Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 783 (HP)

Manju Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-10-30

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Since, the respondents, declined the releasing(s), of, grants-in-aid, vis-a-vis, the schools, whereat, the writ petitioners are serving, thereupon, the latter are constrained to, through, the extant writ petition, hence, make strivings, for a mandamus, being rendered, upon, the respondents concerned, for the grants-in-aid being released, to, the school concerned. 2. The prime arch of the petitioners' espousal, is, rested, upon, a verdict pronounced by this Court, in a case titled, as, Sangeeta Devi & Ors vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, bearing CWP No. 2218 of 2018, decided on 11.03.2019. Upon the afore verdict, made, by this Court, the writ petitioners claim parity of treatment, with the writ petitioners therein, and, on anvil thereof, they pray, for, a, mandamus being issued, upon, the respondents concerned, for, the grants-in-aid being released to the schools concerned, whereat, they are purportedly working, as, PTA teachers. 3. Apparently, the writ petitioners, became inducted purportedly, as PTA teachers, in the schools/colleges concerned, respectively on 5.10.2008, and, on 1.07.2010. The respondents in their reply/affidavit, as, becomes furnished to the writ petition, raised a vociferous contention therein, vis-a-vis, the post, whereagainst selections and appointments, of the writ petitioners, were made, purportedly, on, a PTA basis, in the schools/colleges concerned, rather not being made in consonance with the grants-in-aid policy, as, became formulated in the year 2006, (i) inasmuch, as, contra thereto(s), rather the posts whereagainst they became appointed, becoming never advertised nor their selection(s) being made, by a duly constituted committee, as contemplated in the grants-in-aid policy, formulated in the year 2006. Moreover, it has been contended in the reply, as becomes, furnished, by the respondents concerned, to the writ petition, vis-a-vis, the PTA Grants-in-aid, PTA Policy, as became formulated in the year 2006, suffering termination, on 3.01.2008, (ii) and, with the appointments/selections, of, the writ petitioners against the post concerned occurring thereafter, hence, the writ petitioners becoming rather not entitled to stake any valid claim, for, the Grants-in-aid being released, to, the Schools/Colleges concerned, and, whereat(s) they are rendering their duties, as, lecturers in the subject(s) concerned. Moreover, it has also become contended, in the reply/affidavit, as, furnished by the respondents, vis-a-vis, the discontinuation of the PTA Grant-in-aid, Rules, as, formulated in the year 2006, hence suffering termination on 3.01.2008, however, with an exception, (iii) inasmuch as, the apposite exception thereofs, being limited only to the 14, notified newly opened government colleges, in the State, and, only to make them functional, and, obviously, rather with the petitioners not working, in, those exempted schools/colleges, thereupon, they become fully disabled, to, claim the espoused reliefs. In addition, it has also been contended in the reply/affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondents, that the parity, as strived to be capitalized, by the writ petitioners, from, a verdict rendered by this Court, in, a case titled, as, Sangeeta Devi vs. State of H.P., bearing CWP No. 2218 of 2018, decided on 11.03.2019, being a mis-strived parity, (iv) inasmuch, as the afore verdict becoming pronounced, vis-a-vis, those colleges or schools or those lecturers inducted on PTA basis, qua wherewith, the, PTA Grant-in-Aid Policy, as formulated in the year 2006, rather never thereat suffering any termination, through, the notification made in the year 2008. Consequently, the reliance made, upon, the verdict supra holding, no, leverage, vis-a-vis, the petitioners. 4. A perusal of the records, reveals that though, the apposite recruitment, and, promotion Rules, appertaining, to, the induction of the aspirants concerned, to, the Post of Lecturer (College Cadre) Class-I (Gazetted), High Education Department Himachal Pradesh, becoming promulgated, on 20.09.2007. However, the termination of the PTA Grant-in-Aid Policy, formulated in the year 2006, occurred on 3.01.2008. Consequently, it appears that, upon, coming into force of the apposite R & P Rules, rather governing the manner, of, valid induction(s), of, aspirants, as, Lecturer(s) (College Cadre) Class-I (Gazetted), in the Higher Education Department, Himachal Pradesh, hence, the respondents were led to freeze, the, PTA Grant-in-aid, Policy, as, became formulated in the year 2006, (I) however, subject to the afore alluded exception(s). Moreover, a perusal of the apposite R & P Rules, makes clear voicings, vis-a-vis, the prime elucidated condition, for, valid induction(s), of the aspirants concerned, as, Lecturer(s) (College Cadre) Class-I (Gazetted), being qua each holding, a, Masters' Degree, in, the Subject concerned, from, a recognized University. Moreover, a perusal of the apposite R & P Rules, makes clear voicings, vis-a-vis, the prime elucidated condition, for, valid induction(s), of the aspirants concerned, as, Lecturer(s) (College Cadre) Class-I (Gazetted), being qua each holding, a, Masters' Degree, in, the Subject concerned, from, a recognized University. However, it is apparent, on a reading, of the reply, meted by the respondents to the writ petition, that, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, their induction, purportedly on a PTA basis, in the schools/colleges concerned, for theirs teaching thereat, the subject(s) concerned, rather both the petitioners, not holding, the afore Masters' degree, in, the subject(s) concerned, rather theirs subsequently acquiring the afore prime educational qualification. Considering the afore lack, of, holdings, of, the afore prime educational qualification, rather by both the writ petitioners, in, the subjects concerned, imperatively, aat the relevant stage, and, thereafter also considering the uncotroverted fact, vis-a-vis, the PTA Grant-in-Aid Policy, as, formulated in the year 2006, suffering termination hence in the year 2008, (a) thereupon, with the further apparent uncontested fact, vis-a-vis, (b) the induction of the petitioners, purportedly, on a PTA basis, in the schools/colleges concerned, occurring subsequently; (c) and nor with the petitioners' schools/colleges falling within the exceptions, of, the extension(s) meted, to, the Grant(s)-in-Aid Policy/Rules, formulated in the year 2006, and, as, made through a notification issued, on 8.9.2014, (d) thereupon, the writ petitioners, do not hold, any valid claim for making any espousal, before this court, that they are entitled, for, a mandamus being made, upon, the respondents, for the latter, releasing the grants-in-aid, vis-a-vis, the schools/colleges concerned, whereat they are teaching the apposite subjects. 5. Dehors the above, even the purported parity, as strived, to be meted to the petitioners, by this court, on anvil, of, a verdict rendered by this Court, upon, CWP No. 2218, 2018, titled as Sangeeta Devi vs. State of H.P., decided on 11.03.2019, is, a gross mis-striving, (i) as, the reply on affidavit furnished, by the respondents, to the writ petition, makes it abundantly clear, vis-a-vis, the beneficiaries of the afore verdict, being those lecturers/teachers, who had been inducted, on a PTA basis, hence in consonance with the Grant-in-Aid Policy, formulated in the year 2006, (ii) and, also their inductions in the afore capacity, in the schools/colleges concerned, rather happening prior, to, the termination, of, the afore policy, as, occurred, through, a notification hence made on 3.01.2008, by the respondents. 6. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in the extant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.