Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 31 December, 2015
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 2719 of 2015.
.
Decided on: 31st December, 2015.
Surjit Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Others ......Respondents
of
Coram
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Virender Verma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy.
A.G. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).
Petitioner is aggrieved by order Annexure P-13, dated 23.1.2015, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, respondent No.4, whereby the appeal he preferred consequent upon Government Order dated 24.5.2014, Annexure P-12, has been dismissed.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 22. Petitioner did matriculation in the year 1996 from H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala. He .
completed Prabhakar Course in the year 1999 from H.P. University. He thereafter undergone Language Teacher Training Course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The documents qua educational of qualification of the petitioner are Annexure P-1(Colly.).
3. In the year 2007, one post of Language rt Teacher was lying vacant in Government Senior Secondary School, Nalti. The Parent Teacher Association, of the School initiated process to fill up the post in question. The petitioner, who claimed himself to be eligible for appointment as Language Teacher (Hindi), applied for the post in question. He was appointed by respondent No.7 vide its resolution dated 20.9.2007, Annexure P-2, as Language Teacher on PTA basis (GIA) Rules. The appointment letter Annexure P-3 was issued to the petitioner by the Principal of the School. The petitioner consequently resumed his duties as language teacher on the same day as is apparent ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 3 from office order Annexure P-4. He continued to discharge his duties as such till 17.10.2008, on which date .
his services were dispensed with vide order Annexure P-5.
4. The petitioner aggrieved by order Annexure P-5, approached this Court by filing CWP No.2864 of 2010. The impugned order was set aside vide judgment of Annexure P-6, passed in the said writ petition, however, it was left open to the Inquiry Committee to consider the rt matter afresh in the light of the instructions dated 3.9.2009 referred to in the judgment Annexure P-6. There was further direction to the respondents to re-engage the petitioner, subject to outcome of the inquiry, of course, in the event of the vacancy of Language Teacher still exists in the School.
5. Consequently, the inquiry was conducted by a Committee headed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamirpur and the report Annexure P-7 submitted. No procedural irregularity or illegality was found by the Committee in the selection of the petitioner as Language Teacher, however, the Language Teacher ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 4 Training Certificate he produced was not found valid.
The petitioner was not re-engaged pending inquiry. The .
petitioner even was not re-engaged after this Court passed judgment Annexure P-8 in a writ petition filed by similarly situated persons. As a matter of fact, as per this judgment, the individual petitioner had to file of representation before the respondents stating therein that they will not claim regularization as language rt Teacher on the basis of qualification, they acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad and there was a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue till they are replaced as per PTA Policy itself by teachers recruited under the regular recruitment process. The respondent-State on 5.9.2013 circulated its decision Annexure P-11 and thereby directed the 2nd respondent to transfer all direct/regular teachers, who have replaced PTA (GIA) provided teachers at initial or at subsequent stage, with a view to enable such PTA (GIA) provided teachers replaced by teachers appointed on contract/regular basis, to join their duties. The decision ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 5 Annexure P-11 so taken was followed by another decision Annexure P-12, dated 24th May, 2014 whereby .
the Government has taken a decision qua providing another opportunity of making fresh appeal/re-appeal before the competent authority, whose services were discontinued on the recommendations of the Inquiry of Committee constituted vide notification dated 19.4.2008 and 27.5.2008.rt
6. Further, another decision taken by the Government on 24th May, 2014, Annexure P-14 was also circulated and as per the same the PTA provided teachers, who were providing their services before 31.12.2007 in different categories of the teachers in the educational institutions in the State without fulfilling requisite educational qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, were allowed to continue in service and to acquire requisite qualification till 16.8.2016. The decision was also taken qua release of the grant-in-aid (GIA) in favour of such teachers.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 67. The petitioner, consequent upon the order Annexure P-12, preferred fresh appeal to respondent .
