THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11891 /2008. Decided on: 23.11.2009 Vinod Kumar Sharma and others ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. .....Respondents. ______________________________________________________________________ _ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 7. ________________________________________________________________________ The petitioners were sent on secondment basis in Sarv Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) vide Annexure A-3 dated 14.11.2002. The petitioners have assailed the issuance of Annexures A-4 and A-5 whereby the decision has been taken by the State to replace the existing Block Resource Centre Coordinators (BRCCs) by a new set of teachers in DPEP districts. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan have vehemently argued that the action of the respondents to replace the petitioners on the basis of Anmnexures A-4 and A-5 is illegal and arbitrary. According to him, the petitioners ought to have been permitted to continue on the basis of experience gained by them. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the decision has been taken by the State Government vide annexure A-4 to replace the existing BRCCs by a new set of teachers. He then contended that the petitioners could also apply as per Annexures A-4 and A-5 for the post in question. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the parties. The petitioners have been sent in SSA on secondment basis. The State Government has taken a conscious decision to replace these teachers by a new set of teachers. This decision has been taken vide letter dated 5.10.2004. All the teachers, who are eligible as per Annexure A-5 could apply for the post in question, including the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have been debarred from appearing in the interview. The petitioners have no inherent right to continue to work as BRCCs on secondment basis. In the present case, as noticed above, the State above, the State Government has taken a decision to replace existing BRCCs by a new set of teachers. There is no force in the submission of Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan that the petitioners were to be retained for a period of ten years. What was required, as per the instructions for appointment on secondment basis, was that a person who has less than ten years for retirement should not have been appointed as BRCC. We are of the view that all the teachers who are qualified and fulfill the norms should be given opportunity to be appointed as BRCCs. The petitioners have been working since 2002 and there is no illegality or unreasonableness in the issuance of Annexures A-4 and A-5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. It is open to the respondent-State to fill up the posts of BRCCs in accordance with law. Interim order dated 27.4.2005 stands vacated. No costs. (R.B. Misra) Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.11.2009 *awasthi*