IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.486 of 2009 Decided on : July 14, 2010 Rakesh Kashyap and another …Petitioners. Versus Secretary (Education) and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners are serving as teachers in a school, run and managed by respondent No.2, i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Kasauli Cantonment Board. They were appointed on contract basis, for nine months, in the year 2006. Their appointment, on contract basis, has been renewed, after their initial appointment in the year 2006, upto the year 2009. Now, respondent No.2 has issued an advertisement, inviting applications for appointing teachers afresh, on contract basis, against the posts against which the petitioners having been working on contract basis. Petitioners’ grievance is that they, having served respondent No.2 continuously for four years, even though Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… on contract basis, should not be replaced by other teachers also appointed on contract basis. 2. In the reply of respondent No.2, it is stated that the State of Himachal Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education have revised the criteria for affiliation of schools and according to the revised criteria qualifications of teachers have also been revised and it is because of this reason that fresh advertisement, for appointing teachers, possessing revised qualifications, has been published. Also, it is stated that there were verbal complaints against the petitioners by the parents, the students and the Principal of the school. However, details of such complaints or the kind of complaints are not specified. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. It is true that qualifications for the posts of teachers have been revised by the Government, vide Notification dated 29th March, 2008, copy Annexure R-4, but during the course of hearing it has been conceded that one of the petitioners, namely petitioner No.1, fulfils even the revised qualifications. In the case of petitioner No.2 Krishan Pal, who is a Drawing Teacher, it is stated by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that he is Matriculate, whereas according to the revised qualification, the incumbent should be 10+2. The contention that petitioner …3… No.2 does not fulfil the qualification is not correct, because there is a note below the column pertaining to qualifications for the post of Drawing Teacher, to the effect that the candidates, who started their trailing till (sic) 30th June, 2008, in various institutions, will be eligible for the post, as per existing R & P Rules, but they will have to pass 10+2 examination, within three years, otherwise they will not be entitled for promotion and increment. The note clearly indicates that a person who does not possess the qualification of 10+2, but has joined training upto 30th June, 2008 or has already obtained a diploma, he/she need not be 10+2 pass. Therefore, the plea taken by respondent No.2 that appointments are being made afresh, on account of revision of qualifications, cannot be sustained. 5. As regards the allegation that there are complaints against the petitioners, as already noticed, particulars of the complaints, in the sense what kind of allegations are there against them, do not find mention in the reply. The allegation, thus, suffers from precision and remains vague. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to continue with the services of the petitioners, until teachers on regular basis, that is to say not on contract basis, are appointed in their place. This order, however, does not mean that the …4… petitioners cannot be removed or they will be entitled for renewal of contract, even if they commit any act of misconduct or their performance is not satisfactory. July 14, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J