LAWS(HPH)-2011-8-79

RAJENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On August 09, 2011
RAJENDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is working as Lecturer (Economics) in Education Department. He availed study leave while serving as Lecturer (Economics) in Senior Secondary School, Lalpani in 2006. The joining of the Petitioner at Government Senior Secondary School, Domehar lead to termination of the services of Respondent No. 3 Kavita Sharma, who was working as Lecturer on P.T.A. basis. She approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 8106 of 2010. The same was disposed of by this Court on 20.12.2010 with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to examine her case in the light of the judgment rendered in C.W.P. No. 6240 of 2010, titled Nitasha V/s. State of H.P. and Ors. decided on 23.11.2010 and to take appropriate action within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the Director of Education passed an order on 16th February, 2011, whereby the Petitioner was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Dharogra, District Shimla and Respondent No. 3 was allowed to rejoin and continue at Government Senior Secondary School, Domehar (Kandaghat), District Solan.Petitioner has assailed this office order dated 16th February, 2011 (Annexure P -2).

(2.) MR . Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of Respondent No. 2 to permit Respondent No. 3 to rejoin and continue at Government Senior Secondary School, Domehar (Kandaghat), District Solan is illegal, discriminatory, unjustifiable and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the person appointed on P.T.A. basis could not be given preference over and above the persons like the Petitioner, who is appointed on regular basis. He then argued that the petition filed by Respondent No. 3 bearing C.W.P. No. 8106 of 2010 was belated since her services were terminated on 18.11.2008.

(3.) MS . Archana Dutt, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has also supported the order dated 16th February, 2011. According to her, her client was relieved on 18.11.2010 and not on 18.11.2008. She then argued that the Petitioner had filed an application before the Respondent No. 2 on 20.06.2011, seeking his adjustment at Government Senior Secondary School, Bychari (Shimla).