Yogindera Kapoor vs State of H.P. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned letters contained in Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6 may kindly be set aside and quashed. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may also kindly be issued and the Respondents may kindly be directed to permit the present Petitioner to continue on the post of Assistant Professor on the basis of Annexure P-3 in Govt. College, Baijnath, District Kangra (H.P.) till 31.3.2012.

Annexure P-5 reads as under:

To

The Director of Hr. Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1

Dated Shimla-2, the May, 2011

Sub: Re-employment to Ms. Yogindera Kapoor

Sir,

I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to request you to direct the Principal, G.C. Baijnath, Distt. Kangra to review the re-employment given to Smt. Yogindera Kapoor after her retirement, as the same has not been given to her in accordance to the re employment policy. As per policy No. re-employment will be given to the teachers retiring during vacations, which fall at the end of academic session. As Ms. Yogindera Kapoor, retired at the end of academic session i.e. on 30-4-2011 followed by vacations, hence, No. re-employment should be given to her.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- Addl.Secretary(Hr. Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

Annexure P-6 is the consequential order of termination. It is not in dispute that Petitioner retired on 30.4.2011.

With the object and purpose of providing quality education to the children within the State, the Government notified policy on 23rd September 2010 (Annexure P-2) of giving re-employment to such of those teachers who retire during the middle of the academic session. It was seen that posts falling vacant during mid session could not be filled-up promptly which would adversely affect the studies of the students and functioning of the schools. Filling up of vacancies during the academic session would also result into chain of transfers amongst teachers and officers of the Education Department resulting into disruption of study which had to be prevented and thus with the avowed object government formulated the policy.

The terms of the policy are clear and unambiguous. Person attaining the age of superannuation in the middle of the academic session in the school is required to be re-employed till the end of the academic session, defined to commence from 1st April up to 31st March. However policy carves out certain exceptions. No. re-employment is to be given to a teacher who retires during vacations falling at the end of the academic session. Re-employment is also not to be given to teachers who retire on the last day of the academic session.

In the instant case Petitioner retired on the last day of the session of the school which was preceding the date followed by vacations in the school. The word ''academic session'' is to read and construed harmoniously in the back drop of the purpose and object sought to be achieved under the Policy. To check disruption of studies and not give re-employment is the object of the Scheme. During vacations studies are not disrupted and government has enough time to make alternate arrangements of postings/transfers. Where the last day of the school is followed by vacation, No. re-employment is to be given to an employee. Thus, No. fault can be found with the action of the Respondents and the impugned orders (Annexure P-5) and (Annexure P-6) cannot be said to be illegal/ arbitrary in any manner.

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.