Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 469 (HP)

Rajeshwari Devi v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-26

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —This judgment shall disposed of both the writ petitions filed with the following prayers:- "(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefits of PTA Grant in Aid rules 2006 to the petitioners without any discrimination, from the date of initial appointment and further be directed to reengage them with continuity in service as the post is still lying vacant. (ii) That the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioners at par with similarly situated persons with all consequential benefits and take a decision in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP 2549/2015 titled Hem Raj Sharma Vs. State of HP and CWP 2638/2015 titled Devi Saran Vs. State of HP (Annexure P-7) " 2. The petitioner in CWP No. 2259 of 2017, Rajeshwari Devi was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 29.6.2009 by PTA, Government Senior Secondary School, Pressi, P.O. Pressi, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., whereas petitioner Roshan Lal in CWP No. 2316 of 2017 was appointed as Drawing Master again by PTA of Government Middle School Neri, Post Office Daghri, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. on 17.12.2009. These facts are not in any controversy. 3. The only grouse of the respondents-State, as highlighted in its reply against their appointments against PTA basis is that they were not qualified for being appointed as Physical Education Teacher and Drawing Master, respectively at the relevant time. The record i.e. certificates Annexures P-9 and P-10 in the case of Smt.Rajeshwari and Annexure P-9 in the connected writ petition filed by Roshan Lal, to the rejoinder, reveal that said Smt.Rajeshwari Devi has passed one year course in Physical Education Training Instructor from Sarswati VTC, Karsog, District Mandi, whereas Roshan Lal from Kashyap VTC, Bangroo Road Pungh Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in the months of OctoberNovember, 2008 and November, 2009, respectively, meaning thereby that on the date when they appeared in the interview and were appointed as Physical Education Teacher and Drawing Master on PTA basis, had already appeared in the examination. The petitioner Smt. Rajeshwari Devi even had passed out one year course in Physical Education Training also by the time she was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on PTA basis. 4. The petitioner Smt. Rajeshwari Devi even had passed out one year course in Physical Education Training also by the time she was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on PTA basis. 4. The law on the point is no more resintegra as a Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2719 of 2015, titled Surjit Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others, while deciding similar issue and taking into consideration the decision of Government taken subsequently whereby the PTA teachers were even granted time to acquire requisite qualification, even as in service candidate, along with the release of grant in aid in their favour, held that the disengagement of the petitioner Surjit Singh therein is illegal and consequently directed the respondent-State to allow him to continue as PTA teacher and also to release the grant in aid in his favour. 5. The issue raised by respondents-State that petitioner(s) were engaged by PTA itself and were to be paid out of its own funds, was considered again by a Division Bench of this court in judgment Annexure P-7 (colly) in Rajeshwari Devi''s case, whereas Annexure P-6 (Colly) in the connected writ petition. Therefore, on this score also, the petitioner(s) cannot be discriminated against similarly situated persons. 6. Therefore, we dispose of both the writ a petitions with a direction to 2nd respondent to consider the matter qua release of grant in aid in favour of the petitioners in the light of observations hereinabove and the law laid down in the judgments citedwithin four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with that of judgments referred to herein by the petitioner(s) before the said respondent within two weeks. It has been brought to our notice that both petitioners have been removed from the service. In the light of the observations made herein above, there shall be a direction to the respondents-State to reengage them forthwith at the stations where they both were initially appointed as PTA, as the post of Physical Education Teacher and Drawing Master are lying vacant. 7. The petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations along with pending application(s) , if any.