Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 996 (HP)

Ranjana Devi v. State of H. P.

2018-05-26

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to release of grant-in-aid to the petitioner w.e.f. 19.5.2008 till date under Grant-in-Aid PTA Rules, 2006 (herein after referred to as GIA Rules), for her services as PTA Lecturer (Hindi) in Government Senior Secondary School, Mandal, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Petitioner has placed on record certificate of passing MA (Hindi) and B.Ed. on 21.10.2003 and 23.9.2008, respectively to establish that she is possessing academic qualification prescribed for the post as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 3. Petition is contested by respondents-State by filing reply wherein appointment of petitioner as Lecturer (Hindi) on PTA basis in the concerned school w.e.f. 19.5.2008 has not been disputed, rather has been admitted. However, it is contended that her appointment was made as a temporary measure till the joining of regular incumbent and also that she was appointed subsequent to the instructions dated 3.1.2008 issued by respondents-State, directing to stop selection/appointment by PTA and not to accept joining of PTA provided teachers after the issuance of said instruments. It is also stated in reply that only those PTA appointees are entitled for grant-in-aid, who fulfils the requisite qualification provided under Recruitment and Promotion Rules against their posts. However, the eligibility of petitioner having qualification of MA (Hindi) and B.Ed., has not been specifically denied in the reply, nor any other academic qualification required for the post in question, has been disclosed. 4. Objection of non-joinder of necessary party has also been taken by stating that concerned PTA which has appointed petitioner has not been made party in the present petition. Concerned PTA is not necessary party as appointment of petitioner by the said PTA is not disputed rather is admitted by the respondents-State and for release of grant-in-aid, there is no role of PTA and grant-in-aid is to be released by respondents only on the recommendations of Principal concerned. Therefore, PTA may be a proper party but is not a necessary party whose non-joinder is not fatal. 5. The issue in present writ petition is not between the petitioner and PTA, but between the petitioner and the respondents-State, as though petitioner was appointed by PTA but it is the State which has permitted her to continue teaching the classes for about 10 years and that too without paying a single penny in grant-in-aid or otherwise. 5. The issue in present writ petition is not between the petitioner and PTA, but between the petitioner and the respondents-State, as though petitioner was appointed by PTA but it is the State which has permitted her to continue teaching the classes for about 10 years and that too without paying a single penny in grant-in-aid or otherwise. Schools have been opened by the respondents-State but without teachers, existence of schools is meaningless. Therefore, after opening the schools, to provide teachers in those schools is the primary function of the State. Though, it is also a serious issue that the State cannot shirk from its duty to provide well qualified regular teachers to the students by permitting PTA to appoint teachers in schools and allowing them to continue for such a long period under the garb of stop gap arrangements. But, despite the fact that it is depreciable arrangement, such arrangement does not absolve the State from paying admissible remuneration to petitioner appointed by PTA in the Government School against vacant post, which has not been filled up by appointing a regular teacher by respondents-State. Undoubtedly, no one can be permitted to teach the students in Government Schools without express or implied consent of the State and the omissions and commissions on the part of State establish consent for appointment and continuation of the petitioner as PTA teacher. 6. Undisputedly, petitioner has been appointed on 19.5.2008 after issuance of instructions dated 3.1.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred para 3 of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2549 of 2015, titled Hem Raj Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 7.8.2015, wherein it has been recorded that three teachers, namely, Indira Devi, Kauran Devi and Mukand Lal who were appointed on PTA basis after 3.1.2008 were also being paid grantin-aid and the said fact was not denied by respondents-Department in the said writ petition. It is also pointed out that Hem Raj Sharma, petitioner in CWP No. 2549 of 2015, was also appointed after 3.1.2008, but after considering the relevant Rules and instructions including GIA Rules, the Division Bench has directed to pay the grant-in-aid to the said Hem Raj Sharma and the said judgment has attained finality and also stands implemented by the respondents. 7. 7. Relying upon pronouncement of the Division Bench’s judgment in Hem Raj Sharma’s case (supra), co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 358 of 2015, titled Chander Parkash Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & others has also directed to release the grant-in-aid to Chander Parkash Sharma, petitioner therein, who was appointed on 20.9.2008 i.e. after the issuance of instructions dated 3.1.2008. Reliance has also been placed on CWP No. 2638 of 2015, titled Devi Saran Vs. State of H.P. and others decided by co-ordinate bench of this Court on 16.9.2016, wherein petitioner appointed on 7.4.2008, was held to be entitled for grant-in-aid. