1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2628 of 2009. Date of decision: 31.12.2010. Layak Ram .........Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. .........Respondents. ______________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. ( Oral ) The petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of this case and pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the matter and issue appropriate directions. (ii) That the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Shimla dated 24.6.2009 and order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the SDM may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may be allowed to continue as teacher on contract basis. And suitable directions may also be issued tot he respondents to allow the petitioner to discharging their duties as teacher with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the notification dated 19.4.2008 and 27.5.2008 passed by the respondents may kindly 2 quashed and set aside in the interest of justice being violative of the principles of natural justice.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide paras 4 and 5: “The contents of para 4 &5 are denied. The fact is that higher qualifications and higher percentage of marks of candidates were ignored by the PTA in order to select Shri Laiq Ram, as is evident from the Annexure R-1 This inquiry was made as per the criteria laid down in Notification No. EDN. A. Kha (7)3/2006 dated 27th May, 2008. However, while hearing the inquiry it was brought to the notice of inquiry committee that the PTA fixed interview marks as per suitability of their own candidates. On these grounds the complainants argued that the PTA had fixed approximately higher marks for interview in order to make selection of their own candidates. Hence, the committee adjudged merit of the candidates on the basis of their actual qualifications and percentage of marks. It is further submitted that the petitioner Laiq Ram was never appointed as Drawing Teacher by PTA.” 3. In view of the intervening developments, in case the petitioner has still any dispute with regard to the factual position and the stand taken in the reply of the respondents, referred to herein above, he may approach the second respondent by way of an appropriate representation in which case the second respondent will look into the matter and pass an appropriate order, after affording an opportunity for hearing within a period of four months from the date of filing of appropriate representation along with a copy of this judgment. 3 4. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 31, 2010 (Justice V.K. Sharma), (jai/naveen) Judge.