YASH PAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have claimed the following substantive relief:

(2.) THE petitioners claim themselves to be the qualified teachers in their respective disciplines and were offered the job of Drawing Master and Physical Education Teacher as per their qualification under the Parent Teacher Association Policy of the State. After having undergone the interview before a duly constituted Committee, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Drawing Master in October, 2007 while the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in October, 2007. It is averred that they were discharging their duties diligently and honestly but later on some complaints were filed against thousands of teachers appointed on PTA basis and this Court had directed the respondents to conduct inquiry. The inquiry was conducted under the Chairmanship of SDM, Nahan, who vide his inquiry report Annexure P -1 found no illegality or irregularity in the appointments of the petitioners and concluded that these appointments were made in accordance with the policy framed by the Government and in tune with the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 2632 of 2008 decided on 28.7.2009 titled Koyal Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others.

(3.) THE respondents have filed the reply and the only ground to oppose the claim of the petitioners has been set out in para -8 of the reply, which reads as under: