ASHOK KUMAR PATIL Vs. STATE OF H.P,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, the facts of CWP No. 7447 of 2010-H have been taken into consideration.

(2.) Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the petitioners ought to have been offered regular appointment instead of contractual basis. According to him, the decision to appoint the teachers on contract basis has been taken for the first time only in view of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 26th October, 2009 (Annexure P-5). In other words, his submission is that the case of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? petitioner was required to be considered as per the old recruitment and promotion Rules called The Himachal Pradesh, Education department Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre), Service Rules, 1973. He further argued that similarly, the names of the petitioners in all other petitions were also sponsored and they have been issued appointments on contractual basis.

(3.) Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has justified the appointments of petitioners on contractual basis.