Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1012 (HP)

DES RAJ v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-12-10

RAJIV SHARMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. BOTH the petitions are being taken up together, as common questions of law are involved. 2. IN these petitions, petitioners have prayed mainly for the following reliefs: 1. That the respondents may be directed to release the "Grant in Aid" admissible to the petitioner from April 2011 to onward for which he has worked and continue it. 2. That the impugned letter of dated 23-06-2011 (annexure P-2) passed by the respondent no.3 may very kindly be quashed and respondents may be directed to give relaxation to the petitioner as per the judgment annexed herewith as annexure P-3 of the petition. It is not in dispute that petitioner Shri Des Raj (in CWP No.6459/2013) was engaged against the post of a Lecturer (Sanskrit) and petitioner Shri Hukam Singh (in CWP No.6867/2013) was engaged against the post of a Lecturer (History) by the Parents Teachers Association (PTA) of Government Secondary Schools, Sriwas (District Shimla) and Paban (District Shimla) on 7.6.2005 and 21.7.2005, respectively, in terms of provision 2.33.17 of the H.P. Education Code, 2001. 3. IN terms of the said provisions, as a temporary measure, an arrangement could have been made for appointment of a teacher, wherever there was shortage of staff. On 29.6.2006, the State Government notified Rules, commonly known as "Grant in Aid to the Parent Teachers Association Rules 2006", in terms whereof grant-in-aid could be paid to teachers appointed by the PTA. However, one of the essential conditions of eligibility was fulfillment of educational qualification so prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 4. NOTICEABLY, different educational qualifications were prescribed, depending upon the subject and the level of classes, which such teachers were required to teach. The State Government, in the year 2007, notified Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2007, with regard to contract Lecturers (School Cadre). These Rules were made applicable to all teachers. Such Rules required teachers already employed to acquire essential qualification of B.Ed. on or before 31.12.2010. 5. SIGNIFICANTLY, the requisite educational qualification, qualification is only to enhance the standard of teachers and the quality of education to be imparted to children studying in various schools. Standard of teaching is now governed under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which is to be strictly complied with by all the duty holders. 6. Standard of teaching is now governed under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which is to be strictly complied with by all the duty holders. 6. SINCE the petitioners, undisputedly, have not acquired the essential qualification prescribed under the Rules, despite sufficient time afforded to them, no fault can be found with the impugned order, stopping the grant-in-aid of all the teachers engaged under the "Grant in Aid to the Parent Teachers Association Rules 2006". Our attention is invited to the decision, dated 12.12.2012, rendered by this Court in CWP No.8858 of 2012, titled as Ramesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, and other connected matters, operative portion of which reads as under: "In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board to interview the petitioners also and subject to their merit, take further action to forward their names to the State. Needless to say that in case the candidates, who have been selected by the Board, a rider will be added to the effect that they will have to pass the B.Ed. within three years." 7. THE decision, to say the least, does not advance the case of the petitioners at all. The Court was dealing with the petitioners, who had appeared for regular appointment and their candidature was rejected only for the reason that they had not acquired a B.Ed. degree in Commerce stream. Court allowed the candidates to appear, subject to their acquiring the degree within a period of three years, for the reason that in Commerce stream, Himachal Pradesh University had started the B.Ed. course, without imposing the restriction of age, only from the academic year 2012-13, which is not the case in hand. Hence, the petitions, devoid of merit, are dismissed. With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also pending application(s), if. Writ petitions stand disposed of.