HC issues notice in appeal challenging PET’s appointment

himachaleditor October 10, 2026 3 minutes read

HC issues notice in appeal challenging PET’s appointment

Shimla, Oct 10,

Himachal Pradesh High Court has issued notice in a Letters Patent Appeal arising from a dispute over the appointment and subsequent regularisation of Om Prakash as a Physical Education Teacher (PET), after the appellant contended that the teacher did not possess the requisite qualification on the date of his appointment.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G. S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi passed the order on October 7, 2026, in Kewal Krishan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (CMP(M) No. 1683 of 2026). The Bench directed that the appeal be registered and issued notice to respondent No. 5, returnable on December 9, 2026. The State’s counsel, Deputy Advocate General Arsh Rattan, accepted notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4.

According to the submissions recorded in the order, Kewal Krishan had been impleaded in the proceedings by a tribunal on April 1, 2019, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and had been pursuing a legal remedy against Om Prakash.

The appellant’s counsel submitted that Om Prakash was appointed as a PET at Government Middle School, Himgiri Kothi, on April 22, 2006, but obtained the requisite qualification only on July 26, 2006. The order records the submission that the Single Judge had also noticed this fact and that it was not disputed in paragraph 8 of the judgment.

Also Read Ex-TGT booked for using false certificate to job

The appellant further contended that the State government had regularised Om Prakash’s services through an order dated June 18, 2024. According to the submissions, the Single Judge had declined to interfere on the ground that the regularisation order was not under challenge.

The appellant argued that the State should have been given liberty to examine, in accordance with law, whether Om Prakash was eligible to hold the post and seek regularisation despite obtaining the requisite qualification after his appointment. The appeal thus raises questions concerning the eligibility issue and the scope of the relief sought by the appellant.

In a separate procedural direction, the Division Bench condoned a delay of 131 days in filing the appeal, observing that the reasons stated in the application were supported by the applicant’s affidavit. The application seeking condonation of delay was accordingly disposed of.

The court’s October 7 order does not determine the legality of Om Prakash’s appointment or regularisation. It records the appellant’s contentions and directs issuance of notice. The matter is listed for further consideration on December 9, 2026, with steps for service on respondent No. 5 to be taken within one week.