Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1338 (HP)

Gurmail Singh v. State of HP

2011-03-16

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Solan whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the present petitioner and upheld the enquiry report of the Enquiry Committee. 2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner joined as Drawing Master in Government Middle School, Kaundi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan on 23.9.2006 pursuant to his appointment by the Parents Teachers Association (PTA) of the school. A complaint was made by one Shri Satpal to the enquiry committee constituted to go into such complaints regarding appointment of the PTA pursuant to the directions of this Court. The enquiry committee found that there was no record in the school to show how the petitioner had been appointed as Drawing Master. It came to the conclusion that no interview was held and accepted the complaint. 3. The petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan who rejected the appeal and held that no substantial evidence has been put-forth by the appellant that the appellant was appointed after following the proper procedure. 4. I have heard Mr. R. K. Gautam, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner, Sh. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 to 5, as well as Sh. Malay Kaushal learned counsel for respondent No. 8. 5. This Court has repeatedly held that even in the case of PTA appointments, a transparent process of selection must be followed. An advertisement, even if one limited to affixing on the notice board in the Panchayat Ghar and surroundings, must be issued and thereafter candidates be called for the interviews and selection on the basis of qualification be made. Even in the writ petition the petitioner has not stated that any advertisement was issued or that he applied for the post pursuant to such advertisement. It is apparent that the petitioner was appointed by the back door method and as such the petitioner cannot claim any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition is rejected. No costs.