IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 401, 432, 434, 435, 1360, 1389, 1407, 1532, 2146, 2264, 2265, 2267, 2293, 2295, 2613, 2669, 2680, 2696, 3108, 3238, 3239, 3444 & 3613 of 2009. Decided on: May 6, 2010. (Fir title: Please see below) Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate in CWP Nos. 401,432,434, 435, 1360, 1389,1407, 1532, 2146,2613, 2669, 2680, 2696, 3108, 3238, 3239 and 3613 of 2009. Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate in CWP Nos. 2264, 2265, 2267, 2293 and 2295 of 2009. Mr. Ajay K. Thakur, Advocate in CWP No. 3444 of 2009. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG for respondent-State in all the petitions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. CWP No. 401 of 2009 Naveen Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 2. CWP No. 432 of 2009 Ashok Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 3. CWP No. 434 of 2009 Jaswant Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 4. CWP No. 435 of 2009 Deepak Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 5. CWP No. 1360 of 2009 Kuldeep Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 6. CWP No. 1389 of 2009 Lalit Kumar …….Petitioner 2 Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 7. CWP No. 1407 of 2009 Vijay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 8. CWP No. 1532 of 2009 Mukesh Bhardwaj …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 9. CWP No. 2146 of 2009 Usha Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 10. CWP No. 2264 of 2009 Balam Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 11. CWP No. 2265 of 2009 Balam Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 12. CWP No. 2267 of 2009 Vijay Kalate …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 13. CWP No. 2293 of 2009 Basant Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 14. CWP No. 2295 of 2009 Uma Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 15. CWP No. 2613 of 2009 Karam Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 16. CWP No. 2669 of 2009 Jitender Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 17. CWP No. 2680 of 2009 Bhawna …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 18. CWP No. 2696 of 2009 Achhar Singh …….Petitioner Versus 3 State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 19. CWP No. 3108 of 2009 Savita Rani …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 20. CWP No. 3238 of 2009 Sarita …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 21. CWP No. 3239 of 2009 Sunder Mehta …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 22. CWP No. 3444 of 2009 Rakesh Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. 23. CWP No. 3613 of 2009 Nisha Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. The issue raised in these Writ Petitions pertains to the selection and appointment of teachers by the Parents Teacher Association. Learned counsel appearing on both sides point that the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh has issued a communication dated 24th September, 2009, and the cases require fresh consideration in the light of the said communication. The relevant portion of the communication of the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh reads as follows: “Refer to letter No. EDN-Kha(7)3706-1 dated 3.9.2009 from the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed to this directorate and copy endorsed to you and others vide which the government has asked to move an application immediate before the chairman of the concerned enquiry committee in view of the decision of CWP No. 525/2009 titled as Ravinder Singh Vs. State and CWP No. 2632/2009 titled as Koyal Kumar Vs. State wherein the 4 Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh while setting aside the orders of the committee has directed that Committee after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other respondents can look into the matter and decide whether the appointment of the petitioner was valid or not. The committee while deciding the issue will keep into consideration of observation of the Hon’ble High Court made in CWPs. The copy of the judgment/orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2632/2009 titled as Koyal Kumar Vs. State is also being sent to all the Deputy Directors. Therefore, you are directed to comply with the directions of the Government and take action in the matter accordingly.” In view of the above clarification issued by the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the Enquiry Committee to consider the matters afresh in the light of the instruction referred to above. The needful, if required, shall be done within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by either side. It is also made clear that in the cases of those teachers who are working in the schools, in case they have not been paid their due wages, the same shall be paid and the State shall ensure that the required grant-in-aid is given to the Schools, as per the Rules forthwith. The Writ Petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy on usual terms. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 6, 2010. ( Justice R.B.Misra ), (karan/vs) Judge.