Baldev vs STATE OF HP

2026:HHC:47487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.

CWPOA No.5507 of 2019
Decided on: 28.10.2026
__________________________________________________________

Baldev .....Petitioner

Versus


State of H.P. and others ....Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes


For the petitioner: Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General, for Respondents
No.1, 2 and 4-State.

Respondent No.3 and Respondent
No.5 stood already proceeded ex-
parte, vide orders dated
29.09.2015.


Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner had filed an Original Application
No.2731 of 2015 before State Administrative Tribunal;
and upon its abolition, the same has been re-transferred
to this Court as CWPOA No.5507 of 2019, seeking the
following reliefs:-
“7(a) That the impugned termination order
may kindly be quashed and set aside,
being illegal and void; and

7(b) That the respondents be directed to
re-instate the services of the applicant
with consequent benefits.”


1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 16:42:45 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:47487

FACTUAL MATRIX:
High Court of H.P.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was
appointed as Post-Graduate Teacher in the subject of
English by School Management Committee, after due
selection by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Padhar, District
Mandi, on 10.11.2014. Pursuant to the issuance of
appointment letter, though the petitioner joined service
in Government Senior Secondary School, Sarni on
15.11.2014 as Post-Graduate Teacher in English but
Respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. School Management Committee
of Government Senior Secondary School, Sarni, Drang-II,
District Mandi, have issued an order on 25.11.2014
[Annexure A-1], terminating the services of the petitioner
as Post-Graduate Teacher [English] on the ground, that
the petitioner does not fulfill the Educational Qualifications
as prescribed in Recruitment Promotion Rules for the said
post. Petitioner has assailed the Termination Order dated
25.11.2014 [Annexure A-1], on the ground, that the
aforesaid order was passed in violation of the principles
of natural justice and his services could not have been
terminated when, his case was duly considered,
recommended and thereafter he was appointed as
Post-Graduate Teacher under the Respondents and
therefore, the Termination Order may be set aside, with
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 16:42:45 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:47487
direction to re-instate the petitioner in service, with
High Court of H.P.
all consequential benefits.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS-STATE IN REPLY-
AFFIDAVIT:

3. Pursuant to issuance of Notice, Respondents-
State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 09.11.2015
of Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, stating
that services of petitioner were terminated on 25.11.2014,
as he did not possess the Minimum Essential
Qualifications of M.A. in English, as required for the post
of Post-Graduate Teacher, in accordance with the Rules.
It is averred that School Management Committee had
afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the
Educational Qualification Certificate of M.A. in English but
since the petitioner had failed to establish his eligibility,
therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated by
the Respondents in accordance with School Management
Committee Policy and Recruitment and Promotion
Rules.
REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:

4. Petitioner has filed a Rejoinder stating that
the stage to test the eligibility of the petitioner for
post was already over and the petitioner had successfully
cleared the eligibility criteria and joined the service only
after satisfying the competent authority and therefore
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 16:42:45 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:47487
termination of his services by Respondents No.3 and 4,
High Court of H.P.
were without any competence, authority and legal
sanction.
5. Heard, Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Learned Counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Thakur, Learned Deputy
Advocate General, for the Respondents-State.
ANALYSIS:
6. Indisputably, the Respondents-State had notified
School Management Committee Policy on 17.07.2012
[Annexure R-1]. Clause-7 of the said Policy indicates that
Head of Institution shall give appointment to the candidates
after verifying the credentials, including Educational
Certificates as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
Perusal of Clause 8 of the SMC Policy provides that
no ineligible candidate joins the Educational Institution.
In terms of the School Management Committee Policy
and the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of
Post-Graduate Teacher, since the petitioner did not possess
the essential qualification of Master’s Degree i.e. M.A. in
English, therefore, the petitioner, being ineligible, has
neither any right nor locus to assail his Termination
Orders dated 25.11.2014 [Annexure A-1]. Even, the plea of
the petitioner that his services were terminated without
affording an opportunity of hearing, will not come to the
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 16:42:45 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:47487
aid of the petitioner, for the reason, that the Respondents
High Court of H.P.
had afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to
produce the Eligibility and Educational Qualification
Certificate of Master’ Degree-M.A. in English but since the
petitioner failed to produce the required certificate, in
accordance with requirement in the SMC Policy and
the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, therefore, the
services were validly dispensed with on 25.11.2014 [Annexure
A-1]. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement
is devoid of any merit, for the reason, that once the
petitioner is ineligible for the post, therefore, an ineligible
candidate alike the petitioner has no right to continue
in service and permitting ineligible to continue shall
amount to perpetuating illegality and shall amount to
fraud in public employment, which is impermissible.
Merely because the petitioner was allowed to participate in
selection process and was appointed and had joined
despite being ineligible for the post, then, the plea that the
State Authorities could not have dispensed with his services,
cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, as no estoppel
can be invoked against the Statutory Rules and the
essential minimum qualification prescribed therein, which
the petitioner does not possess.
7. No other point was pressed/argued.
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 16:42:45 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:47487
DIRECTIONS:

8. Considering the matter in above perspective
High Court of H.P.
and for reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant
writ petition, is dismissed , in the following terms:-
(i) Termination Orders dated 25.11.2014
[Annexure A-1] is upheld ;

(ii) Consequent upon the upholding of the
termination of the petitioner, the claim for
reinstatement is not tenable; and
is accordingly disallowed; and

(iii) Parties to bear their respective costs.

In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and
all pending miscellaneous application(s),if any, shall
also stand disposed of.

(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
October 28, 2026
[Bhardwaj]
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 16:42:45 :::CIS