Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satya Dev vs State Of H.P. & Others on 1 June, 2016
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 1284 of 2010 Decided on: 01.06.2016 .
________________________________________________________ Satya Dev ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ....Respondents of Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? _No rt ________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. D.N.Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Pankaj Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge(Oral) Petitioner has filed present petition seeking directions to release his salary under Grant-in-Aid Rules from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 10.10.2007 till date alongwith interest with further prayer to pass any other writ or directions as deemed fit by this Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 2
2. Petitioner has claimed that after completing his .
graduation in the year 1995, he had passed MA in Political Science in the year 1999 and in Sociology in the year 2005 respectively from Himachal Pradesh University.
3. Petitioner has stated that against vacant post of of teacher in Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Giltari he was allowed to work on voluntary basis and in the year 2007 , Director rt Higher Education had created a post of Lecturer in Sociology on Parent Teacher Association basis in the said school vide order dated 25.6.2007 (Annexure P-2).
4. As per petitioner, the post in question was advertised, interview was conducted and petitioner was selected vide appointment letter dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.4 President of Parents Teachers Association.
5. It is claim of petitioner that since 10.10.2007, he is working to the utmost satisfaction of respondents and there is complaint against petitioner rather work and conduct has always been appreciated by respondents. Petitioner has relied upon documents Annexure P-4 to certify his work and conduct. It is further stated in the petition that there were 46 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 3 students in plus one and plus two in Govt. Senior Secondary .
School, Giltari and out of which 30 students have opted for the Sociology subject and result of his students is 100% for every year.
6. The grievance of petitioner is that he has filed an of application Annexure P-5 before Parent Teacher Association Pardhan for release of grant-in-aid which was forwarded to rt respondent No.3, Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Giltari. But Grant-in-aid has not been released to petitioner despite his making oral as well as written representations, also directly to respondent No.2 Director of Higher Education.
The representation made to respondent No.2 has been placed on record as Annexure P-7.
7. By placing on record B.P.L. certificate Annexure P-6, petitioner has submitted that he belongs to a poor family living below poverty line. However, after appointment as PTA Lecturer, his name from list of BPL families has been struck off from the live register of the Gram Panchayat concerned.
8. It has been alleged that omissions on the part of respondents not providing salary/grant in aid under grant-in-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 4aid Rules is arbitrary and there are large number of similar .
situated persons who are getting salary against grant-in-aid but petitioner has been discriminated by respondents.
Grant-in-aid to Parent Teachers Association Rule 2006 and Clarification /administrative instructions on "Grant-in-Aid to of P.T.A. Rules 2006 dated 2nd/19th August, 2006 have been placed on record by petitioner as Annexure P-8.
rt
9. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed reply to the petition and respondent No.4 has not chosen to contest the case despite service.
10. It has been submitted on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 that grant-in-aid is only admissible in those cases where appointment has been made after making advertisement for the vacant post and interviews conducted by duly constituted committee by Parents Teachers Association by associating all the eligible candidates making the recommendation on the basis of merit for appointment for the post following proper prescribed procedure whereas in the present case, no such procedure has been adopted and the petitioner was engaged by the PTA concerned on volunteer ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 5 basis and the petitioner has also submitted his undertaking to .
work on volunteer basis without any remuneration.
11. It is also submitted on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 that as per information received from respondent No.3, there is no official record of any advertisement before engaging of petitioner and petitioner was allowed to teach in the school on voluntarily basis without any remuneration by the Pradhan, rt (Parents Teachers Association) without observing formalities as prescribed by Government for engagement of teachers on PTA basis. Therefore, it is for the Parents Teachers Association to pay salary to petitioner.
12. Respondents have also placed on record an application submitted by petitioner for voluntarily teaching of sociology without salary in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari as Annexure R-1. As per this application, petitioner has offered himself as sociology teacher in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari without salary, free of cost to all the students giving undertaking that petitioner shall not claim any remuneration for his work from the DDO, the Principal or any Government Agency with further declaration that petitioner shall not claim regularization of job on the basis of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 6 free teaching and will leave the job automatically on joining of .
regular teacher.
13. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, stating therein that initially petitioner was permitted to work on voluntary basis but later of on, after allotment of post of PGT Sociology to Govt. Sr. Secondary School. Giltari, appointment was given to petitioner rt after conducting interview by following procedure for his appointment. Petitioner has also placed on record another copy of his application for voluntarily teaching of sociology without salary in Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Giltari. The said application is in verbatim same but only date and some portion of noting is not in the copy of said application placed on record by petitioner. Petitioner has accepted filing of this application, however, denied filing of this application on 10.10.2007 and has claimed that the copy of application, placed on record by respondents No.1 to 3 as annexure R-1, is tampered one. Rest of pleadings of petitioner has been reaffirmed and reiterated in the rejoinder.