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments passed by Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No. 929 of 2017, titled Sonika Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. & another, decided on 3.4.2018 and judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 226 of 2010 titled as Promila Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 2.4.2015, with plea that in compliance of directions therein, respondents have released grant-in-aid. 9. Plea of payment of grant-in-aid in above referred cases remained unrebutted. Respondents are availing services of the petitioner till date but are not willing to release grant-in-aid to her, despite the fact that she is performing the same duty, as being performed by other PTA teachers to whom grant-in-aid is being released. 10. GIA Rules were notified vide notification No. EDN-A(Kha)7- 3/2006, dated 29-06-2006. Thereafter, the State has circulated clarification/administrative instructions on “Grant-in-Aid” to PTA Rules, 2006, vide communication dated 2nd August, 2006/19th August, 2006, wherein Principal was advised to distance himself from selection of a candidate by the PTA and was directed to advise the PTA to constitute a selection committee comprising of President PTA, Secretary PTA and Subject Specialist/Expert, as provided in the said notification. 11. It is strange behavior on the part of the State that for the teaching students, petitioner is eligible, but for making payment of grantin- aid, she is being considered ineligible for want of certain formalities to be performed by PTA on behalf of respondents-State. In case her appointment was defective or illegal, she should not have permitted to continue for 10 years. There is no dispute about the eligibility of the petitioner for her appointment as Science teacher. 12. In case her appointment was defective or illegal, she should not have permitted to continue for 10 years. There is no dispute about the eligibility of the petitioner for her appointment as Science teacher. 12. Present case is a glaring example of exploitation of unemployed destitute citizens by mighty State. ‘We the people of India’ have submitted ourselves to a Democratic Welfare State. In India, since ancient era, State is always for welfare of citizens being guardian and protector of their rights. Primary duty of State is welfare of people and exploitive actions of rulers have always been deprecated and history speaks that such rulers were always reprimanded and punished. “Rule of Law” was and is Fundamental Principle of “Raj Dharma”. Dream of our forefathers, to establish “Rule of Law” after independence, has emerged in our Constitution. Exploitation by State has never been expected on the part of State as the same can never be termed as ‘Rule of Law’, but the same is arbitrariness which is antithesis of ‘Rule of Law’. To make law, to ameliorate exploitation, is duty of State and in fact State has also framed laws to prevent exploitation. But in present case State is an instrumental in exploitation which is contrary to essence of the Constitution. 13. In an identical matter, co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 10.4.2015, passed in CWP No. 8692 of 2012, titled as Lata Kumari Vs. State of H.P. & Others, directing the State to release grant-in-aid to the person appointed prior to issuance of notifying GIA Rules 2006, has observed as under:- “9. The matter can be looked from a different angle. Indisputably the petitioner had been appointed and assigned the duties to teach the students and such duties have been continuously performed by her. Then can the respondents, who are model employers, be permitted to act with total lack of sensitivity and indulge in “Begar”, which is specifically prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 10. The State government is expected to function like a model employer, who is under an obligation to conduct itself with high probity and expected can dour and the employer, who is duty bound to act as a model employer has social obligation to treat an employee in an appropriate manner so that an employee is not condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model employer should not exploit its employee and take advantage of their helplessness and misery. In the present case the conduct of the respondents falls short of expectation of a model employer. 11. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner has not been discharging her duties diligently, honestly and faithfully. Therefore, in such circumstances while demanding her legitimate due by way of grant in aid under the Rules, the petitioner has not asked for the moon. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is merit in the petition and the same is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner as per the ‘Parent Teacher Association Rules, 2006’ from the date of promulgation of the Rules. No costs.” 14. Aforesaid observations are fully applicable in present case also. 15. In view of above discussion and the pronouncements of this Court referred herein-above, petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner from the date of her appointment on or before 31.7.2018, after adjusting amount as per Rules, if any, paid to her. Petitioner shall also be entitled for all other consequential benefits, which have been extended by the respondents- State to other similarly situated persons. Respondent No. 2 shall file compliance affidavit within two weeks after 31.7.2018. 16. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.