Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 484 (HP)

Antim Mahajan v. State of H. P.

2025-03-25

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.) Interviews for the vacant post of Lecturer (English) at Government Senior Secondary School Sanghole, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. were conducted by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Sanghole on 18.09.2006. Petitioner emerged successful. She was appointed as Lecturer (English) on 18.01.2007. One Smt. Seema Devi challenged petitioner’s selection and appointment before the PTA Inquiry Committee. The PTA Inquiry Committee accepted the complaint preferred by Smt. Seema Devi. Vide order dated 10.09.2008, PTA Inquiry Committee held that the selected teacher i.e. the petitioner be not accepted by the concerned PTA. Petitioner preferred appeal against the aforesaid order before the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. Petitioner’s appeal was allowed on 29.03.2014. The case was remanded to the PTA Inquiry Committee for a fresh decision on the ground that the impugned order passed by the PTA was not detailed and speaking one and that the Inquiry Committee had not considered the relevant facts mentioned in the appeal. After remand of the case, the PTA Inquiry Committee re-considered it and passed fresh order on 17.11.2014. In terms of this order, complaint preferred by Smt. Seema Devi was dismissed and the petitioner was held entitled to be appointed and to continue to hold the post of Lecturer (English) as per PTA Grant-in-aid Rules, 2006. By the time the aforesaid order was passed by the PTA Inquiry Committee on 17.11.2014 in favour of the petitioner, Kushal Kumari & Ors Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , [SLP No.7709/2015] alongwith several other connected appeals had been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court relating to PTA appointments, wherein status quo order had been passed. Consequently, the respondents did not implement the order dated 17.11.2014 passed in petitioner’s favour. The aforesaid appeals with lead case Chander Mohan Negi & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , [Civil Appeal No.2813/2017 decided on 17.04.2020] were eventually dismissed on 17.02.2020. Despite dismissal of the appeals and resultant vacation of the status quo order, respondents did not implement the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the PTA Inquiry Committee in petitioner’s favour, hence, this writ petition. Petitioner seeks her re-instatement as Lecturer (English) pursuant to her selection on 18.01.2007 that was affirmed by the PTA Inquiry Committee on 17.11.2014. 2. Despite dismissal of the appeals and resultant vacation of the status quo order, respondents did not implement the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the PTA Inquiry Committee in petitioner’s favour, hence, this writ petition. Petitioner seeks her re-instatement as Lecturer (English) pursuant to her selection on 18.01.2007 that was affirmed by the PTA Inquiry Committee on 17.11.2014. 2. The substantive relief prayed for by the petitioner runs as under:- “That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Lecturer English at Government Senior Secondary School Sanghole, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. or alternatively in any other school where the post is lying vacant, within a time bound period, with all consequential benefits.” 3. Respondents in their reply have not disputed the factual position asserted by the petitioner. Respondents’ sole defence is that they cannot re-engage the petitioner on account of interim order passed on 28.10.2013 in CWP No. 7384/2013 wherein direction was issued for not replacing the regular appointed teacher with PTA appointed teacher. And further that at present post of Lecturer (English) is not lying vacant at Government Senior Secondary School Sanghol. The PTA appointee can only be re-engaged at the place where he was originally engaged by the concerned PTA. 4. To counter the above objections of the respondents, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited attention to decision rendered in Praveen Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , [CWP No. 5491/2023 decided on 24.11.2023] wherein in somewhat similar circumstances the selected candidate had not been re-instated in service. Respondents did not offer appointment to the petitioner therein on pretext of status quo order having been passed in the afore-numbered SLP. The grounds taken by the respondents for opposing the plea of re-instatement were not accepted by the Court. It was held that once the respondents had themselves affirmed the appointment of the petitioner therein, the benefits of re-instatement was to follow; The petitioner could not be denied the benefit of re-instatement after dismissal of the SLP in the year 2020. The Court also took cognizance of the fact that the State had decided to confer contractual status to all PTA appointed teachers on completion of 7 years of service. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to re-instate the petitioner therein with continuity and consequential benefits. The Court also took cognizance of the fact that the State had decided to confer contractual status to all PTA appointed teachers on completion of 7 years of service. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to re-instate the petitioner therein with continuity and consequential benefits. Learned Senior Counsel also placed on record an office order dated 03.07.2024, whereby the respondents implemented the aforesaid decision and re-engaged the petitioner therein and also regularized his services by restricting consequential benefits from three years prior to filing of the writ petition. Petitioner (therein) was though appointed in a different school as the vacancy for which, he was engaged on PTA basis had been filled on regular basis. To the similar effect is the decision rendered in Neetu Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , [CWP(T) No. 6494/2019 decided on 13.04.2022] wherein factual situation similar to one involved in present case was prevailing. The writ petition was allowed and the Court held that in case, there was no vacancy available as on date in the school, where the petitioner was appointed on PTA basis, then he was required to be re-engaged in any other school in District Kangra and in case there was no vacancy available in District Kangra, then anywhere in the State of Himachal Pradeh. Petitioner was held entitled to all consequential benefits except monetary benefits till her actual appointment including continuity, seniority & counting of service for all such benefits, which have been extended to similarly situated PTA appointees including appointment on contract/regularization on completion of requisite years of service. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Neetu Sharma & Anr. , [LPA No. 15/2023 decided on 03.03.2023] instituted by the respondents against the above decision in Neetu Sharma’s , (supra) case was dismissed. The case as pleaded by the petitioner has not been refuted by the respondent. 5. Petitioner’s case is covered by the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner in terms of order dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits except monetary benefits till her actual appointment, including continuity, seniority and counting of service for all such benefits which have been extended to similarly situated PTA appointees including appointment on contract/regularization on completion of requisite length of service treating her in service since 18.01.2007 (date of appointment). Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits except monetary benefits till her actual appointment, including continuity, seniority and counting of service for all such benefits which have been extended to similarly situated PTA appointees including appointment on contract/regularization on completion of requisite length of service treating her in service since 18.01.2007 (date of appointment). This exercise be carried out within six weeks. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.