petitioner as JBT Teacher was
on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 18.10.1989 and thereafter, on the
( 2025:HHC:23951 )
recommendations of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission, he was appointed as regular JBT Teacher on
.
01.03.1990. After his selection, the petitioner joined as such
on 12.03.1990. Accordingly, the seniority position of the
petitioner finds place in the seniority list according to the
merit of the selection.
9. Though the petitioner has filed rejoinder, but the
r to
contention raised by the respondents, as noticed above, has
not been rebutted or controverted. That being so, the
petitioner having consciously and voluntarily opted for fresh
appointment after participating in the selection process
cannot turn around to say that his ad-hoc service was liable
to be counted for the purpose of seniority. In the facts and
circumstances there is clear disjunct between the ad-hoc and
regular services, which is result of altogether different
selection process.
10. Thus, in my considered view, the petitioner cannot
be granted the reliefs as prayed for in the petition.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if
any.
July 23, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya )
(naveen) Judge
