Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 555 (HP)

TRIPTA DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-06-18

R.B.MISRA, SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. 1. BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks mainly issuance of the following reliefs : "(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner as Language Teacher in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Gahlian, District Kangra, H.P. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to release all benefits available to the petitioner under the grant-in-aid admissible to PTA Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? appointee in the State of H.P. with arrears and interest @ 15% till the actual date of realization, with all other consequential benefits". 2. THE claim of the petitioner is that she was having all requisite qualification to be appointed as Language Teacher in pursuance to applications invited by the 4th respondent to make the appointment against the post of O.T. The interviews were conducted on 5.10.2007. Out of 14 candidates, who had appeared in the interview, the petitioner being brilliant, was at the top of selection-list securing 50.83 marks, as indicated in the evaluation-sheet Annexure P-1. Accordingly, she was to be given appointment, but because of the enforcement of the model code of conduct (Vidhan Sabha Election) in the year 2007 her appointment could not be made but she continued to serve in the school at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. She taught Hindi and Sanskrit to the students of 6th to 10th standard. According to her, she was appointed on PTA basis since November, 2007. The petitioner rendered her services as Language Teacher, as is evident from her experience certificates Annexures P-2 and P-3 attached by her with the petition, but she was terminated and a regular appointment was made. It is also her case that the 4th respondent refused to consider her appointment under the PTA policy. Though, she kept on representing against her termination, but nothing was explained to her satisfactorily. Though later she got information Annexure P-4 under the RTI that one post of L.T. was lying vacant, yet the petitioner was wrongly terminated. She had also taken up the matter with the 4th and 5th respondent to release her benefits of grant-in-aid, which were available under the PTA Scheme, but to her utter surprise her services were terminated. Though later she got information Annexure P-4 under the RTI that one post of L.T. was lying vacant, yet the petitioner was wrongly terminated. She had also taken up the matter with the 4th and 5th respondent to release her benefits of grant-in-aid, which were available under the PTA Scheme, but to her utter surprise her services were terminated. In their reply, respondents No.1 to 4 stated that though the interviews were conducted by 4th and 5th respondents on 5.10.2007 for the post of O.T. and not on 5.10.1997. Further, on the basis of the interview dated 5.10.2007 no appointments were ever offered as the result was neither approved by the then PTA Committee nor the same was declared due to imposition of model code of conduct in view of Assembly Elections, 2007. The interview was treated as null and void in view of the ban on such appointments and to this effect there is also a note appended to Annexure P-1, on which the petitioner has heavily relied. 3. IT is contended that the petitioner was permitted verbally by PTA Committee to teach Hindi and Sanskrit, but however, her appointment was not made on the basis of interview and no appointment letter was ever issued to her by the PTA Committee/Principal of GSSS, Gahlian, District Kangra. But, the petitioner was engaged vide Resolution No.31 dated 5.5.2008 much after the conduction of the interview on monthly honorarium of Rs.1500/- to teach the subjects of Hindi and Sanskrit as aforesaid by the PTA Committee. Further, that Annexure P-3, experience certificate shows that the petitioner was not working in the Institution in the year 2007. Later the petitioner was rightly removed on joining of the regular teacher. It is admitted that one post of O.T. is lying vacant, but keeping in view the low strength of students and also being single class section, the services of another O.T. were not required in the Institution, hence her re-engagement as O.T. does not arise, as already explained in Annexure P-4. Since the petitioner was not engaged as per PTA policy of 2006, she was not entitled to grant-in-aid, as claimed by her. 4. IN rejoinder, the petitioner submitted that her experience certificates attached with the petition are self-explanatory and the State may not be allowed to appoint persons verbally. Since the petitioner was not engaged as per PTA policy of 2006, she was not entitled to grant-in-aid, as claimed by her. 4. IN rejoinder, the petitioner submitted that her experience certificates attached with the petition are self-explanatory and the State may not be allowed to appoint persons verbally. Though, she was top in the list, but it was not implemented due to imposition of election code of conduct but thereafter the appointments could have been made in pursuance of the interviews held prior to imposing of code of conduct. However, the grand-in-aid rules were to be implemented by the Principal and further there existed one post and she was required to be re- engaged against it. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully and gone through the rival contentions. 5. THE main base of the petitioner seeking appointment is Annexure P-1, which was only an assessment-sheet of the marks obtained in the interview, but due to Vidhan Sabha election in November 2007 and implementation of the model code of conduct, neither the result was declared/ approved by the PTA Committee nor appointment could be offered on the basis of said interview. Later, vide H.P. Govt. Notification No.EDN-A Kha (7)-3/2006 dated 3.1.2008, PTA appointments under the PTA Policy were stopped, hence the interview already conducted became null and void, as per note appended by respondent-Principal on Annexure P-1. 6. ANNEXURE P-4 is an information received by the petitioner under the R.T.I. It reveals that in the year 2007, the petitioner was not working against any post in the said Institution, but however, the then PTA Committee vide resolution No.31, item No.6 verbally told the petitioner to render her services @ Rs.1500/- per month to be paid from the PTA fund, but no such appointment letter was ever issued to her. This was a verbal understanding between the PTA Committee and the petitioner. The petitioner after the regular appointment of the incumbent was out of job/ post. Though there were two posts of O.T. one was filled in by the regular engagement and another was not filled up because of less numbers of students and also the fact that there was only one section, another O.T. was not required. The petitioner after the regular appointment of the incumbent was out of job/ post. Though there were two posts of O.T. one was filled in by the regular engagement and another was not filled up because of less numbers of students and also the fact that there was only one section, another O.T. was not required. It was also informed that she was not appointed by the said Institution under the PTA Policy/rules, therefore, the Institution did not take up the matter with the State Government for the release of grant-in-aid. As a matter of fact, the selection to the PTA under the Policy of the Government was to be done strictly in accordance with the rules/Policy framed for the said purpose. Clarification Annexure P-5 dated 19.8.2006 issued by the State Government to all the Principals Govt. Degree Colleges/ Deputy Directors of Education in Himachal Pradesh reveals that there should be minimum enrolment of 15 students in a class/subject, while accepting a teacher provided by the PTA. Since the Principal has a pre-eminent role in the implementation of the Scheme, he is required to distance himself from the selection of candidates by the PTA, rather he should advise the PTA to constitute a selection committee comprising of the President, PTA, Secretary PTA, Subject Specialist/expert. It also provides that the appointment letter should be issued by the PTA. The PTA should then write to the Principal making available the teacher with full details. 7. IN the instant case, no such procedure was ever followed nor the petitioner was appointed under the PTA Policy/rules, therefore, the reliefs sought cannot be granted to her. As such, the petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.