No.4. The said respondent has, however, dismissed the same on the ground that he failed to satisfy the minimum qualification vide impugned order Annexure P-13. It is this order, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
of
8. The grouse of the petitioner as brought to this Court is that he has been discriminated against similarly rt situated persons. The information received under the Right to Information Act, Annexure P-15 (Colly.) has been pressed in service in this regard.
9. In reply, the response of the respondent-State is that since the petitioner has passed Language Teacher Training Certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, an institution not recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, he was not having essential qualification, hence could have not been appointed as Language Teacher on PTA basis. The reference has also been made to the judgment of this Court in CWP (T) No.7521 of 2008, titled Raghunath Singh ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 7 & Others versus State of H.P. & Others, decided on 15.5.2009, in which it has been held that the certificate/ .
diploma issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad are not valid. The further case of the respondent-State is that the petitioner was not being paid from the salary head and rather from the PTA funds of and as such not covered under the GIA Rules.
10. Having gone through the records and taking rt into consideration the rival submissions, documents Annexure P-1(Colly.) it is apparent that the petitioner is matriculate and qualified for Prabhakar examination also. He acquired Language Teacher Certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. He was interviewed by a Selection Committee for the post of Language Teacher (Hindi) as is apparent from appointment letter Annexure P-2. On the basis of Annexure P-2, the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Nalti, District Hamirpur has issued formal appointment order dated 22.9.2007, Annexure P-3, to the petitioner. The petitioner has joined his duties as such on the same day.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 8His services, however, were dispensed with vide order Annexure P-5 on the ground that his appointment was .
not found in order during the course of inquiry. It may be so, but had the post of Language Teacher been lying vacant in the School, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have re-engaged him as such of consequent upon the judgment Annexure P-6 passed by this Court in the writ petition he filed against his removal rt from service. No doubt, as per the inquiry conducted on the direction of this Court his certificate was not found valid, however, when the respondent-State itself taken a decision on 24th May, 2014 to allow even those PTA appointed teachers also to continue in service, who were not having the requisite educational qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The appeal he preferred consequent upon Annexure P-12 should have been allowed by Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur and the petitioner reengaged as language teacher in the School and given time to acquire the requisite qualification till 16.8.2016. The appeal has, however, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 9 been dismissed by respondent No.4 vide order Annexure P-13 on the sole ground that the petitioner was not .
having the educational qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The impugned order, therefore, is contrary to the government decision Annexure P-14.
of
11. If coming to the information Annexure P-15, the petitioner received under Right to Information Act, rt the persons having acquired Language Teacher Training Certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad, the same institute from where the petitioner has acquired such qualification, are still working in various schools on PTA basis. The present, therefore, is a case of sheer discrimination. No doubt, this Court in its judgment dated 15.5.2009 rendered in Raghunath Singh's case supra has held that diploma/certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are not valid, however, when the respondent-State vide Annexure P-13 has decided to allow those PTA appointed teachers not having educational ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 10 qualification to continue and to release even grant-in-
aid in order to enable them to acquire the requisite .
qualification till 16.8.2016. The Language Teacher Training Certificate in the case of the petitioner should have been ignored and he re-engaged as Language Teacher in the School so that he could have acquired of the requisite educational qualification from recognized institution.rt In such a situation the impugned order Annexure P-13 is neither legally nor factually sustainable and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to re-engage the petitioner as Language Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Nalti, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent as according to learned counsel the post is still lying vacant. Even if someone is posted in the School as Language Teacher, the benefit of government decision Annexure P-11 be extended in favour of the petitioner and he is accommodated there ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP 11 on transfer of any other teacher appointed on contract/regular basis and posted there.
.
12. The question of acquiring educational qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules by the petitioner is left open to be considered and decided by respondent No.2 on production of a copy of of this judgment by the petitioner within four weeks. The petitioner shall only be entitled to his salary during the rt period 22.9.2007 till 17.10.2008, when he performed his duties in the School as Language Teacher. He, however, is not entitled to claim the salary during the period when he remained out of job till his re-engagement.
13. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also pending application (s), if any.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge December 31, 2015(ps) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:38:10 :::HCHP