SAPNA Vs. STATE OF H.P.& OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions are maintained by the petitioners for issuance of writ of mandamus to respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP No.9234 of 2013 and to respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP No.72 of 2013 and not to act upon order dated 05.10.2013 and to implement order dated 23.4.2012 passed by this High Court and also not to act upon order dated 30.9.2013 and to treat these notifications as nonest and the said orders be quashed and set aside and to appoint the petitioners on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher.

(2.) As both the writ petitions are assailing the same notification issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Kausali, Cantonment Board, District Solan, H.P. Therefore, these petitions are required to be disposed of together.

(3.) In CWP No.9234 of 2013, the petitioner has averred that respondent No.3 had taken the interview again for the post over which the petitioner was working for four years after due selection by respondent No.3 (Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Kasauli)and had given the job to one Ms. Ushma (petitioner in CWP No.72 of 2014), which was against the natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the judgment dated 14.7.2010, passed by this Court in CWP No.486 of 2009 directing that the contract employee can be replaced by the regular hand only and not by the other contract employee. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing No.8383 of 2011, which was decided on 23.4.2012 and this Court had directed that in future, if any post or vacancy will arise, the petitioner shall be given preference keeping in view her experience of four years in Cantonment Board Middle School, Kasauli, but now the respondents have advertised the post of T.G.T. (Arts) vide notification dated 5.10.2013 vide annexure P -10. It is further averred that the petitioner represented to the respondents with reference to order dated 23.4.2012, but the representation of the petitioner has not been decided by the respondent No.3. It has further been alleged that notification dated 5.10.2013 has been issued for the post of TGT which is reserved for OBC candidate and the other post of T.G.T.(Science) is also reserved for SC candidate. So, there are two posts advertised by the respondents for TGT, but these post have been kept reserved, which is stated to be against the reservation Policy and also against the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court regarding reservation of post or vacancy, whereas in the present case by advertising both the posts for reserved candidates by the respondent amounts to hundred percent reservation, which is totally against the law. It has been averred that there are only two posts of T.G.T. in the Cantonment Board, Middle School, Kasauli. It has been alleged that the Cantonment School follows the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the State Government. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the State Government, the posts notified by the respondents cannot be reserved at the ratio of hundred percent, as has been done in the present case. So, the interference of this Court is required in order to give justice to the petitioners.