IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11921 of 2008 alongwith CWP(T) Nos. 11922,11923, 11951, 11953 12101, 12102 and 16708 of 2008. Decided on: 21.9.2011. 1. CWP(T) No. 11921 of 2008 Raj Kumar .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. 2. CWP(T) No. 11922 of 2008 Devender Kumar .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. 3. CWP(T) No. 11923 of 2008 Kiran Kumari .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. 4. CWP(T) No. 11951 of 2008 Nirmala Devi .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. 5. CWP(T) No. 11953 of 2008 Raj Kumar .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. 6. CWP(T) No. 12101 of 2008 Ram Kumar .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. 2 7. CWP(T) No. 12102 of 2008 Man Singh .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. 8. CWP(T) No. 16708 of 2008 Nihal Chand .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Negi, Advocate vice S/Sh. Vivek Thakur & B.C. Negi, Advocates. (In all the cases) For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. Advocate General. (in all the cases) V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all the above titled petitions, these are taken up together for disposal. However, facts of CWP(T) No. 16708 of 2008, Nihal Chand Vs. State of HP and others, are being noticed as the same are identical to the facts of other cases. 2. The petition(s) has been filed on the following identical prayers, vide para(s) 7 (i) and (ii):- “(i) That the action of the respondents to put/absorb the applicant under Prathmic Sahayak Adhyapak Yojna (Primary Assistant Teacher Scheme) and not to treat the applicant as JBT contract teacher may be held void ab-initio and the applicant may be held in continuous service of the respondents as JBT contract teacher for all intents and purposes with all consequential benefits. (ii) That condition of terminating the applicant on the end every academic session till the filling up the same according to the R & P 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 3 Rules for the said post may kindly be quashed and the termination of the applicant on 31st December may be held wrong, illegal and arbitrary and may be quashed and set aside.” 3. In reply(s), the respondents have taken the following stand, vide para(s) 3:- “3. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the respondent No.4 Resident Commissioner Pangi at Killar in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003 has appointed the applicant as JBT teacher on contract basis in Pangi valley at his own level without permission of competent authority to engage the applicant on contract basis. As per State policy after 2000, no contract teachers were being appointed even if the posts were lying vacant without the prior approval of the Govt. The fact of engaging/appointing the applicant on contract basis came into the notice of the replying respondent as well as the State Govt. at the time when information was called from all over the State regarding regularization of service of Contract teacher during the year 2003. When the fact regarding the engagement of applicant on contract basis by the respondent No.4 without the prior approval of the Govt. was referred to the Govt. for clarification as to whether the services of the applicant engaged on contract basis by the respondent No.4 without the prior approval of the Govt. should be continued or dispensed with, the Govt. vide letter dated 22nd March, 2005 informed that the contract teachers who were appointed on contract basis without the prior approval of the Govt. may be dispensed with and in case they are found otherwise eligible they could be adjusted against the post of Primary Assistant Teacher to be appointed under the scheme of Primary Assistant Teachers. The copy of the letter of the Govt. dated 22nd March 2005 is annexed as Annexure R-1. It is further stated that after the year 2000, no contract teacher were engaged even if the posts were lying vacant because the policy of the contract appointment has been discontinued and the Vidya Upasak Yojana 2003 was introduced by the Govt. and after the introduction of Vidya Upasak Yojana the same was repealed by the Govt. and Prathmik Shayak Yojana was introduced. It is further submitted that as per the information received from the respondent No.4 i.e. Resident Commissioner Pangi which was valid upto 31.12.2005 has been amended up to 31.5.2005 instead of 31.12.2005 as per the direction of the Govt. Therefore, in view of these facts the applicant claim to allow him to continue on contract basis is not tenable and his contract has rightly been amended up to 31.5.2005 instead of 31.12.2005 as per the direction of the Govt. which was conveyed to the respondent No.4 by the replying respondent. It is further stated that as per the decision of the Govt. the appointment of the applicant alongwith others will be considered against the post of Primary Assistant Teachers as and when filled up. Hence the present OA deserves to be dismissed.” 4. On 3.3.2011, the following order was passed by this Court in this matter:- “In CWP(T) No. 16708 of 2008 (Nihal Singh versus State of H.P. and others) the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit to which reply has not been filed. Let the matter be examined by the respondent No.1 (Principal Secretary (Education) Government of Himachal Pradesh) himself. After examining the matter and verifying the claims of the petitioner(s) he shall take appropriate action and file his personal affidavit before this Court. List on 31st March, 2011.” 4 5. Thereafter on 31.3.2011, it was further ordered by this Court as under:- “Affidavit dated 28.3.2011 filed by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh specifically does not deal with the averments made by the petitioner in their affidavit dated 2.1.2011. Order dat5e3d 3.3.2011 has not been complied with in letter and spirit. On the oral request of Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned Dy. Advocate General three weeks time is granted to do the needful. List on 28th April, 2011.” 6. In compliance of the above orders dated 3.3.2011 and 31.3.2011, the requisite supplementary affidavit dated 30.6.2011 has been filed by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein it has been stated as under:- “3.That the State has imposed complete ban on filling up of vacant posts by direct recruitment or by any mode including contract, Adhoc, daily wage, part time but for the prior concurrence of Finance Department and Cabinet. Resident Commissioner, Pangi is the Head of Department for all Departments located at Pangi under single line Administration for maintaining efficiency in tribal area. But RC, Pangi has no power to fill up vacant posts in Pangi area. This power vest only with the State Government. 4. That in order to ensure economy effectively and to reduce the unproductive expenditure, it has been decided by State that all fresh recruitments within Government for functional department will require prior concurrence of FD, and approval of the Cabinet is mandatory. 5. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioners have been appointed without the permission of State Government. As per contract policy after year 2000, no contract teacher was appointed even if the posts were lying vacant without the prior approval of the Government. 6. That the fact of engaging/appointing the petitioners on contract basis came into notice of the State Government at the time when information was called from all over the State regarding regularization of service of contract teachers during year 2003. 7. That when the fact regarding engagement of petitioners on contract basis without prior approval was received in Department for Government for clarification as to whether the services of the petitioners engaged on contract basis without prior approval of the Government should be continued or dispensed with, the Government vide letter No. EDN-C-B(2)-4/2003-loose, dated 2.3.2005 decided that contract teachers who were appointed on contract basis without the prior approval of the Government may be dispensed with and in case they are found otherwise eligible they could be adjusted against the posts of Primary Assistant Teachers to be appointed under the scheme of PAT.” 7. In view of the above reply read with the supplementary affidavit dated 30.6.2011 as above, all these petitions are disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner(s) making detailed representation, supported by 5 documents, if any, alongwith copy of this judgment, individually or collectively, to respondent No.1 within one month from today, the same shall be considered and a final decision taken in the matter at par with other similarly situate persons, if any, in accordance with law within further three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner(s)/their authorized representative, if so desired. While deciding the representation(s), respondent No.1 shall also take into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner(s) as contract JBT teacher(s). 8. The petition(s) as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma), Judge. 21st September, 2011 (Krn Guleria)