14. The Court vide order dated 31.8.2010 had directed respondent No.3 Principal Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Giltari ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 7 to file separate affidavit stating therein as to whether .
petitioner had been duly appointed as PTA teacher under Grant-in-aid rules. In compliance of the said order, respondent No.3 has filed affidavit dated 19.10.2010 stating that petitioner was never appointed as PTA teacher under the of grant-in-aid rules, as per record available in the school. This affidavit was filed in the year 2010. Till date, petitioner has rt not filed any counter affidavit nor intended to rebut information furnished by respondent No.3 in his affidavit dated 19.10.2010.
15. The plea of petitioner that one post of Sociology Lecturer was created in Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Giltary on PTA basis by referring office order dated 25.6.2007(Annexure P-2) is not sustainable as this order nowhere states that the post of Lecturer Sociology was created on PTA basis. In fact, subject of Sociology was allotted as an optional subject in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari in this office order.
Nothing else has been mentioned in this order, so as to construe that one post of lecturer Sociology to be filled on PTA basis was ever created in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 816. Petitioner has relied upon alleged appointment .
order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) but perusal of this document reflects that though this document has been captioned as appointment order at the top, however, on perusal of said document it appears that it was submission of made by petitioner and counter signed by Pardhan(Parents Teachers Association). As per this document, interview to the rt post of Lecturer Sociology in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari was conducted on 14.9.2007 but the said fact has been belied by affidavit of respondent No.3 filed on the basis of record under direction of Court.
17. Petitioner has also relied upon work and conduct certificate (Annexure P-4). Perusal of this document clearly reflects that it is a handwritten paper having stamp of Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari which has not been signed by any authority including Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Giltari. There is no valid work and conduct certificate on record. Moreover, unless appointment of petitioner is in accordance with law, work and conduct certificate is of no help to petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 918. Similarly, request for grant-in-aid (Annexure P-5) .
signed by Pardhan((Parents Teachers Association) is also incomplete. There is no date on it. Though this document is having stamp of Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari but like annexure P-4, it is without signature.
of Probably, Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari had not considered it fit to forward the said application for rt payment of grant-in-aid to petitioner, for the reason that he was not able to certify, as required to be done as per provisions of grant-in-aid rules, that petitioner was appointed after fulfilling all the conditions of grant-in-aid to PTA Rules, 2006.
19. Petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-7, a representation made to Director Higher Education, stating that petitioner was appointed by Pardhan(PTA) which clearly reflects that petitioner was engaged by Pardhan(PTA) only as claimed by respondents No.1 to 3 and not by duly constituted committee as required under grant-in-aid to Parents Teachers Association Rules, 2006 and relevant instructions/clarification related thereto issued time to time by respondents No.1 to 3.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 1020. As per rules and relevant instructions, the Parent .
Teachers Associations should display vacancy position and vanue/date of the interview in the notice board of the school, Gram Panchayat concerned and adjoining Gram Panchayat.
The PTA was further required to select the candidates on the of basis of merits by adopting an objective competitive basis. It has been clarified in Clarification/administrative instructions rt dated 2nd/19th August, 2006 that PTA should constitute a selection committee comprising of President (PTA), Secretary (PTA) and subject specialist/expert. There is nothing on record to substantiate plea of petitioner that he was appointed by following due as prescribed for engagement of PTA teachers.
21. The grant-in-aid to PTA Rules 2006 were notified on 29.6.2006 and clarification/administrative instructions were issued in the month of August 2006, whereas petitioner is claiming his engagement as PTA teacher on 10.10.2007, which date is subsequent to the grant-in-aid to Parents Teachers Associations Rules, 2006, therefore, any appointment/engagement of PTA teacher in violation of grant-
in-aid rules and relevant instructions is not valid and legal ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 11 appointment for grant-in-aid on the basis of these rules and .
instructions.
22. Plea of petitioner that he had submitted application(Annexure R-1) prior to his engagement as Lecturer Sociology and he has been appointed Lecturer Sociology by of adopting due process after creation of post and prior to that petitioner was allowed to work as voluntarily basis, is falsified rt by his own application(Annexure R-1) as this application refers 'teaching of Sociology' subject without remuneration which means that said undertaking was given at the time of joining/allowing as Lecturer Sociology as prior to allotment of Sociology subject there was no occasion to file such undertaking.
23. It is also claimed by petitioner that his work and conduct was found satisfactory by the concerned authority, however, the document Annexure P-3 purported to be appointment order, spelling of submission, Lecturer and Sociology have been written as 'sub mission', 'lect ureres' and 'socilogy'. In representation (Annexure P-7) submitted to Director Higher Education, Sociology has been spelt out as "Socialogy". Petitioner is not having requisite qualifications as ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 12 provided in R & P rules for the post. Petitioner firstly .
managed his entry in school by submitting an undertaking (Annexure R-1) stating therein that he is willing and ready to teach on voluntarily basis without remuneration and free of cost without having any claim of regularization of PTA teacher of but ignoring all norms standard and procedure prescribed for engagement of a teacher/lecturer. Subsequently, petitioner is rt claiming grant-in-aid under Grant-in-Aid to Parents Teachers Association Rules-2006.
24. Opening or closing of schools/institutions and allotment of subjects in those schools to be available to students for opting to study is in domain of respondents, but at the same time it is also duty of respondents to provide well qualified eligible regular teachers to students of Government Schools. It is also matter of concern to be considered by respondents-State that whether instead of increasing number of Institutions/Schools without basic facilities and even teachers, strengthening of existing educational institutions by providing proper infra-structure equipped with well qualified teachers with boarding and transportation facilities to students of far flung areas would serve purpose of public ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 13 interest or large number of institutions without well infra-
.
structure and well qualified teacher will cater interest of public?
25. Despite enactment of right to Education Act, respondents are not taking pain in appointing regular well of qualified teacher/lecturer in Govt. Schools, and are allowing unqualified and incompetent person as teacher/lecturer rt in schools at the cost of career of students who are future not of the family only but of the Nation also. In present case subject of Sociology was allotted in the year 2007 but no teacher was provided and students are being taught by person serving without remuneration or PTA teacher.
26. The petitioner has also relied upon judgment dated 10.4.2015 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.8692 of 2012, titled as Lata Kumari vs. State of H.P. & Ors., in which petitioner was engaged much prior to the rules i.e. Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teacher Association, Rules, 2006 came into force and after coming into force of these Grant-in-
Aid Rules, 2006, petitioner was continued by the respondents department but was denied grant-in-aid on the ground that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 14 initial appointment of petitioner had been made by the Parent .
Teacher Association prior to promulgation of these rules.
27. In present case, petitioner has been engaged after coming into force of Parent Teacher Association, Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 but without following procedure prescribed under of the rules and no advertisement was issued and no interview was conducted as required in Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teacher rt Association Rules, 2006 and instructions related thereto issued time to time by respondent department which are on record as Annexure P-8. Therefore, direction to release grant-
in-aid in favour of a person engaged prior to Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 by Parent Teacher Association and continuing the said person after coming into force Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 is altogether different than to issue a direction to release grant in aid to a person engaged by Pardhan, Parent Teacher Association only, after coming force Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 without following procedure prescribed under Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 and instructions related thereto issued time to time by respondent-State. Therefore, judgment passed in CWP No.8692 of 2012 is of no help to petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 1528. Laxity on the part of respondent-State in making .
appointment of teachers in Government Schools well in time results malfunctioning providing a room for appointments like present one harming public interest. Respondent-State has opened Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari and has of provided Sociology as an optional subject available for students but has failed to appoint well qualified regular rt teacher in the said school resulting back door entry of petitioner in the school and continuation as such since July, 2007 till date. The practice allowing teachers to be engaged in such a manner like present case and continuing those teachers for years together is deprecated as such practice is not only hazardous but dangerous to the system.
29. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the petition rather there is a need to issue directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to provide a well qualified teacher/lecturer to the students in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari to teach the subject Sociology on regular basis.
30. Though, petitioner has furnished his undertaking not to claim any remuneration and to provide his service to the school free of cost, however, petitioner is at liberty to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP 16 approach Parents Teachers Association for his remuneration .
and redressal of his grievances, if any, as he was allowed by Pardhan(Parents Teachers Association) to teach students without following procedure. On 21.5.2010 an interim direction was passed directing the respondents to release of grant-in-aid for the purpose of payment of remuneration to the petitioner subject to the result of the writ petition.
rt Amount, if any, paid to the petitioner by respondents shall not be recovered from him.
31. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to provide a regular teacher/lecturer of Sociology in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Giltari duly appointed following prescribed procedure having essential qualifications as prescribed in R & P Rules and to file compliance affidavit within two months from today.
32. In view of disposal of petition, all pending application(s) are also disposed of, with no order as to costs.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge June 1, 2016 (sks) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:22 :::HCHP