Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 605 (HP)

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-05-26

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. “(i) That the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to release the due and admissible Grant-in-aid as per the Govt. Policy to the petitioner from 31..03.2007 to till date. (ii) That any other order which may deem fit be passed in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that a resolution was passed for the appointment of Physical Education teacher on PTA basis by respondent No. 4 on 27.10.2006 (Annexure P-1), pursuant to which, a public notice was issued by respondent No. 4 (Annexure P-2) inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the said post. The last date mentioned in the said public notice vide which applications were to be submitted by interested candidates was 03.11.2006. It is further the case of the petitioner that 13 candidates responded to the said public notice, who were duly interviewed by the Parents Teacher Committee on 13.11.2006 and the present petitioner was found to be most meritorious as per the result of the interviews so held (Annexure P-3) and thereafter, the petitioner was offered appointment as P.E.T. by respondent No. 4 on PTA basis and he joined as such on 14.11.2006. According to the petitioner, he is continuing as such till date. It is further the case of the petitioner that initially grant-in-aid was released in his favour by the respondent-State from 14.11.2006 to 30.03.2007, however, thereafter the same was abruptly stopped without any cause or reason. As per the petitioner, he took up his case by way of representations with the respondents, who vide communication dated 12.10.2010, informed him that grant-in-aid was discontinued as far as the petitioner is concerned for the reason that he was appointed on PTA basis after 06.11.2006 i.e. the date fixed by the government where after appointments on PTA basis were discontinued. It is the case of the petitioner that the said act of respondents-State of not allowing grant-in-aid in his favour after 30.03.2007 onwards, on the pretext that his appointment was post 06.11.2006, is not sustainable in the eyes of law because there is a clarification issued by Director of Elementary Education, Shimla to Dy. It is the case of the petitioner that the said act of respondents-State of not allowing grant-in-aid in his favour after 30.03.2007 onwards, on the pretext that his appointment was post 06.11.2006, is not sustainable in the eyes of law because there is a clarification issued by Director of Elementary Education, Shimla to Dy. Director of Elementary Education, District Kangra, dated 02.04.2007, in which it is clearly mentioned that in case, process for selection of PTA teacher was started prior to 06.11.2006, then the teachers who are appointed pursuant to that process on PTA basis could be considered for release of grant-in-aid. On these bases, it has been prayed by the petitioner that the respondents may be directed to release grant-in-aid in his favour as per the government policy from 31.03.2007 onwards. 3. By way of their reply, respondents have opposed the prayer so made by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was engaged during the period when ban had been imposed on PTA appointments and thus grant-in-aid was rightly stopped by the respondents. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondents-State also demonstrates that though it stands admitted in the said reply that the petitioner stood appointed on PTA basis at GHS Boh, District Kangra after following the due process i.e. after the post was advertised, interviews were conducted and the most meritorious candidate was selected, however, the fact still remains that his selection was made when ban on PTA appointments was imposed. This is the only ground on which the respondents-State has defended its stand of stopping grant-in-aid to the petitioner. Para 6 of the reply filed to petition by respondents No. 1 to 4 is quoted here-in-below. “That in reply to the contents of this para it is submitted that although the petitioner has been engaged by the PTA Committee of GHS Boh, District Kangra after following the proper process i.e. advertising the post, conducting the interview and selecting the meritorious candidate etc. but the petitioner was engaged during the period when ban has been imposed on the PTA appointments, his grant in aid has rightly been stopped by the respondent No. 4. However, the petitioner is being paid out of PTA fund @ Rs. 3500/- per month by the SMC/PTA Committee.” 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused their respective pleadings. However, the petitioner is being paid out of PTA fund @ Rs. 3500/- per month by the SMC/PTA Committee.” 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused their respective pleadings. In my considered view, the act of the respondents-State of denying release of grant-in-aid as per the government policy to the petitioner from 31.03.2007 is totally unjustifiable in the eyes of law. It is not in dispute that petitioner came to be appointed as P.E.T. on PTA basis on 14.11.2006 and he joined his duties as such from 15.11.2006. However, it is also an undisputed fact that process on the basis of which, the appointment was so offered to the petitioner on 14.11.2006 stood initiated vide resolution passed by respondent No. 4 on 27.10.2006. It is also a matter of record that public notice was issued by respondent No. 4 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of P.E.T. on PTA basis much before 06.11.2006. The cut of date or the last date for submissions of application was also 03.11.2006. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the fact that there is a clarification issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Shimla (respondent No. 2) to Dy. Director of Elementary Education, District Kangra (respondent No. 3), dated 02.04.2007, which is appended by the petitioner alongwith the petition as Annexure P-7, the operative part of which reads as under. “With reference to your letter No. EDN-KNG-A-PTA..GIA/2006 dated 14th March, 2007 received through FAX on 21.3.2007 on the subject cited above. In this connection it is informed that is the process for the selection of PTA teacher was started prior to 6/11/2006, teachers provided by the PTA can considered for the grant in aid keeping in view the guidelines issued vide this office letter even number dated 20th February 2007.” 5. In my considered view, in view of above clarification which itself stands issued by the Directorate of Elementary Education, Shimla to Dy. Director of Elementary Education, District Kangra, the act of respondent-State of not releasing grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner on the ground that his appointment was post 6.11.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In my considered view, in view of above clarification which itself stands issued by the Directorate of Elementary Education, Shimla to Dy. Director of Elementary Education, District Kangra, the act of respondent-State of not releasing grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner on the ground that his appointment was post 6.11.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. When respondent-State has itself issued a clarification that teachers appointed on PTA basis, whose process of selection stood initiated prior to 6.11.2006, could be considered for grant-in-aid keeping in view the guidelines issued vide office letter dated 20th February, 2007, the non release of grant-in-aid in favour of present petitioner cannot be justified on any count. Even otherwise, it is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor otherwise evident from the documents placed on record by the respondents that when respondent No. 4 or the petitioner came to know that there shall be a ban on appointments of teachers on PTA basis, the entire exercise of selection for the post of PET teacher in the respondent No. 4-school was made in haste and the appointment of the petitioner was a result of said exercise which was undertaken in haste. 6. In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner as per the government policy w.e.f. 31.03.2007 till date forthwith with further direction to continue to pay such grant-in-aid as per government policy in favour of petitioner in future also. Respondent-State shall also be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount which is due to the petitioner as grant-in-aid w.e.f. 31.03.2007 till date. 7. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.