IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3431 of 2009 alongwith CWPs No. 1036, 1140, 1264, 1343, 1349, 1367, 1388, 1508, 1525, 1634, 1863, 2127, 2155, 2242, 2612, 2615, 2663, 2667, 2673, 2698, 2886, 2887, 2957, 3608, 3609, 3617, 3618, 3619, 379, 423, 426, 430 and 949 of 2009. Decided on 5.5.2010 1. CWP No. 3431 of 2009 Poonam ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 2. CWP No. 1036 of 2009 Naresh Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 3. CWP No. 1140 of 2009 Luhinder Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 4. CWP No. 1264 of 2009 Daskha Sharma ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 5. CWP No. 1343 of 2009 Megh Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 6. CWP No. 1349 of 2009 Uttam Ram ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 7. CWP No. 1367 of 2009 Nutan Thakur ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 8. CWP No.1388 of 2009 Manohar Lal ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 9. CWP No. 1508 of 2009 Babita Devi ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 10. CWP No. 1525 of 2009 Savitri Devi ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 11. CWP No. 1634 of 2009 Mehar Singh. ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 12. CWP No. 1863 of 2009 Sushma Thakur ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 13. CWP No. 2127 of 2009 Manjeet Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 14. CWP No. 2155 of 2009 Jay Pal ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 15. CWP No. 2242 of 2009 Sohan Lal ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 16. CWP No. 2612 of 2009 Dharamvir ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 17. CWP No. 2615 of 2009 Surender Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 18. CWP No. 2663 of 2009 Sanjeev Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 19. CWP No. 2667 of 2009 Desh Raj ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 20. CWP No. 2673 of 2009 Sapna Devi ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 21. CWP No. 2698 of 2009 Krishan Lal ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 22. CWP No. 2886 of 2009 Prem Pal Singh Rana ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 23. CWP No. 2887 of 2009 Amar Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 24. CWP No. 2957 of 2009 Renu Bala ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 25. CWP No. 3608 of 2009 Meena Thakur ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 26. CWP No. 3609 of 2009 Ambika Kanwar ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 27. CWP No. 3617 of 2009 Sanjeev Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 28. CWP No. 3618 of 2009 Ranjana ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 29. CWP No. 3619 of 2009 Kuldeep Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 30. CWP No. 379 of 2009 Damita Sood ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 31. CWP No. 423 of 2009 Vinod Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 32. CWP No. 426 of 2009 Jainder Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 33. CWP No. 430 of 2009 Om Prakash ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. 34. CWP No. 949 of 2009 Indira Devi ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Yoginder Pal , Mr. Mahohar Lal Sharma, Lalit Kumar Sehgal and Mr. Prem Pal Chauhan for the respective petitioners. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr..K. Verma, Dy. AG, for the respondents/State, Mr. Vinod Thakur and Mr. Anil Chauhan for the respective respondents Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: (i) That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued and the inquiry report, dated 22.09.2008 and the order of the appellate authority dated 16.4.2010 may be quashed and set a side. (ii) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued and the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to work at the present place of posting with a further direction to release `Grant-in-Aid’ in favour of the petitioner. 2. In view of the recent instruction issued by the Director, Higher Education, Himahal Pradesh vide communication dated 24th September, 2009, the case requires 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 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.” 3. In view of the above clarification issued by the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the Enquiry Committee to consider the matter afresh in the light of the instruction referred to above. The needful, if required, shall be done expeditiously from the date of the 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. In case the vacancy still exists, we make it clear that it will be open to the respondents to re- engage the petitioner, subject to the outcome of the inquiry and in case, the petitioners are thus re-engaged, they shall be paid the eligible benefits during the period of service. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 5, 2010(K/P) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge