Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reeta Devi Daughter Of Shri Devki Nand vs State Of H.P. And Others on 23 January, 2015
Author: P.S. Rana
Bench: P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 3672 of 2012
.
Order Reserved on 31st December,2014
Date of Order 23rd January, 2015
________________________________________________________
Reeta Devi daughter of Shri Devki Nand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ....Respondents
________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
______________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
For Respondents Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. J.S. Rena, Assistant Advocate General.
_____________________________________________________________ P.S. Rana, Judge Order Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleaded therein that petitioner passed her matriculation examination from H.P. Board of School Education Dharamshala in the year 1999. It is pleaded that thereafter petitioner passed her Plus two from H.P. Board of School Education Dharamshala in the year 2001 and petitioner passed her degree of Bachelor of Arts from H.P. University in the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 2year 2004 and passed her M.A. from H.P. University in the year 2009. It is further pleaded that thereafter notification was issued .
by the Government to appoint the teachers under PTA scheme on dated 29.6.2006 and one post of language teacher was lying vacant in Government Senior Secondary School Majheoti Sub Tehsil Nankhari Tehsil Rampur District Shimla H.P. for which Deputy Director (Elementary) gave permission to fill up the vacant post in April 2006. It is further pleaded that as there was no language teacher in the school the PTA decided to appoint the petitioner and passed a resolution on this behalf in May 2006 and thereafter petitioner submitted her joining in Government Senior Secondary School Majheoti Sub Tehsil Nankhari Tehsil Rampur District Shimla H.P. on dated 22.5.2006. It is pleaded that after joining her duties in Government Senior Secondary School Majheoti Sub Tehsil Nankhari Tehsil Rampur District Shimla H.P. grant-in-aid has not been paid to the petitioner till date and thereafter petitioner passed her Prabhakar from H.P. University in April 2007 and as such she is eligible and qualified for release of grant-in-aid since April, 2007. It is pleaded that the Principal did not forward the case of petitioner for release of grant-in-aid and petitioner approached the Deputy Director (Elementary) Shimla for issuing directions to the Principal for sending her case ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 3 and on receiving instructions from Deputy Director (Elementary) Shimla the Principal of School applied for release of grant-in-aid .
w.e.f. April 2007 onwards and subsequent reminders were also given but grant-in-aid was not released. It is pleaded that petitioner came to know that grant-in-aid denied to petitioner as per Annexure P-10 which is an order of Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated 26.8.2011 vide order No. EDN-C-E(2)38/11. It is pleaded that denial of grant-in-aid to the petitioner is violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India because similarly situated teachers have been granted grant-in-aid and respondents denied the benefits by violating Article 14 of Constitution of India. It is pleaded that order passed by Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. dated 26.8.2011 Annexure P-10 be quashed and grant-in-aid be granted to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner in Government Senior Secondary School Majheothi Sub Tehsil Nankhari Tehsil Rampur District Shimla H.P. under PTA policy and further direct the respondents for issuance of grant-in-aid and arrears of salary from retrospective effect i.e. from April 2007.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 42. Per contra reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded therein that Government of H.P. after considering .
the shortage of staff in various school framed grant-in-aid to Parents Teachers Association Rules 2006 vide notification dated 29.6.2006. It is further pleaded that directions were issued by the Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2919 of 2006 titled Jasbir Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and in compliance to the directions instructions were issued to all Principals to comply the order passed in OA No. 2919 of 2006 by Hon'ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal. It is pleaded that petitioner was appointed by Parents Teachers Association after passing the resolution on dated 22.5.2006 purely on remuneration of `1200/-
per month to be paid from PTA fund prior to the notification of grant-in-aid Rules without following procedure. It is pleaded that petitioner is not at all entitled for grant-in-aid since the petitioner was appointed without completing codal formalities i.e. without advertisement of post and without conducting the interview. It is pleaded that no grant-in-aid is released to similarly situated persons appointed by School Management Committee in contravention of Rules. It is pleaded that the petitioner was not eligible for the post till dated 31.12.2009 as prior to dated 31.12.2009 the minimum qualification was Honours in Hindi with ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 5 Matric and L.T. training from recognized University. It is pleaded that the petitioner was not legally eligible for appointment as .
language teacher as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is further pleaded that grant-in-aid to PTA teachers would not be admissible to the teachers who did not fulfill the education qualification fixed by the Government in respect of particular post. It is pleaded that petitioner has no cause of action and prayer for dismissal of petition sought.
3. Petitioner filed rejoinder and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in the petition. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents and Court also perused the entire record carefully.
4. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:-
1. Whether petitioner is legally entitled for grant-in-
aid and arrears of salary w.e.f. April 2007 as alleged?
2. Whether petitioner is legally entitled to absorb in Government Senior Secondary School Majheoti Sub Tehsil Nankhari Tehsil Rampur District Shimla H.P. under PTA Policy upon the post of language teacher as alleged?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 63. Final Order.
Findings on point No.1
5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf .
of the petitioner that petitioner is legally entitled for grant-in-aid and arrears of salary w.e.f. April 2007 because petitioner has completed her eligibility for the post of language teacher as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has perused Annexure P-10 placed on record which was an order dated 26.8.2011 passed by learned Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. whereby Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. had rejected the claim of petitioner for grant-in-aid. Learned Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. had rejected the case of petitioner on the ground that petitioner was appointed by PTA on dated 22.5.2006 and policy for grant-in-aid to PTA was notified on dated 29.9.2006 and on the ground that petitioner was locally engaged against the post of language teacher in Government Senior Secondary School Majheoti District Shimla H.P. on PTA fund donated by parents of students and on the ground that petitioner was not appointed under the policy for grant-in-aid to PTAs Rules 2006 and on the ground that petitioner was paid salary from personal contribution of students and parents and therefore she is not entitled for grant-in-aid under ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 7 said policy. Court has also perused the inquiry report which is submitted by Mr. Dalip Negi (HAS) Inquiry Officer-cum-Sub .
Divisional Officer (C) Rampur Bushehr District Shimla and inquiry report submitted by Mr. Dalip Negi (HAS) Inquiry Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (C) Rampur Bushehr District Shimla is quoted in toto:-
"IN THE COURT OF DLAIP NEGI (HAS) INQUIRY OFFICER-CUM-SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (C) RAMPUR BUSHAHR DISTRICT SHIMLA Inquiry Report This inquiry was assigned by the Pr. Secretary (Hr. Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide his office letter No. EDN-A-B(6)8/2005-XI-L dated 22nd May 2014 through the Deputy Commissioner Shimla and directed/informed that the Government has decided to re-engage all the PTA provided teachers who were earlier engaged before 31.12.2007 and whose services were discontinued due to the reason other than inquiry Committee if they are otherwise eligible as per the R&P Rules and GIA be released in their favour after making necessary inquiry thereof. The Deputy Commissioner had directed to decide all the appeals requests received from the candidates whose services were discontinued.
Ms Reeta Devi D/o Sh. Devki Nand resident of village Thali, Tehsil Rampur Bushehr District Shimla H.P. availing the opportunity as provided by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and presented an application on 20.06.2014. The applicant as ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 8 well as the Principal Govt. Sr. Sec. School Majheoti as summoned for 01.08.2014, 13.08.2014 and 27.08.2014. The brief contents of the application/complaint are that the applicant had been .
appointed as Language Teacher (Hindi) in Govt. Sr. Sec. School Majheoti on 28.04.2007 by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). The parents teacher Association appoint one lecturer of commerce in the same resolution vide which the applicant had been appointed and recommended the name of the commerce lecturer to GIA to the govt. but the name of the applicant had not been recommended by the school authority. These pick and choose policy of the school authority deprived the applicant. The applicant Reeta Devi serving in the said post till date to the best satisfaction of School Management and fulfill all essential educational qualification for the said post. Despite that fact the school management had not recommended her name for the Grant-in-Aid. This act of school authority shows dereliction towards their duties. It is pertinent to mention here the teachers appointed by the parents teacher association vide resolutions in various schools in Himachal Pradesh get the Grant-in-Aid from the Government which was appointed after the appointment of applicant.
