Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/7849/2010 on 29 December 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
CWP Nos. 7849, 7851, 7852, 7862, 7863,
7864, 7865, 7866 of 2010.
Decided on: 29th December, 2010.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. CWP No. 7849 of 2010:
Sant Ram.
vs
State of H.P. & others.
2. CWP No. 7851 of 2010:
Om Parkash.
vs
State of H.P. & others.
3. CWP No. 7852 of 2010:
Sunita Devi.
vs
State of H.P. & others.
4. CWP No. 7862 of 2010:
Sushma Devi.
vs
State of H.P. & others.
5. CWP No. 7863 of 2010:
Phalbir Chand.
vs
State of H.P. & others.
6. CWP No. 7864 of 2010:
Chhuma Devi.
vs
State of H.P. & others.
7. CWP No. 7865 of 2010:
Kalpana Devi.
vs
State of H.P. & others.
8. CWP No. 7866 of 2010:
Savita Devi.
vs
State of H.P. & others.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.
For the petitioners : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General,
with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate
General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
The petitioners have been working as Language Teachers under the Para Teachers Policy, framed by the
Government on 17.9.2003. It is submitted that they have been working under the policy for the last few years. All of them possess only the diploma issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag Allahabad. There is no dispute that the said qualification is not recognized for appointment of Language Teacher. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that at the time of their appointment, there was no objection to their appointment. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that this aspect of the matter as to whether the institution was duly recognized or not, was not verified by the appropriate forum at the relevant point of time and as soon as the same was noticed, steps were taken to dis-continue their services. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that such steps were taken pursuant to the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 19 of 2008 titled Sushma Devi Vs. State of H.P., decided on 8.7.2009. The petitioners had approached this Court earlier leading to the annexure P-7 judgment in CWP No. 3530 of 2010 and other connected cases and this Court had directed the Government to look into the matter by referring to the submissions made by the petitioners that as far as Language Teachers are concerned, there have been several instances when the government had granted relaxation and whereby such teachers have been appointed on regular/contract basis. The impugned annexure P-11 is passed pursuant to the directions thus issued by this Court.
2. It is seen from the impugned order that the whole consideration of the case of the petitioners is on the premises that the petitioners are claiming continuity and regularization as Language Teachers. On this learned counsel for the petitioners on instruction submits that the petitioners do not intend to claim regularization unless otherwise offered by the Government. They only want to continue under the Para Teachers Policy till they are otherwise replaced by the regular/contract teachers recruited by the Service Selection Board. It is also submitted that they are aware of the position that they have to give room to regularly appointed teachers as and when they are appointed against the available vacancies.
It is seen from the impugned orders that the Government has graciously ordered to grant the due and admissible wages/emoluments to the petitioners for the period of their actual service, in terms of the Para Teachers Policy. However, they have been directed to be discontinued by the end of the academic year. After discontinuing these teachers who have been working for the last few years, what is the substitute arrangement is not quite clear. In view of the larger public interest and in the interest of the students, we are of the view that it is only appropriate that the Government considers a few more relevant factors. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:-
i) In the event of the individual petitioner filing a representation before the Government making it clear that they are not claiming regularization as Language Teacher on the basis of the qualification of Diploma in Language Teacher, issued by the Hindi Sahitaya Sammelan, Allahabad based on which they have been appointed under the Para Teachers Policy, unless otherwise offered by the Government and that their present request is only to permit them to continue until they are replaced as per Para Teachers Policy itself by teachers who are recruited under the regular recruitment process.
ii) The matter will be considered by the government for continuation till they are replaced otherwise by the teachers who are recruited on the regular recruitment process. The decision as above may be taken before the commencement of the next academic session, and if not, the petitioners will be allowed to continue as per present arrangement of appointment till the decision as above is taken.
3. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application (s), if any.
Dasti copy.
(Justice Kurian Joseph),
Chief Justice
29th December, 2010
( Justice V.K. Sharma), (Karan/kck)
Judge.