SUDARSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were respondents in C. W. P. No. 376 of 1992 titled Satya Vati v. State and others Their appointment was challenged by the 5th respondent in that petition That petition also related to appointment of volunteer teachers in the school in question. Since the fact with regard to the marks given in the interview in the earlier writ petition appeared to be patently wrong and consequent thereupon the then learned Advocate General gave an assurance to this Court that the respondents, that is, the State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and other connected with the said department, will review the selection within six weeks since the defect with regard to the marks given in the interview appears to be patent. Thus the earlier writ petition stood disposed of in view of the said statement,

(2.) The instant writ petition is the out come of the review regarding the selection of volunteer teachers whereby the petitioners were not found meritorious in comparison to respondents No. 5 and 6 and consequently the services of the petitioners stood terminated vide orders dated 24 -3 -1993 Annexures V and T respectively, issued by the incharge Head -teacher, Government Primary School, Twar, Nirmand Block, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. In this writ petition the petitioners have sought the quashing of the aforesaid orders (Annexures T and T both dated 24 -3 -1993). In addition, the petitioners have also sought the quashing of the action of respondents No. J to 4 in reviewing the selection on the basis of allegedly different rules than the one applicable at the earlier selection and consequently appointing respondents No. 5 and 6,

(3.) Two vacancies of volunteer teachers under the Volunteer Teachers Scheme, 1991 fell vacant in Government Primary School, Twar located ai Renu. A selection committee consisting of three members but presided over by the 3rd respondent was constituted Interviews were held with effect from 17 -8 -1991 to 20 -8 -1991. Both the petitioners were selected. However, as stated above, their selection was challenged by respondent No. 5 in C.W.P. No. 376 of 1992 which was disposed of subject to respondents No. 1 to 3 reviewing the selection. Resultantly, the petitioners continued to be volunteer teachers in the aforesaid school. On reviewing the selection, respondents No. 5 and 6 were found comparatively more meritorious than the petitioners and the latter were released on 24 -3 -1993. Now petitioners have assailed the new selection. The grounds of challenge are s (1) that the composition of the review committee was bad inasmuch as it consisted of different members than the earlier selection committee ; (2) that the action of respondents No. 1 to 4 in releasing the petitioners is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as different criteria for selection of volunteer teachers has been applied than what was intended to be followed by the review committee; (3) that the termination of the services of the petitioners was contrary to the scheme inasmuch as thereunder the services should only be terminated by the appointing authority by giving a one months notice or one months wages in lieu of the notice and this procedure was not followed by respondents No. 1 to 4; (4) that the appointment of the petitioners under the scheme was for a period of two years and they having not been allowed to complete the tenure of their appointment, could not be released in the above said facts and circumstances.