From the perusal of application as well as the statement of the applicant and record on the file, I found that Smt. Reeta Devi had been appointed by Parents Teacher Association along with other teachers. But her name was not recommended by the school authority for GIA. The applicant being aggrieved with the pick and choose policy of the school authority. Therefore keeping in view the govt. vide notification No. EDN-A-B(6)8/2005-XI-L dated 24th May 2014 the name of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 9 applicant is recommended to include her name in the Grant-in- Aid policy of the Government. This report is submitted to the Worthy Deputy Commissioner Shimla District Shimla for favour of .
further necessary action please.
Sd/-
Sub-Divisional Officer (C) Inquiry Officer under PTA Rampur Bushahr District Shimla (HP)"
The Sub Divisional Officer cum Inquiry Officer has submitted in the inquiry report that applicant was appointed as language teacher (Hindi) in Government Senior Secondary School Majheoti on dated 28.4.2007 by PTA and thereafter Parent Teachers Association appointed one lecturer of commerce in the same resolution vide which petitioner was appointed and recommended the name of commerce lecturer for grant-in-aid but name of petitioner was not recommended by school authority for grant-in-aid. The Inquiry Officer further submitted that petitioner Reeta Devi is serving in said post till date to the satisfaction of School Management and fulfill all essential educational qualification for the post but despite that school management had not recommended her name for grant-in-aid and act of school authority shows dereliction towards their duties. Inquiry Officer further submitted in the report that teachers appointed by Parent Teachers Association vide resolution in various school in Himachal Pradesh get grant-in-aid ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 10 which were appointed after appointment of petitioner and inquiry officer further submitted in his report that keeping in view the .
government notification No. EDN-A-B(6)8/2005-XI-L dated 24.5.2014 he recommended the name of applicant to be included in grant-in-aid policy of the government and he submitted the report to Worthy Deputy Commissioner Shimla.
Learned Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. did not give any reason to disagree with the report of inquiry officer and did not reject the inquiry officer's report with positive cogent and reliable reasons. Learned Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. did not mention in his order that benefits of grant-in-aid were not given to the similarly posted teachers in Himachal Pradesh. It is well settled law that as per Article 14 of Constitution of India only one policy should be applied by the government throughout State either benefit of grant-in-aid be granted to all similarly situated persons or declined to all similar situated persons. It is well settled law that as per Constitution of India pick and choose policy by the government with employees should not be allowed to continue on the concept of equality before law. There is no rider in the policy that benefit of grant-in-aid would not be given to PTA teachers appointed prior to the enforcement of Grant-in-aid to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 11 PTA Rules 2006. In absence of saving clause Court is of the opinion that policy would be applicable to all teachers working in .
schools and appointed by PTA authorities in entire State of H.P. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
Point No.2
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner be absorbed as language teacher in Government Senior Secondary School Majheoti Sub Tehsil Nankhari Tehsil Rampur District Shimla is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that petitioner was appointed as language teacher by Parent Teachers Association. It is well settled law that government is legally competent to appoint regular teachers after proper advertisement strictly in accordance with law. Court is of the opinion that appointment of petitioner by PTA is only a stop gap arrangement for the benefit of education of school children. It is well settled law that regular appointment in public post is always done strictly as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Hence prayer of petitioner that she should be absorbed as regular teacher is declined because appointment authority on regular post in Government school is not PTA authority but some ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP 12 other competent authority of law as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. In view of above stated facts point No. 2 is .
answered in negative.
Final Order
7. In view of findings in point Nos. 1 and 2 civil writ petition is partly allowed. Order dated 26.8.2011 passed by learned Principal Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh No. EDN-C-E(2)38/11 dated 26.8.2011 is quashed and it is ordered that petitioner will be legally entitled for Grant-in-aid as per grant-in-aid to Parents Teachers Association Rules 2006- appointmnet of PTA teachers till petitioner works as language teacher appointed by PTA. The arrears will be released within one month from today. Further prayer of petitioner that she should be absorbed as regular language teacher is declined in the ends of justice. No order as to costs. Petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stands disposed of.
January 23,2015 (P.S. Rana)
ms. Vacation Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:34:41 :::HCHP