JUDGMENT : Petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to re-engage him through Parent Teacher Association (for short ‘PTA’) with benefit of Grant in Aid Rules (for short ‘GIA Rules’) as Lecturer/PGT Commerce in Government Senior Secondary School, Sulah after quashing the order dated 23.9.2015 (Annexure P-13), whereby the case of the petitioner for his re-engagement has been rejected by Director Higher Education. 2. Undisputed and admitted facts in present case are as under:- (A) Government of Himachal Pradesh has framed and implemented Grant-in-Aid Rules w.e.f. 29.6.2006, dealing with appointment of Teachers by Parents Teacher Associations, referred as PTA Teachers and providing Grant-in-Aid (GIA) to such appointees subject to certain conditions contained in “GIA Rules”. (B) In the year 2006 there was one post of Lecturer/PGT Commerce in Government Senior Secondary School Sullah, District Kangra, which was occupied by contract/regular teacher. The said post was created on 5th May, 1999. Keeping in view necessity, for workload on teachers based on strength of students, PTA of the aforesaid school had engaged petitioner as PTA Lecturer/PGT Commerce on 31.8.2006 and the petitioner had joined as such on 1.9.2006 and since then till 28th February, 2013, when his services were terminated, he remained continuously engaged as PTA Lecturer/PGT Commerce. (C). Second post of Lecturer Commerce in Government Senior Secondary School, Sulah was created vide Government letter No. EDN-B-Kha(1)-1/2007-L dated 15.9.2007. According to respondents, creation and availability of this second post of PGT/Lecturer Commerce was endorsed to the field offices on 24.5.2008 by the Deputy Director Higher Education, Kangra. Prior to that respondents-State had stopped appointments of PTA basis vide instructions dated 3.1.2008. (D). During pendency of petition, in response to the queries raised, respondents-State has placed on record instructions dated 1.9.2021 and 17.9.2021, received from Director Higher Education. In instructions dated 17.9.2021, it has been informed that second post of Lecturer Commerce remained vacant w.e.f. 2007 to 2013 and services of petitioner were terminated by the PTA concerned, now renamed as School Management Committee (in shot ‘SMC’), of Government Senior Secondary School, Sulah vide resolution dated 24.1.2013 and at present both posts of PGT Commerce are occupied by regular incumbents Nimisha and Anil Kumar w.e.f. 21.2.2014 and 27.6.2013 respectively. (E). (E). Vide communication dated 19.2.2013 respondents-State had directed all PTAs to re-engage PTA teachers under GIA Rules, 2006, whose services were disengaged due to new appointment or by way of transfer, if they are found eligible by the Committee constituted by the Government. Later on, vide communication dated 31.8.2013, re-engagement of PTA teachers was re-iterated. Later on, vide communication dated 22.5.2014, issued from the office of Principal Secretary (Higher Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Directors of Higher Education as well as Elementary Education, it was communicated that Government had decided to re-engaged all PTA teachers who were earlier engaged before 31.12.2007 and whose services were discontinued due to the reason other than Inquiry Committee, if they were otherwise eligible as per R&P Rules and GIA would be released in their favour. In this communication, both Directors were requested to take further necessary action in the matter under intimation to the Department. (F). Against his termination, petitioner had approached this High Court for his re-engagement by filing CWP No. 3382 of 2013, titled as Raj Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which was decided on 29.6.2015, directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner as per notification No. EDN-H(19)B(1)-1/2012-PTA-GEN dated 31.8.2013 within a period of four weeks. (G). In pursuance to aforesaid direction, passed in CWP No. 3382 of 2013, Director Higher Education, vide order dated 23.9.2015 (Annexure P-13), had considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner for his re-engagement, on the ground that at the time of appointment of the petitioner there was no vacant post of PGT Commerce available in Government Senior Secondary School, Sulah and appointment of petitioner by PTA was in addition to one sanctioned post of PGT Commerce which was already occupied by contract/regular appointee, whereas second post was created on 15.9.2007 and endorsed to field staff office on 24.5.2008, but prior to that Government had issued instructions dated 3.1.2008 stopping the selection/appointment of teachers on PTA basis and, therefore, petitioner was not considered entitled for engagement under PTA to GIA Rules against the second post of PGT Commerce. 3. Assailing the aforesaid order dated 23.9.2015 and claiming re-engagement, petitioner has filed instant Writ Petition, which has been opposed by the respondents-State on the basis of reasons assigned for rejection of claim of petitioner vide dated 23.9.2015. 3. Assailing the aforesaid order dated 23.9.2015 and claiming re-engagement, petitioner has filed instant Writ Petition, which has been opposed by the respondents-State on the basis of reasons assigned for rejection of claim of petitioner vide dated 23.9.2015. It is also claim of respondent-State that GIA can be provided to a person appointed against the sanctioned post and at the time of appointment of petitioner, no sanctioned post was available, therefore, he is not entitled for grant in aid and further that petitioner was not engaged under GIA Rules, 2006. 4. Petitioner had completed his M.Com on 22.10.2002 and B.Ed. on 14.3.2010. Eligibility of petitioner to be appointed as PGT Commerce at the time of his appointment, according to R&P Rules in vogue at that time, has not been disputed. Otherwise also, as observed by this Court in judgment dated 26.5.2018 passed in CWP No. 384 of 2017, titled Renuka Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others, it is strange behaviour on the part of the State that for teaching students a candidate is considered to be suitable and eligible, but for making payment of Grant-in-Aid, the same candidate is considered ineligible for want of certain formalities to be performed by PTA as well as Department on behalf of respondents-State and also for want of requisite qualification. Such behavior of the State is unwarranted. 