IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1576 of 2007 a/w CWPs No. 1624, 2078 of 2007, 1256, 2050, 2231, 2422, 2424, 2425, 2480, 2481, 2482, 2483 of 2008, 437, 524, 964, 966, 1079, 1528, 1939, 2095, 2100, 2216, 2246, 2253, 2671, 3335, 3403, 4172 of 2009, 6127 and 6128 of 2010. Decided on: 11.11.2010. __________________________________________________ 1. Preeta Chauhan vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. Anita Kumari vs. State of H.P. and others. 3. Anita Thakur vs. State of H.P. and others. 4. Tripta Dhiman vs. State of H.P. and others. 5. Santosh Kumari vs. State of H.P. and others. 6. Lajya Devi vs. State of H.P. and others. 7. Sushil Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 8. Suman Bala vs. State of H.P. and others. 9. Upender Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 10. Ashwani Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 11. Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 12. Sheetla Devi vs. State of H.P. and others. 13. Diple Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 14. Parmesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 15. Desh Raj vs. State of H.P. and others. 16. Kusum Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others. 17. Dalip Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 18. Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 19. Naresh Kumar & others vs. State of H.P. and others. 20. Madan Mohan Verma vs. State of H.P. and others. 21. Bheema vs. State of H.P. and others. 22. Rajesh Kumar & anr. vs. State of H.P. and others. 23. Panna Lal vs. State of H.P. and others. 24. Nisha Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others. 25. Sarika Vashisht vs. State of H.P. and others. 26. Shyama Rani vs. State of H.P. and others. 27. Dharam Parkash 1 vs. State of H.P. and others. 28. Pankaj Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 29. Ram Lal Thakur vs. State of H.P. and others. 30. Vinod Singh vs. State of H.P. and others. 31. Virender Singh vs. State of H.P. and others. 2 ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : M/s N.K. Sharma, Manohar Lal Sharma, Subhash Sharma, M.C. Verma, B.S. Chauhan, Ashok Chaudhary, Neeraj K. Sharma, Adarsh Sharma, Sanjeev Bhushan, Rakesh Jaswal, Peeyush Verma, K.B. Khajuria and Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). In these cases, the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Inquiry Committee and the Deputy Commissioner(s). 2. In view of the recent instruction issued by the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 24th September, 2009, the case requires fresh consideration in the light of the said communication. The relevant portion of the communication of the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh reads as follows:- “Refer to letter No. EDN-Kha(7)3706-1 dated 3.9.2009 from the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed to this directorate and copy endorsed to you and others vide which the government has asked to move an application immediate before the chairman of the concerned enquiry committee in view of the decision of CWP No. 525/2009 titled as Ravinder Singh Vs. State and CWP No. 2632/2009 titled as Koyal Kumar Vs. State wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh while setting aside the orders of the committee has directed that Committee after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other respondents can look into the matter and decide whether the appointment of the petitioner 3 was valid or not. The committee while deciding the issue will keep into consideration of observation of the Hon’ble High Court made in CWPs. The copy of the judgment/orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2632/2009 titled as Koyal Kumar Vs. State is also being sent to all the Deputy Directors. Therefore, you are directed to comply with the directions of the Government and take action in the matter accordingly.” 3. In view of the above clarification issued by the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the Enquiry Committee to consider the matter afresh in the light of the instructions referred to above. The needful, if required, shall be done expeditiously from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment by either side. It is also made clear that in the cases of those teachers, who are working in the schools, in case they have not been paid their due wages, the same shall be paid and the State shall ensure that the required grant-in-aid is given to the Schools, as per the Rules forthwith. In case the vacancy still exists, we make it clear that it will be open to the respondents to re-engage the petitioners, subject to the outcome of the inquiry and in case, the petitioners are thus re- engaged, they shall be paid the eligible benefits during the period of service. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) November 11, 2010 Judge. (cr/pankaj)