Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Manica Tomar filed a writ petition, being CWP No. 1066 of 2010, questioning the selection and appointment of Monica Sharma as Assistant Professor, Mycology and Plant Pathology, in the Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan (for short "University"), on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Learned Single Judge, after examining the pleadings and the law applicable, vide judgment and order, dated 13.01.2012, held that the selection and appointment of Monica Sharma was arbitrary and accordingly, quashed the same with a command to the University to consider the case of Manica Tomar for her appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Mycology and Plant Pathology (for short "the impugned judgment"). 3. Monica Sharma questioned the impugned judgment by the medium of LPA No. 16 of 2012 and the University questioned the same by the medium of LPA No. 32 of 2012. Thus, both the LPAs are outcome of the impugned judgment relating to selection made by the University against the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline (supra). 4. Both the LPAs were clubbed and came up for consideration. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide order, dated 09.04.2015, directed the University to consider the case of Manica Tomar for her adjustment/ appointment without disturbing the status of Monica Sharma. 5. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior Counsel, on 07.05.2015 had sought and was granted two weeks' time to comply with the directions made by this Court and on 28.05.2015, stated at the Bar that the University had issued appointment order in favour of Manica Tomar and also produced copy of the appointment order, dated 26.05.2015 before this Court, which was made part of the file. 6. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Senior Counsel, stated that the appointment was not in tune with the relief sought in the writ petition and granted by the learned Single Judge, Manica Tomar be permitted to join in terms of the said appointment order with all just exceptions. 7. Manica Tomar was allowed to join with all just exceptions in terms of order, dated 28.05.2015 and learned counsel appearing on her behalf sought permission to file supplementary affidavit, which was filed on 22.06.2015. After perusing the said supplementary affidavit, Ms. 7. Manica Tomar was allowed to join with all just exceptions in terms of order, dated 28.05.2015 and learned counsel appearing on her behalf sought permission to file supplementary affidavit, which was filed on 22.06.2015. After perusing the said supplementary affidavit, Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior Counsel, was asked to seek instructions keeping in view the fact that Manica Tomar has suffered at the hands of the University, has earned judgment in her favour and came to be appointed on contract basis. She is entitled to regular appointment on the same terms as was granted to Monica Sharma with all consequential benefits. 8. The Apex Court in a case titled as Sanjay Dhar versus J & K Public Service Commission and another, reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 182, has dealt with the issue and held that when a candidate is deprived of appointment illegally, he is deemed to have been appointed right from the same date. It is apt to reproduce paras 14 to 16 of the judgment herein: “14. ….........As the appellant participated in the process of selection protected by the interim orders of the High Court and was also successful having secured third position in the select list, he could not have been denied appointment. The appellant is, therefore, fully entitled to the relief of his appointment being calculated w.e.f. the same date from which the candidates finding their place in the order of appointments issued pursuant to the select list prepared by the J&K PSC for 1992-93 were appointed and deserves to be assigned notionally a place in seniority consistently with the order of merit assigned by the J&K PSC. 15. We have already noticed the learned Single Judge having directed the appellant to be appointed on the post of Munsif in the event of his name finding place in the select list subject to the outcome of the writ petition which order was modified by the Division Bench in LPA staying the order of the learned Single Judge but at the same time directing one vacancy to be kept reserved. The High Court and the Government of J&K (Law Department) were not justified in bypassing the judicial order of the High Court and making appointments exhausting all available vacancies. The High Court and the Government of J&K (Law Department) were not justified in bypassing the judicial order of the High Court and making appointments exhausting all available vacancies. The right of the appellant, if otherwise sustainable, cannot be allowed to be lost merely because of an appointment having been made wittingly or unwittingly in defiance of the judicial order of the High Court. 16. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed along with other appointees under the appointment order dated 6.3.1995 and assigned a place of seniority consistently with his placement in the order of the merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and later forwarded to the Law Department. During the course of hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant made a statement at the Bar that the appellant was interested only in having his seniority reckoned notionally in terms of this order and was not claiming any monetary benefit by way of emoluments for the period for which he would have served in case he would have been appointed by order dated 6.3.1995. We record that statement and direct that the appellant shall be entitled only to the benefit of notional seniority (and not monetary benefits) being given to him by implementing this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The contesting respondents shall pay the appellant costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/.” 9. The same view has been taken by this Court in LPA No. 170 of 2014, titled as Shri Balak Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 19.11.2014. 10. A learned Single Judge of this Court in a case titled as Hem Chand versus State of H.P. & others, reported in 2014 (3) Him L.R. 1962, has also laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce paras 3 and 4 of the judgment herein: “3. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was delayed for no fault of his and came to be appointed only in the year 2009, that too after the intervention of this Court. The result of delayed appointment of the petitioner is that he has been paid less salary and denied the seniority over a long period of time. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was delayed for no fault of his and came to be appointed only in the year 2009, that too after the intervention of this Court. The result of delayed appointment of the petitioner is that he has been paid less salary and denied the seniority over a long period of time. It has been consistently opined that in case a candidate is wrongly denied appointment for no fault on his part, he cannot be denied appointment from due date and consequential seniority. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to 1996 (8) SCC 637 , Pilla sitaram Patrudu & others vs. Union of India and others, 2000 (8) SCC 182 Sanjay Dhar vs. J&K Public Service Commission & another, 1991 (6) Vol. 76, Services Law Reporter 753, Hawa Singh Sangwan vs. Union of India & others and 1996 (6) vol. 116, Services Law Reporter, 335, Hawa Singh and others vs. The Haryana State Electricity Board. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not recommended to be appointed on 26.6.2004 but the only ground taken is that it was the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Sawindhar, Tehsil Karsog, who delayed the appointment of the petitioner. This is the precise reason that the petitioner is entitled for the seniority from the date of offer of appointment, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances, in case titled as Chatter Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No. 188 of 2012-I: 3. No doubt, the petitioner joined duty only on 13.5.2003. But in his favour admittedly there is an order by the Appointing Authority on 8.8.2002 to give appointment, as has been noted by the Tribunal in Annexure P1, order. It is that order, which has been upheld by the Tribunal and the direction issued by the Tribunal is for implementing the said order. Therefore, for all purposes, the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed on 8.8.2002, on the date admittedly the petitioner was directed to be appointed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has joined duly on 13.5.2003 after the order was issued to him, the entitlement of the petitioner for actual monetary benefit shall be only from 13.5.2003. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has joined duly on 13.5.2003 after the order was issued to him, the entitlement of the petitioner for actual monetary benefit shall be only from 13.5.2003. In order to avoid any ambiguity, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed in the post of Gramin Vidya Upasak on 8.8.2002 for all purposes; but from 8.8.2002 to 13.5.2003, the benefits shall only be notional and from 13.5.2003, the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits.” 4. In view of the exposition of the law referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as having been appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier at Government Primary School Alyas, Gram Panchayat, Sawindhar, Karsog-II, District Mandi from 30.6.2004, pursuant to the recommendation of the Government of H.P., as per order dated 26.6.2004 for the purpose of seniority. However, the entitlement of the petitioner for actual monetary benefits shall be only from 9.6.2009. In order to avoid any ambiguity, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier from 30.6.2004 for all purposes, but from 30.6.2004 to 9.6.2009, the benefits shall only be notional and w.e.f. 9.6.2009, the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits.” 11. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the judgments (supra), we direct the University to treat the appointment of Manica Tomar on contract basis to be on regular basis with all service benefits without monetary benefits and report compliance within one week. 12. List on 8th October, 2015.