Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Appeal Infructuous in Dispute Over Recognition of Fine Arts Diploma; Notes Teacher Has Superannuated and Draws Pension
Case Name: Kamlesh v. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: RSA-1035-2004
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court disposed of a two-decade-old regular second appeal as infructuous, noting that the appellant-teacher had already superannuated and was drawing pension. Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that since the service termination proceedings were stayed in 2004 and the appellant continued in employment till retirement, adjudicating the pending substantial questions of law would serve no practical purpose. The Court thus left the legal issues open for future consideration while closing the case.
Summary: The appellant, Kamlesh, had been appointed as an Art & Craft (Drawing) Teacher in 2000 after obtaining a Diploma in Fine Arts from Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigarh. Her appointment was challenged by the Education Department on the ground that the recognition of the Kendra’s diploma was later withdrawn. She filed a civil suit in 2000, which was decreed in her favor by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar in 2003. However, the District Judge reversed the decree in 2004, leading to the present appeal. During the pendency of the proceedings, the High Court stayed the operation of the adverse order and directed that her services not be terminated. Kamlesh continued in service and ultimately retired on 31.12.2023, receiving all pensionary and retiral benefits.
The Court recorded that since the appellant had long superannuated and was already drawing pension, the controversy—whether the withdrawal of recognition of Pracheen Kala Kendra’s diploma could operate retrospectively—had become academic. Relying on Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 3 SCT 833, Justice Sharma emphasized that reopening disciplinary or qualification-based disputes after retirement would be contrary to the interests of justice.
Decision: The appeal was declared infructuous and disposed of accordingly, with the question of law regarding retrospective de-recognition of qualifications left open for determination in future cases. Pending applications were also closed.