JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in second round of litigation. 2. The petitioner is seeking the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the order dated 31.07.2010 (Annexure:P-14) passed by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to take over the services of the petitioner as a Lecturer (College Cadre) with effect from the date the services of the similar situated Lecturers have been taken over with all consequential benefits.” 3. The background facts may be noticed first. Maharaja Sansar Chand Memorial (MSCM) College, Thural, District Kangra, H.P., a privately managed College, which shall herein after be referred to as ‘the College’, was taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 9.11.2005, Annexure P-5. At that time, the petitioner was also on the establishment of the College as Lecturer in Commerce, having been appointed on 19.11.2002 vide Annexure P-2. After the college was taken over, services of teaching and non teaching staff were taken over. One such notification is dated 18.10.2006, Annexure P-4. However, the petitioner was left out. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 149 of 2007, which on abolition of the said Tribunal was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP (T) No. 14639 of 2008 and finally disposed of vide judgment dated 21.5.2010, text whereof is as under:- “The limited prayer made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered by the State Government as per Annexures A-9 and A-10 dated 28.8.2001 and 30.3.1999, respectively whereby similarly situate persons have been given relaxation in educational qualification while taking over their services as Lecturer (College Cadre). This limited prayer is not opposed by the respondent-State. Consequently, respondent-State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of notifications dated 28.8.2001 (Annexure A-9) and 30.3.1999 (Annexure A-10) within a period of ten weeks from today. No other point was urged. In view of above observations, the petition is disposed of. This limited prayer is not opposed by the respondent-State. Consequently, respondent-State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of notifications dated 28.8.2001 (Annexure A-9) and 30.3.1999 (Annexure A-10) within a period of ten weeks from today. No other point was urged. In view of above observations, the petition is disposed of. No costs.” Consequently, the matter was considered and disposed of by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 31.7.2010, Annexure P-14, rejecting the claim of the petitioner primarily on the following three grounds:- “1) These were the casual appointments made by the management without following the due procedure. 2) These employees were not covered under 95% grant-in-aid of the Government. 3) They were in excess of norms of strength of College and were paid fixed salary/Consolidated amount.” 4. Against the foregoing background the petitioner is once again before this Court. According to her, she was recruited by a duly constituted Selection Committee as per UGC/H.P. University norms. She further contends that at the time of taking over of various other privately managed Colleges in the State, such as, National College Amb, District Una and Sant Dangawala Gujjar College, Beetan, District Una etc., services of many teachers who were not covered under 95% grant-in-aid policy, were also taken over by the Government. To illustrate, she is relying upon Annexures P-20 and P- 22 filed along with the rejoinder, which reveal that services of Mrs.Rekha Sharma, Lecturer in Physics and Mr. Darshan Kumar, Lecturer in Chemistry of National College, Amb who were not covered under grant-in-aid policy, were taken over. Reliance is further placed on Annexure P-24 to show that various other members of the staff of privately managed Colleges taken over by the Government at Joginder Nagar, Nerwa, Nurpur, Beetan and Jaisinghpur were also taken over, despite the fact that they were not covered under 95% grant-in-aid policy. Reliance is further placed on Annexure P-24 to show that various other members of the staff of privately managed Colleges taken over by the Government at Joginder Nagar, Nerwa, Nurpur, Beetan and Jaisinghpur were also taken over, despite the fact that they were not covered under 95% grant-in-aid policy. As regards the third objection, the petitioner contends that since her initial appointment was through a duly constituted Selection Committee as per UGC/H.P. University norms and was duly notified to the Director of Education and Registrar of H.P. University and was never objected from any quarter, it cannot be said that her appointment was “in excess of norms of strength of College and were paid fixed salary/consolidated amount.” It is also the case of the petitioner that her recruitment was need based for teaching classes duly approved by the University and the Education Department. It is further emphasized that classes in Commerce stream were being taught at the time of takeover of the College and she was one of the staff members in that stream. 5. At this juncture the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment dated September 18, 2012 rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 846 of 2011, Ravi Palsra Vs. State of H.P. and others, text whereof is as under and contends that in the case of Ravi Palsra, supra also these very objections were raised on behalf of the respondents, but the same did not find favour with the Court:- “On 31st November, 2002, petitioner Shri Ravi Kumar Palsra was appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce by M.S.C. Memorial Degree College, Thural. His appointment was duly approved by the Himachal Pradesh University. It is not in dispute that the appointment was under the Self Financing Scheme. It is also not in dispute that at the time of engagement of petitioner, said Institution was not receiving the grant-in-aid in terms of the Policy so framed by the State. This Institution was subsequently taken over by the State. This fact is also not in dispute. However, petitioner’s services were not taken over, despite the fact that since the time of his engagement, he uninterruptedly continued to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the management. Petitioner requested the respondents to take over his services which request was turned down vide impugned order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-10). This fact is also not in dispute. However, petitioner’s services were not taken over, despite the fact that since the time of his engagement, he uninterruptedly continued to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the management. Petitioner requested the respondents to take over his services which request was turned down vide impugned order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-10). The rejection primarily is on the ground that teaching and non-teaching staff employed on self finance basis, by the erstwhile management of the Institute, including the petitioner, was not taken over by the Government for the reason that casual appointments were made by the Institution without following the due procedure; the employees were not covered under 95% grant-in-aid Policy framed by the Government; and the employees were engaged in excess of norms of strength of College and were paid fixed salary/consolidated amount. 