Ravinder Kumar vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The issue raised in these writ petitions has already been considered by this Court in Nand Lal v. State of H.P. and Ors. C.W.P. No. 4976 of 2010. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:

We are afraid, the Director has not applied his mind as to availability of vacancies in the places indicated by the writ petitioner. Those places also require teachers. If regularly appointed teachers are accommodated in those schools, where there is also need for teachers, the petitioner who was appointed under the grant-in-aid scheme of PTA can continue and the State will only benefit since the salary against the petitioner is comparatively less.

There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to accommodate the 3rd respondent in any of the vacancies pointed out at Annexure P-3 of the writ petition. The needful order, as above, shall be passed within a period of two weeks and the writ petitioner shall be permitted to continue to work as PTA in the school concerned. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent.

There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to accommodate the 4th respondent in any of the vacancies pointed out at Para No. 6 in all the writ petitions. The needful order, as above, shall be passed within a period of two weeks and the writ petitioners shall be permitted to continue to work as P.T.A. in the schools concerned. The petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent.

The writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

Copy dasti, on usual terms.