HC stays termination of guest teachers’ services

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 30

In a major reprieve to guest teachers working in the state, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the termination of their services. The Bench has also put the state on notice for October.

The order by Sudhir Mittal came on a petition filed against the State of Haryana and other respondents by Kusum and other guest teachers through senior advocate Puneet Bali and Vibhav Jain.

Appearing before the Bench, Bali contended that the petitioners were amongst the 193 guests teachers whose services were initially terminated vide order dated January 1, 2015. But the Supreme Court, vide its order dated July 11, 2016, stayed the operation of the orders passed by the High Court. As a result, all guest teachers had to be taken back in service.

In the meanwhile, the petitioners, unqualified at the time of their appointment as guest teachers, acquired requisite qualifications or subject combination. Taking a note of the developments, a Division Bench of the HC held in May 2016, that such subsequent qualifications were required to be considered, even though the services of the guest teachers were to be replaced by regular employees.

Bali added the petitioners, as such, were entitled to remain in service at least till the time of their consideration for filling up the posts by regular employees. He added the impugned order dated May 16 this year was unsustainable as there was no justification for terminating the services of the petitioners during the currency of the Supreme Court order as well as High Court directions issued in May 2016.

After hearing the submissions, Justice Mittal stayed the operation of the impugned order. No less than 4,073 guest teachers were earlier shown the door. A Bench hearing the matter had asserted that guest teachers were appointed since 2005-06, but their services were not dispensed with even after appointment of regular teachers. Even those guest teachers, whose services were dispensed with, were re-engaged even after two to four months of their removal.

The Bench had added: “It is established that the state circumvented the order passed by this court either by not making the regular appointments and allowing the guest teachers to continue or despite making large number of appointments, adjusted the guest teachers against other vacancies. All the vacancies in any other cadre are never filled up…. The connivance of the appellants and the state as even observed by this court earlier is well established beyond doubt. This court cannot be a party to their design”.

from The Tribune https://ift.tt/2J02Fcr