2. This order has been assailed by the petitioner. Notice in the petition was issued and Mr. Rajidner Dogra, learned Advocate General has entered appearance on behalf of all the respondents. Though, reply was filed only on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. However, the same is adopted on behalf of respondent No. 3. 3. In my considered view, the stand taken by the respondents is totally untenable in law. The grounds of rejection are not personal to the petitioner. Petitioner’s engagement by the erstwhile management of the Institution was only after compliance of due procedure. This fact is evident from the approval so accorded by Vice Chancellor of the Himachal Pradesh University. Annexure P-5 is on record to this effect. Except for bald assertion, there is nothing on record to show that the appointment was in violation of any procedure laid down by the State. It is also not shown as to how the petitioner’s engagement/ employment was in excess of the norms of strength of the cadre of the teachers in the College. 4. Further in my considered view, respondents have taken a contrary stand before this Court. Petitioner has placed on record documents (Annexure P11 to P-17) to show that the State itself has taken over services of such of those employees who were appointed under the Self Financing Scheme. 5. Consequently, petition needs to be allowed. The State cannot take a contradictory stand. There cannot be any pick and choose while according benefits to similarly situated persons. 5. Consequently, petition needs to be allowed. The State cannot take a contradictory stand. There cannot be any pick and choose while according benefits to similarly situated persons. All such persons have to be treated with equal hand and given equal treatment. Consequently, impugned order dated 7.7.2010 is quashed. 6. As such, respondents are directed to take steps for taking over the services of petitioner, in accordance with law, w.e.f. 9th November, 2005, the date on which the Institution in question was taken over by the Government. All steps be positively taken, in the affirmative, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Needless to add, all consequential benefits flowing as a result of such action shall also be taken over within the aforesaid period. Monetary benefits, if any, as may be found due and admissible, shall be disbursed to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, failing which, then thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest thereupon @ 9% per annum, which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s). With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.” 6. It is submitted that the case of Ravi Palsra, supra is applicable to the case of the petitioner on all fours, both on fact and law, in as much as both of them were recruited in this very College in November, 2002 and were not covered under 95% grant-in-aid policy. 7. An objection has also been raised on behalf of respondent No. 2 that since the petitioner was not duly qualified, her services were not taken over. However, eligibility of the petitioner has not been questioned in the impugned order dated 31.7.2010, Annexure P-14. On this aspect of the matter, the petitioner relies upon another judgment of this Court dated 16.11.2010 in CWP(T) No. 11263 of 2008, Balbir Singh Kalasaik Vs. State of H.P. and another, text whereof is as under, which was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26th June, 2012 in LPA No. 686 of 2011, State of H.P. and another Vs. Sh. Balbir Singh Kalsaik and further affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 8.7.2013, whereby SLP 11448/2013, State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Sh. Balbir Singh Kalsaik and further affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 8.7.2013, whereby SLP 11448/2013, State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Balbir Singh Kalsiak preferred by the respondent-State was dismissed:- “The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) and (ii):- “(i) That the impugned orders dated 26.7.2004 (Annexure A-9) and dated 1-8-2004 (Annexure A-10) may be quashed and set aside. The respondents may be directed to take the services of the applicant while taking over the College, in question, as a Lecturer Physical Education (College Cadre) with effect from 13-6-2002 (Annexure A-4). (ii) That the respondents may be directed to treat the applicant while taking over his services on the same terms and conditions as the privately managed College Sunjanpur-Tihra were taken over as per the Annexure A-13 and the applicant be designated as a Lecturer, Physical Education (College Cadre) from the date of taking over the College.