Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 203 (HP)

Arun Mehta v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-02-24

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to re-appoint her on School Management Committee (‘SMC’) basis against an available vacancy in the schools mentioned in the writ petition along with all consequential benefits. 3. Petitioner’s case is that:- (i) As a result of an interview, petitioner was selected and offered appointment as Language Teacher (Hindi) on SMC basis. Petitioner was appointed accordingly on 10.06.2010 and continued in service upto 13.02.2012. Her services were discontinued on 14.02.2012 on the joining of regular hand on transfer. (ii) In this writ petition, filed on 20.12.2024, the petitioner contends that the respondents-State has taken a policy decision to re-engage the SMC/PTA Teachers, who were disengaged on account of joining of regular hands and all such incumbents have been re-engaged by the respondent-Department; the petitioner is similarly placed and therefore, is also entitled to be re-engaged as a Language Teacher. 4. The sole reliance of the petitioner in furtherance of the relief claimed is upon a decision rendered in Aarti Bhanwal vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , CWP No. 4943 of 2021 decided on 04.11.2022 . The relevant portion of the decision pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:- “5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that communication dated 2.3.2013 (Annexure P-5) sent by Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Sandhole, District Mandi, H.P., to Deputy Director of Higher Education Mandi, enclosing therewith information of lecturers appointed on PTA basis, clearly reveals that the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer political science on 11.10.2007 and she remained absent w.e.f.25.02.2009 to 23.07.2009 on account of illness, there is no mention, if any, with regard resignation, if any, tendered by the petitioner and as such, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents at this stage to claim that since petitioner had resigned, she could not be considered in terms of policy decision taken by the Government vide communication dated 22.05.2014. As per policy decision taken on 22.05.2014, PTA provided teachers engaged prior to 31.12.2007 were required to be reengaged, if their services were disengaged for the reasons other than enquiry. 9. As per policy decision taken on 22.05.2014, PTA provided teachers engaged prior to 31.12.2007 were required to be reengaged, if their services were disengaged for the reasons other than enquiry. 9. As has been discussed herein above, till the time, communication dated 22.5.2014, whereby respondents took a conscious decision to reengage services of all the PTA provided teachers, who were engaged prior to 31.12.2007, is either withdrawn or superseded, respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons, for reengagement against the post in question. True, it is that the respondents have filled up the post in question by a regular hand, but right of the petitioner, accrued to her with the issuance of communication dated 22.5.2014, cannot be defeated by transferring/appointing a regular hand against the post in question, regular hand so posted against the post in question, at Government Senior Secondary School Sandhole can be adjusted in some other school by the respondents. 10. Consequently, in view of above, this court finds merit in the case at hand, and accordingly, the same is allowed and order dated June, 2021 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner against the post of Lecturer (Political Science) at Government Senior Secondary School, Sandhole in terms of the policy decision dated 22.5.2014, within a period of four weeks from today.” The aforesaid decision is based upon the policy/communication of the respondent-State dated 22.05.2014, wherein the decision was taken to re-engage services of all PTA provided teachers, who were engaged prior to 31.12.2007, if their services were disengaged for the reasons other than enquiry. 5. In the instant case, petitioner’s engagement was not prior to 31.12.2007. Petitioner was admittedly appointed as Language Teacher (Hindi) on SMC basis on 10.06.2010. Hence, the ratio of the judgment in Aarti Bhanwal (supra) and the communication dated 22.05.2014 cannot yield any benefit to the petitioner for the relief prayed for by her. Further, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that her services were discontinued on 14.02.2012 on joining of regular hand on transfer, whereas this writ petition has been filed after a gap of more than 12 years. No justification for the delay has been accorded in the writ petition. Further, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that her services were discontinued on 14.02.2012 on joining of regular hand on transfer, whereas this writ petition has been filed after a gap of more than 12 years. No justification for the delay has been accorded in the writ petition. The judgment passed in case of Aarti Bhanwal (supra), being relied upon by the petitioner, was even otherwise based upon a communication dated 22.05.2014. The petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also to stand disposed of.