5. Following observations of this Court in Renuka Devi’s case in this regard would also be relevant : “16. 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’. 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.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No. 2549 of 2015, titled Hem Raj Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 7.8.2015 and judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in CWP No. 2638 of 2015, titled Devi Saran Vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 16.9.2016 and CWP No. 358 of 2015, titled Chander Parkash Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 1.7.2016, wherein the persons appointed even after issuance of instructions dated 3.1.2008 directing to stop the selection/appointment by Parents Teacher Associations and not to accept joining of such appointees, have also been held entitled for grant-in-aid and the said judgments stand implemented by respondents. Further, it has also been pointed out that in Hem Raj’s case supra, 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 grant-in-aid and the said fact has not been denied by respondents-Department in the said writ petition. 7. Reliance has also been put by learned counsel for the petitioner on pronouncement of Division Bench of this 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. 8. Plea of payment of grant-in-aid in above referred cases remained unrebutted. 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. 8. Plea of payment of grant-in-aid in above referred cases remained unrebutted. Respondents availed services of the petitioner but are not willing to release grant-in-aid to him, despite the fact that he had performed the same duty, as performed and being performed by other PTA teachers to whom grant-in-aid was and is being released. 9. In present case, appointment of petitioner has been made by resolution of PTA and after his appointment in the year 2006 till his termination in February/March, 2013, he continuously taught the students like other similarly situated teachers for about 7 years. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment dated 17th July, 2018, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 379 of 2018, titled a Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others to substantiate his plea seeking direction to re-engage the petitioner against vacancy or by creating vacancy for re-engagement of the petitioner. 11. In above referred Vinod Kumar’s case Division Bench had directed to re-engage the petitioner therein forthwith on PTA basis with all admissible benefits including releasing of Grant-in-Aid as per GIA Rules 2006 from initial appointment to the date of his disengagement and w.e.f. his re-engagement till continuation of his engagement as PTA teacher. The period from the date of disengagement till his re-engagement was directed to be counted for the purpose of continuity and seniority etc, but without payment of any back wages. A direction was also issued to the respondents to transfer the incumbent working in the concerned school somewhere else for re-engagement of petitioner therein against vacancy so created. 12. In present case, petitioner was appointed after framing of GIA to PTA Rules by respondents-State on 31.8.2006 and in case his appointment at that time was without any sanctioned post, then also during his engagement as PTA teacher the post was available w.e.f. 15.9.2007, which remained vacant till 2013 and the said post was filled only after termination of services of petitioner. 13. 13. It is also relevant to record that creation of second post in the year 2007 establishes that there was dire necessity of one more PGT Commerce teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Sulah but for lapse and failure on the part of respondents-State to create another post for providing regular teacher, PTA was constrained to appoint petitioner in addition to single teacher working on regular basis. After creation of second post, no regular incumbent was appointed against the said post and work of teaching students was taken continuously from the petitioner as PTA teacher. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for Grant-in-Aid from his initial appointment, i.e. 1.9.2006 till his termination on 28.2.2013. 14. Petitioner is also entitled for re-engagement in terms of judgment dated 17.7.2018 passed in CWP No. 379 of 2018 and also entitled for Grant-in-Aid from his re-engagement till his continuation as such. 15. At this stage, it has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that one post of PGT Commerce is expected to fall vacant on 31.12.2021. If so, then respondents are directed not to fill up that post, but instead re-engage the petitioner against the said vacancy. 16. In view of above discussion, respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner forthwith as PGT Commerce on PTA basis in Government Senior Secondary School, Sulah and to release all admissible benefits including Grant-in-Aid as per GIA Rules 2006 from 1.9.2006 till 28.2.2013 within two months from today and also to continue sanction and release the Grant-in-Aid in future from his date of re-engagement till his continuation as such. The period from 1.3.2013 till re-engagement of the petitioner shall be considered for the purpose of continuity and seniority etc. as PTA teacher for extension of benefits as extended to other PTA teachers, but without payment of any back wages. Respondents are also directed not to post any other incumbent against the post likely to fall vacant on 31.12.2021 in Government Senior Secondary School, Sulah and in case someone has been appointed or posted or transferred against the said vacancy, he shall be adjusted somewhere else in nearby stations for extending of benefit of re-engagement to the petitioner forthwith. 17. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. 17. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Parties are permitted to use downloaded copy of this judgment from the High Court Website and concerned authority shall not insist for certified copy, rather it shall verify passing of this judgment from the High Court Website or otherwise.