AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.—We have heard all these matters together as the same involve similar issues. The leading appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 14th July, 2010, in CWP No. 486 of 2009. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and issued following directions:
In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is allowed and respondent No. 2 is directed to continue with the services of the petitioners, until teachers on regular basis, that is to say not on contract basis, are appointed in their place. This order, however, does not mean that the petitioners cannot be removed or they will be entitled for renewal of contract, even if they commit any act of misconduct or their performance is not satisfactory.
Counsel for the Union of India points out that the Department in respect of the School at Kasauli has since decided to create five regular posts, which will have to be filled up in accordance with law.
In view of this statement, nothing more requires to be done in the leading appeal, except to observe that the appellant would be free to proceed with the selection process for filling up the newly created regular posts in Kasuali School. So long as the selection process is not completed and appointment orders issued to fill up the regular posts, the appellant would be bound by the direction contained in the impugned decision extracted hitherto.
On this basis, the appeal is disposed of.
As regards the companion writ petitions, the same pertain to Schools other than Kasauli School. The grievance of the petitioner is identical to that of the contract teachers, who were petitioners in CWP No. 486 of 2009. Therefore, we are inclined to dispose of these writ petitions on the same terms as directed by the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 14th July, 2010, in particular, para 5 thereof.
Counsel for the petitioners would submit that even in respect of the Schools referred to in the respective writ petitions, the department must create regular posts and make appointment after following selection process in accordance with law. That is a matter to be considered by the department.
We are not examining the correctness of the submission made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that insofar as Schools referred to in the writ petitions, the possibility of creating regular posts may be impractical and perhaps not possible. As aforesaid, it is for the department to take a call on that issue, but so long as the said Schools continue to appoint teachers on contract basis, the direction contained in the order, dated 14th July, 2010, in CWP No. 486 of 2009, will squarely apply even to these cases.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the contract executed between the parties, while filling up the regular vacancies, the petitioners, who have been appointed on contract basis, can also be considered, subject to eligibility. It is not necessary to dilate on this aspect any further having observed in the earlier part of this judgment that the regular posts to be created in the stated Schools, if any, will have to be filled in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.