ARORA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, by this contempt petition, has prayed that the respondent-contemners may be punished for flouting the order passed by this Court as inspite of the judgment passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner, he has been removed from service though the vacancies were available.
(2.) THE petitioner is an untrained teacher. He was given appointment by the Panchayat Samiti. After serving for sometime, his services were terminated and he filed the writ petition challenging the termination of his services. THE High Court, vide judgment dated 22. 8. 88 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in terms of the judgment given in Chanda Tamboli and Ors. vs. Panchayat Samiti, Mandal and Ors. (1 ). A further direction was given that looking to the large number of the teachers involved all over the State of Rajasthan it will be just and fair to determine the vacancies within six months from the date of the judgment and fill up the vacancies in accordance with the law. On the basis of this judgment, the petitioner continued in service upto 10-1-93 and thereafter his services were terminated. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though there was an order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner may not be terminated till vacancies are available but the services of the petitioner have been terminated and the directions issued by this Court have been flouted. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that the case of Chanda Tamboli came-up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramsukh and Ors. vs. Aprashikshit Adhyapak Sangh and Anr. (2) and after considering Chandra Tamboli's case and the other cases of Raj. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the primary school teachers are of most importance in developing the child's personality. It is not just enough to teach the child the alphabets and figures but much more is required to understand child's psychology and aptitude. They need a different approach. Only trained teachers could teach them properly. The untrained teachers cannot be a substitute to trained teachers. " The Special Leave Petition filed by Ramsukh and Ors, who were the untrained teachers, was, therefore, dismissed. Though the Court was sympathetic towards the petitioners, who were out of the job but by observing that the Court cannot forget the welfare of Ors. who are not before the Court, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The petitioner is not a trained teacher. His services were terminated as he had no training to his credit. After considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in which the decision in Chanda Tamboli's case was considered, the petitioner was not allowed to continue as his writ petition was allowed in terms of Chanda Tamboli's case. When the reasons given in Chanda Tamboli's case were not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the services of the petitioner were terminated as he is an untrained teacher, no order, passed by this Court, has been flouted by the respondents. It will not be out of place to mention here that against his termination order the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide Annexure R. l. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no order, passed by this Court, has been flouted by the respondents and the respondents have not committed any contempt of this Court. The contempt petition, filed by the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. In the result, we do not find any merit in this contempt petition and the same is hereby dismissed. . ;