IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 14677 of 2008 Decided on : 14.11.2011 ________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Anil God, Advocate, vice Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petitioner along with some other similarly situate persons was working as teacher in the Govt. High School, Rajol, District Kangra, H.P., as a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) appointee. 2. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide Resolution No-41, dated 5th October, 2006, Annexure A-2, text whereof is as under:- “RESOLUTION No-41 Parent teacher meeting was called today on this 5th day of Oct., 2006,which was headed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 by the principal of GHS Rajol. As per the new Education policy even the regular teachers of our school have become surplus. Therefore it has been decided that those teachers who were appointed in the the school some time ago on PTA basis, their services are terminated as per new education policy. The teachers whose services are terminated are the following:- 1. Sh.Ashok Kumar 2. Sh. Chandu Lal. Sd/- Headmaster, GHS, Rajol, District Kangra, H.P.” 3. The petition has been filed with a prayer that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner may be held illegal and Annexure A-2 may be quashed and set aside. 4. There is no reply as yet. 5. Though the petition has been filed for quashing of Resolution No-41, dated 5th October, 2006, Annexure A-2, passed by the Parent Teacher Association, yet the fact remains that the said Association has not been impleaded as a party to the present petition. Furthermore, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with as the same were no longer required when even the regular teachers working in the school had been rendered surplus owing to introduction of new education policy. Thus, to my mind, the petitioner is not 3 entitled for any relief and the petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any, in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 14, 2011. (Lsp)