The High Court of Himachal Pradesh clarified that teaching experience acquired by working in a government school, as certified by the school principal, cannot be disregarded by selection committees solely because the initial appointment was made by PTA/SMC without departmental sanction. The court expressly rejected contrary administrative practices, reaffirming that “experience” is the relevant criterion. This judgment upholds previous precedent and is binding on all subordinate authorities and recruitment bodies in Himachal Pradesh for public employment matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/229/2021 of Anand Swarup Vs State of HP and Others |
| CNR | HPHC010008482021 |
| Date of Registration | 06-01-2021 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; precedent for subordinate courts and recruitment authorities in HP |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service law / Educational recruitment |
| Questions of Law | Whether teaching experience certified by a government school principal may be disregarded in recruitment due to lack of prior departmental permission for appointment. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The judgment holds that the possession of a teaching experience certificate from a government/semi-government institution is the decisive factor for awarding recruitment marks for experience; the mode of appointment (PTA/SMC, with or without prior department permission) is immaterial. The selection committee acted arbitrarily in not considering the petitioner’s experience. The court directs rectification of the injustice by granting the petitioner appointment without disturbing the status of the already selected candidate. Further, the principle protects innocent appointees who benefited from administrative error, provided no misrepresentation occurred. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle that actual experience, not manner of appointment, is determinative; reliance on prior binding notifications, and precedent distinguishing irregular appointments from cases of misrepresentation/fraud |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner’s experience certificate for 3 years of teaching was not accepted by the selection committee, leading to lower marks and non-selection. The sole ground for rejection was lack of prior departmental permission for his PTA-basis appointment, despite certification by the school principal. Previous directions for a merit revisit by the High Court were not followed correctly. |
| Citations | 2025:HHC:29776 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities conducting public recruitment in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar service recruitment or educational appointment disputes |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that “teaching experience,” as certified by a government school principal, is valid for recruitment purposes, regardless of whether the post was sanctioned or appointment made with prior departmental sanction.
- Discards administrative objections that seek to invalidate experience acquired under PTA/SMC schemes due to irregularities in appointment procedure that are not attributable to the candidate.
- Restates that relief to the rightful candidate will not result in ousting already appointed, innocent incumbents when mistake is attributable solely to the authority.
- Recruitment authorities and lawyers must ensure that valid experience certificates are properly considered, even if appointments were irregular but bona fide.
- The decision strictly mandates compliance with previously established court directions regarding award of marks for experience.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined whether the selection committee could ignore an experience certificate from a principal of a government school solely because the initial appointment did not have departmental sanction.
- It found that selection policy expressly awarded marks for experience certified by a competent authority (0.5 marks per year, up to 2.5 years).
- Relying on prior judgments (including Bimla Devi and Ravi Kumar), the court distinguished between the factum of experience and the process by which appointment was obtained; only the former is relevant for eligibility and marks.
- It rejected the respondents’ contention that batch-wise selection or seniority justified the non-consideration, especially since previous directions had set out that in case of a tie, age is determinative.
- The court condemned non-compliance with its prior order that required a merit revisit based on the record, including the disputed certificate.
- It applied Supreme Court precedents (Vikas Pratap Singh, Anmol Kumar Tiwari) to hold that regularized service of innocent appointees is protected unless there is misrepresentation.
- Consequently, the court ordered the petitioner’s appointment, denied monetary relief for the past period, but accorded notional seniority.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The experience certificate issued by the school principal demonstrated three years’ teaching service, entitling the petitioner to 1.5 additional marks as per the recruitment scheme.
- Non-award of marks for this experience caused him to lose out to a less meritorious candidate.
- Previous court orders mandated consideration of all submitted documents, which was not followed.
Respondents (State and Private Respondent No. 3)
- Argued that no marks could be awarded as the petitioner’s appointment was on PTA basis without prior departmental approval—a process not valid after 2008.
- Claimed batch-wise seniority and certificate issuance dates justified the selection of respondent No. 3.
- Private respondent adopted arguments of the State.
Factual Background
The case arose from a batch-wise recruitment process for the post of Drawing Master in government schools. The petitioner submitted an experience certificate from Government Senior Secondary School, Gumma, showing three years of teaching service. The selection committee disregarded this experience solely because his appointment was on PTA basis without departmental approval, resulting in fewer marks and loss of selection. Despite earlier court directions to reconsider merit with all records, the certificate was again ignored, leading to the present writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted the recruitment scheme, which awarded 0.5 marks per year of teaching in government/semi-government organizations, irrespective of the appointment type.
- Manner of appointment (whether with or without prior departmental permission, or under PTA/SMC/basis) was found irrelevant in the absence of any legal proscription in the advertisement or rules.
- The principal’s authority to certify experience, not the initial procedural regularity, was held determinative for recruitment marks.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court specified that when prior High Court directions for a merit revisit are issued, authorities must follow the letter and spirit of the order, considering all valid documents and not introducing extraneous or previously rejected grounds for denial.
- Innocent candidates already regularized are to be protected, and concurrent appointments may be allowed where administrative fault is not attributable to the candidate.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on recognition of teaching experience certificates for recruitment is affirmed.
Citations
- CWP No. 229/2021, 2025:HHC:29776, decided on 2.9.2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma.
- CWP No. 7228/2021 (Bimla Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh)
- CWP No. 2237/2019 (Ravi Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh)
- Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494
- Anmol Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2021) 5 SCC 424