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following averments have been set up vide para 3:- “That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable in the present form. Be it submitted that the Govt. vide notification dated 18.12.2002 Annexure A-4 had decided to take over the services of eligible staff of Erstwhile S.D. College Nerwa and Erstwhile Arya Girls College Nurpur w.e.f 13.6.2002 and 25.6.2002 respectively. The teaching staff who fulfilled the requisite qualification for appointment as Lecturer (College Cadre) as per R & P rules, they have been offered appointment as Lecturer (College Cadre) and the teaching staff who did not fulfil the requisite qualification as per R& P rules, their services have been taken over in School Cadre in view of the notification dated 25.8.1994 which makes the provision for taking over the private colleges as well as employee working therein. It is pertinent to mention here that as per R & P rules requisite qualification for appointment as lecturer (College Cadre) has been prescribed as Master degree with 55% marks in subject concerned and the candidate must have passed National Eligibility Test/State Eligibility Test. The services of the eligible teaching staff of Erstwhile SD College Nurpur who fulfilled the requisite academic qualification as per R & P Rules, have been taken over as lecturer (College Cadre) and others have been given opportunities in the School Cadre. The services of the eligible teaching staff of Erstwhile SD College Nurpur who fulfilled the requisite academic qualification as per R & P Rules, have been taken over as lecturer (College Cadre) and others have been given opportunities in the School Cadre. Since the applicant has passed M.P. Ed (Master of Physical Education) but he has not passed NET/SET examination which is also an essential qualification for appointment as lecturer (College Cadre), therefore, his services have been taken over as D.P.E in School Cadre. Main grievance of the applicant is that other persons whose services have been taken over as Lecturer (College Cadre) are getting pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640 whereas, his services have been taken over/regularized in the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925. In this regard it is made clear that there exists no post of lecturer Physical Education in the pay scale of Rs.6400-10640 in the school cadre whereas, in 10+2 system, a post of D.P.E in the pays scale of 1640-2925 (Pre-revised) and 5480-8925 in the revised pay scale has been provided. The applicant cannot equate his case with other persons of teaching subject. As per R & P rules, the applicant fulfilled the requisite qualification for appointment as D.P.E in the pay scale of Rs.5480- 8925,hence, his services have rightly been taken over as such vide Annexure A-6. In view of these submissions, the present Original Application deserves dismissal straightway.” 3. In view of the above reply, it is manifest that though at the time of taking over of the College by the Government, the services of the petitioner were also taken over as D.P.E, but not in College Cadre and instead only in School Cadre, solely on the ground that he had not qualified NET/SET examination. Another pre-condition with regard to the requisite qualification is that the incumbent should have passed Masters degree with 55% marks in the concerned subject. It is apparent from letter dated 18.9.1998, Annexure A-3, regarding selection of the petitioner as lecturer Physical Education in G.G.D.S.D. College Nerwa that he had passed Masters Degree with 60.85% marks. Thus, on the face of it, he was possessing the requisite educational qualification relating to percentage of marks in Masters Degree. However, insofar as the other qualification of having passed NET/SET examination is concerned, admittedly he had not passed the said examination. Thus, on the face of it, he was possessing the requisite educational qualification relating to percentage of marks in Masters Degree. However, insofar as the other qualification of having passed NET/SET examination is concerned, admittedly he had not passed the said examination. The private College in which the petitioner was working as Lecturer was taken over by the Govt. vide notification dated 18.12.2002, Annexure A-4. Sometime before that another private College, DAV College Sujanpur Tihra, Distt. Hamirpur, was also taken over by the Govt. vide notification dated 28.8.2001, Annexure A-13. subject to the conditions mentioned therein, condition No.2 being to the following effect:- “2. The Lecturers whose services have been taken over as Lecturer (College) Cadre (as per annexure-“A”) will be required to clear N.E.T Examination as prescribed in R & P Rules, within a period of three years, failing which their increments will be withheld.” 4. It will be seen from the above that while taking over the aforesaid DAV College Sujanpur Tihra, a condition was imposed that the incumbents whose services were taken over along with the College were required to clear NET examination as prescribed in R & P Rules within a period of three years, failing which, their increments were liable to be withheld. However, while taking over the services of the petitioner along with the aforesaid G.G.D.S.D. College Nerwa, he has apparently been discriminated against as he was not afforded an opportunity to clear NET/SET Examination. It was owning to this reason that his services were taken over as Lecturer in School Cadre. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently orders at Annexures A-9, dated 26.7.2004 and A-10, dated 1.8.2004 are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider taking over the services of the petitioner as Lecturer Physical Education (College Cadre) with effect from the date of taking over of the College i.e 18.12.2002, subject to his qualifying NET/SET Examination within three years henceforth and latest by December, 2013, failing which consequences as per Rules shall follow. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.” 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that by now the petitioner has already qualified SET and NET and has also completed her Ph.D. 9. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.” 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that by now the petitioner has already qualified SET and NET and has also completed her Ph.D. 9. Against the foregoing background the controversy in the present writ petition is no more res integra, in view of the aforesaid judgments dated September 18, 2012 in CWP No. 846 of 2011 and dated 16.11.2010 in CWP (T) No. 11263 of 2008 (affirmed in LPA No. 686 of 2011 with further seal of approval in SLP 11448 of 2013). 10. In view of above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to take steps for taking over the services of the petitioner with effect from 9.11.2005, the date of taking over of the College, in accordance with law, along with continuity of service and seniority, but without any back wages (salary), within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before respondent No. 1. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Copy Dasti.