IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP 3625 of 2009. Decided on September 21, 2010 Rajesh Khachi …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Sh. M.L.Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner was appointed as a teacher, under the Scheme of the government for appointment of Para Teachers. He was posted in Government Middle School, Neri Nagar. He was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-medical). Since the post of Head Master of the school was lying vacant, he was also officiating as Head Master of that school. 2. In September, 2006, Parent Teacher Association wanted to appoint a Shastri in the School. Respondent No. 4, who is alleged to be the President of PTA, conducted Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - interviews for the post of Shastri, without constituting selection committee, in accordance with the Scheme for appointment of teachers by PTA, and recommended the name of one Ms. Aruna Devi, as Shastri. Appointment letter was also issued by respondent No. 4. Since the selection of the above named lady had not been made by following the proper procedure for selection, the petitioner did not allow the lady to join. He did so, because of the instructions received from the Head Master of the Government High School, Kuthar, who was the over-all incharge of the school, in which the petitioner was working and also, because of the standing instructions of Director, Education and other senior functionaries of the Education Department, regarding appointment and joining of para teachers. 3. This annoyed respondent No. 4. On 1.11.2006, he went to Government Middle School, Neri and tampered with the record, pertaining to PTA, particularly Resolution Register and Attendance Register, by snatching the said registers from the petitioner. Petitioner reported the matter to the higher authorities, including the Head Master of the High School. He also lodged a report with the police, because respondent No. 4, not only hurled abuses, but also intimidated the petitioner. Petitioner felt threatened and stopped going to the school and approached the senior functionaries of the Education Department, to shift him to - 3 - some other school. When his request for shifting him to some other school was still pending, a report was lodged with the Deputy Director, Primary Education, by respondent No. 4, that the petitioner had not been attending the school. Said Deputy Director, after seeking explanation of the petitioner, terminated his services. Petitioner then filed the present petition, seeking issuance of following writ/directions: 1. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing order dated 17.8.2007 Annexure P/23 passed by respondent No. 2 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Para Teacher TGT(Non Medical) in GMS Neri Nagar and order his reinstatement with all consequential benefits with interest @ 12% per annum on arrears of salary from 19-2-2007 onwards till payment thereof. 2. To direct respondents to post the petitioner in some other nearby school as per proposal made by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2. 3. To direct the respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for immense mental harassment and torture. 4. To award the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 5. Any other relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 4 - 4. In the reply, it has been stated by respondents 1 to 3 that teachers, appointed under the Scheme for para teachers, cannot be shifted from one place to another and, therefore, petitioner’s request for shifting to some other school was not considered. Petitioner has filed rejoinder and along with that, he has filed 18 orders regarding transfer of para teachers from one school to another. This means, the stand that a para teacher cannot be shifted or transferred from one government school to another, taken by the respondents in the reply, is not correct. 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the apprehension by the petitioner that he can be physically harmed, on account of the annoyance caused by him to respondent No. 4, by not allowing his appointee to join as Shastri, it is directed that respondents 1 to 3 shall reconsider the case of the petitioner. They will review the order of termination of his services and shall also consider shifting him to some other school, because at least 18 orders of shifting of para teachers, have been issued by them. 6. The aforesaid direction is directed to be complied with by 30th November, 2010. Petitioner shall have the right to make a fresh petition to the said respondents, both for review of order of termination of his services, as also for transfer to some other school, but such a representation - 5 - must be made within one week, from today. Petitioner shall also be heard in person, in case so desired by him, by the Principal Secretary (Education). 7. Writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications shall also stand disposed of. Copy dasti. September 21, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.