IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 7550 of 2008(OA No.293/2001) Decided on : 16.11.2010. Bua Rani and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S.Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioners have prayed mainly the following reliefs in the petition:- (a) To quash and set-aside the verbal termination order by allowing the applicants to continue to teach the pre- primary/nursery class children as Nursery Teachers in their respective Government Primary Schools. (b) To direct the respondents to continue with the Scheme of holding pre-primary/nursery classes in Government Primary Schools for the benefits of small children as this Scheme is not causing any financial hardship on State Exchequer and the same has been smoothly going on since long time with the help of Parents Teachers Association (PTA) under whose control this Scheme is functioning. Or in the alternative the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 applicants be adjusted somewhere else as Nursery Teachers. 2. The facts, in brief, are that in the year 1990 some Scheme was introduced by the respondents to start Nursery/Pre-Primary Classes in Primary Schools to impart basic nursery education to the children in villages in the entire State and for this purpose, the Parents Teachers Association (for short ‘PTA’) were also constituted. It has also been pleaded that with a purpose not to burden the State Exchequer it was decided under the Scheme that salary to Nursery Teachers/Pre-Primary Class teachers would be paid from the amount of fee collected from every child and hence every nursery teacher is getting approximately ` 600/- to ` 700/- consolidated salary every month. The salary of nursery teacher depends on the strength of total nursery students. 3. The respondents had invited applications from eligible persons for appointment of Nursery Teachers and thereafter the petitioners were appointed as Nursery Teachers, who were otherwise eligible for the appointment of Nursery Teachers. In first week of February, 2001 the petitioners were told by the Headmasters of the schools where petitioners were working not to attend the classes to teach nursery classes after February, 2001. In this way, the services of the petitioners were terminated w.e.f. 1.3.2001. The petitioners have pleaded that action of the concerned Headmasters terminating the services of the petitioners are wrong, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. 4. The respondents have contested the petition by filing the reply. It has been submitted that petitioners in the nursery classes were not appointed by the Department but petitioners were appointed by the 3 Parents Teachers Association. The objection of maintainability of the petition has also been taken. The respondents have taken the stand that on 20.12.2000 a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala wherein it was decided that nursery classes should be stopped. Thereafter, a decision was taken to stop the nursery classes in the government schools. It has been submitted that since a decision was taken to stop the nursery classes in that situation, there was no question of continuing the nursery teachers in the said schools. It has been submitted that it is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed by the PTA but PTA has not been impleaded as party in the petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they were appointed by the PTA for running the nursery classes in the Government schools. The respondents have taken the stand that a decision was taken to close down the nursery classes in Government schools and therefore, if the services of the petitioners were rendered surplus they cannot be imposed on the respondents. The grievance if any of the petitioners predominantly is against the PTA and they cannot be thrusted on the department. The petitioners have failed to establish their right to continue on posts more particularly under the department, when they were appointed by PTA. The grievance, if any, of the petitioners is against the PTA which is not a party in the petition. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ), November 16, 2010 Judge. (GR)