IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.455 of 2004 Reserved on : May 27, 2009. Decided on : June 4, 2009. Leela Dhar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Ms Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner Leela Dhar seeks judicial review of order dated 10th June, 2004, of the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby his Original Application No.OA(M) 379 of 2004, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed. Present writ petition has been filed, under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts, which need to be noticed for the decision of the case, are as follows. State of Himachal Pradesh formulated a scheme, known as Himachal Pradesh Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna, 2001, for appointment of Vidya Upasaks (Teachers), in Government Primary Schools, on contract basis. In accordance Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… with the said scheme, petitioner was appointed as Vidya Upasak, vide letter dated 17th August, 2002, Annexure PC. Appointment was made for the academic session ended on 31st March, 2003. It was renewed for the next session, i.e. upto 31st March, 2004, vide agreement Annexure PE. 3. Petitioner’s wife had been recommended for appointment as Water Carrier by the Government in a different school, falling in the area of the same Panchayat, by which the petitioner was appointed as Vidya Upasak, on contract basis. Wife of the petitioner went to the Pradhan of the Panchayat, respondent No.6 herein, and requested him to issue her appointment letter, in accordance with the recommendation of the Government. It may be stated that Water Carriers are appointed in the Government Primary Schools by the Pradhans of the Panchayats, on the recommendation of the Government. Respondent No.6 did not offer appointment to the wife of the petitioner. She lodged complaints with the Deputy Director, Primary Education, and other authorities, but despite that respondent No.6 did not appoint her. She then filed a petition before the Tribunal. Tribunal directed that she be appointed. Respondent No.6 did not comply with the direction of the Tribunal and so petitioner’s wife filed a Contempt Petition against him. This offended and annoyed respondent No.6. 4. On October 31, 2003, respondent No.6, lodged a report against the petitioner with the police that he had intimidated and insulted him. Copy of the report is Annexure PL. Inquiry was conducted by a Police Officer, who found that …3… the complaint was false. Report of the Investigating Officer is Annexure PN. The same is dated 30th November, 2003. 5. On account of the aforesaid developments, respondent No.6 became vindictive not only towards the wife of the petitioner but also the petitioner. Petitioner apprehending that his contract may not be renewed by respondent No.6, on account of his vindictiveness, filed an Original Application before the Tribunal, seeking a direction to the respondents that on completion of his contract period, his services should not be dispensed with and the contract be renewed. During the pendency of that Original Application, petitioner’s services were dispensed with. Tribunal ultimately dismissed the Original Application, holding that the petitioner could not claim renewal of the contract of appointment, as a matter of right, and that his contractual appointment came to an end, on the expiry of contract period. 6. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal of his Original Application. So, he has filed the present writ petition. His contention is that even though he does not have a right to ask for renewal of the contract of his appointment, but when it is shown from the record that respondent No.6 acted in an arbitrary and malafide manner, that gives him a cause to seek renewal of contract by the intervention of Court. 7. Respondents No.1 to 5 have filed common reply. Respondent No.6 has filed a separate reply. Initially, the respondents took the stand before this court that a case, under …4… Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, had been registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No.108 of 2006, on the basis of a report lodged against him, in October, 2003, and so his contract was not renewed. Petitioner procured a report, Annexure PT, from the SHO, per which case FIR No.108 of 2006, had been registered not against him, but against a Water Carrier, named Hem Chand, working in one of the schools, falling under the control of respondent No.6, in his capacity as Pradhan of the Panchayat. Thereafter, the petitioner amended his petition, to which respondent No.6 filed a fresh reply and took the plea that case, under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, had been instituted against the petitioner, vide Annexure R-6/C. As per this Annexure, dated 12th August, 2008, Calendar, on the basis of respondent No.6’s report, dated 31st October, 2003, had been filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog. Respondent No.6 has taken the plea that because of a criminal case against the petitioner, his contract was not renewed, though contracts of other similarly situated teachers had been renewed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Record shows that a report was lodged against the petitioner by respondent No.6 on 31st October, 2003. It was alleged in that report that on 29th October, 2003 at 2 O’ Clock, petitioner went to the Panchayat Ghar, where meeting of the Panchayt was in progress and started abusing him and using filthy language against him and that after the meeting was over …5… the petitioner again went to Pradhan’s office room and tried to manhandle him and he managed to save his life with great difficulty. This complaint was investigated by a Police Officer and final report was prepared on 30th November, 2003, to the effect that the same was found to be false, on investigation. It was during the pendency of the present writ petition that respondent No.6 somehow managed to get a Calendar filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, on the basis of the aforesaid report, dated 31st October, 2003, Annexure PL. From a notice, under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued on the basis of that Calender, copy whereof is Annexure R-5/A, it appears that the said Calendar was filed as late as in April, 2009 and the case was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on 27th April, 2009, vide order, copy Annexure R-5/B. 10. Respondent No.6 is a manipulator and indulges in machinations and intrigues. This is not the only case, in which respondent No.6 lodged a report, which, on inquiry, was found to be false, within a month of its lodging, but he also lodged a report against another employee of a school, named Hem Raj, to deny him appointment as Water Carrier, despite recommendations by the Department of Education. That Water Carrier, named Hem Raj, had to file an Original Application, before the Tribunal, to seek appointment. That Original Application, on abolition of the Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and was registered as CWP(T) No.2393 of 2008. It has been decided by a Division Bench, alongwith Civil Review No.70 …6… of 2008, vide judgment dated 18th May, 2009. Copy of the decision was produced before us, during the course of hearing of the matter. The same has been kept on record. Learned Division bench of this Court, in the said case, has observed that respondent No.6 denied appointment to said Hem Raj as Water Carrier, by his machinations. He has been held guilty of abusing his position as Pradhan and ordered to pay exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/-. 11. The background of the present case also suggests that respondent No.6, with a view to finding an excuse for non- renewal of the contract of the petitioner, as Vidya Upasak, lodged a false report dated 31st October, 2003, Annexure PL, that he had been criminally intimidated by the petitioner. That complaint was found to be false, on inquiry, by the Investigating Officer, per his report Annexure PN, which is dated 30th November, 2003. Respondent No.6 kept quiet about the aforesaid report of the Investigating Officer. He started making reports and complaints to the higher police authorities for fresh inquiry, only after the petitioner brought it to the notice of the Court that no case had been pending against him. SHO then filed a Calendar against the petitioner, alleging apprehension of breach of peace. The same was dismissed within a few days of its institution. Respondent No.6 appears to have lodged the aforesaid false report to make a ground for non-renewal of the contract of service of the petitioner, because his wife had lodged complaints against him to the authorities of the Education Department and the Panchayat …7… Department and filed an Original Application and also Contempt Petition before the Tribunal against him, on account of his having not offered her appointment as Water Carrier, despite recommendation by the Deputy Director, Primary Education. Thus, the action of respondent No.6 in not renewing the contract of appointment of the petitioner as Vidya Upasak, beyond 31st March, 2004, is malafide and arbitrary and, therefore, liable to be quashed. 12. In view of the abovestated position, we allow the present writ petition. We have been told, during the course of arguments, that the scheme of appointment of Vidya Upasakas has now been substituted by some other schemes and all the Vidya Upasaks have been adjusted under new schemes. We direct that the petitioner be also adjusted under any of the schemes of appointment of teachers now in vogue. For making his adjustment, under some prevalent scheme, it shall be deemed as if his appointment as Vidya Upasak had been renewed on expiry of the period of contract on 31st March, 2004. We also direct respondent No.6 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.10,000/-, by way of costs. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. June 4, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.