Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chander Parkash Sharma vs State Of Hp & Ors on 1 July, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.358 of 2015 .
Date of decision: 1.7.2016.
Chander Parkash Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & Ors ...Respondents
Coram
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Shyam Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:
rt Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Addl.AG with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General .
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J (Oral):
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
(i) That the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 25.9.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and issuing the writ of certiorari.
(ii) That the respondent State may kindly be directed to release the grant in aid to the petitioner with effect from 20th September, 2008 with interest and all other consequential benefits.
2. Petitioner was appointed as TGT Arts on PTA basis on 20.9.2008, but was not paid the grant-in-aid, constraining him to file CWP No.2323/2014 which was disposed of by this court with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and the same reads thus:
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:44:47 :::HCHP 2
" Leaving the questions of law open, it is open for the petitioner to approach the respondents, as prayed for. As and when any such request is received by the appropriate .
authority, the same shall be considered on its merits, in accordance with the law within a period of eight weeks by affording adequate opportunity of hearing representation to the petitioners. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of petitioners, the authority shall assign reasons while of deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioners."
3. rt Respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 9.4.2014 by according the following reasons:
"After hearing both the parties and thorough examination of the case, I am of the view that as the petitioner was not appointed as per PTA policy nor during the time of policy which was operational w.e.f 29.6.2006 to 6.11.2006 in r/o TGT's as engagement of TGT's and C&V teachers under PTA GIA Rules, 2006 was banned on 6.11.2006 and later on ban imposed on PTA engagement was revoked on 13.7.2007 only in r/o C & V category. Hence, the petitioner is not eligible for engagement on PTA basis."
4. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order has not appreciated the fact that the petitioner had been repeatedly engaging the attention of the respondents to appoint him against the approved sanctioned post, but no heed was paid to the same. He has further submitted that similarly situated persons have been given grant-in-aid and, therefore, it is a case of invidious discrimination.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:44:47 :::HCHP 35. The petitioner had made a specific averment regarding discrimination and the same is contained in para 6 (c) which reads .
thus:
"6 (c)That it is respectfully submitted that the similar situated persons are being given the grant in aid namely, Arti Bala, Lect. Hindi, Nisha Kumari Lect. Commerce, Sanjeev Kumar Lect. In Commerce, Subhash Rana, Lect. In English Jeevan of Lal, Lect. In Physics Munish Kumar Lect. Biology Govt. Sen.Sec.School Dheera Distt Kangra HP and Sh.Deepak Chauhan PET Govt. Sen. Sec School Himry Distt.Shimla, rt HP and one Sh.Mukand Lal GHS Todsa Shimla he was appointed on 1.11.2010 his qualification is Prabhakar and Kaurra Devi, GHS, Kunhoo Mandi she was appinted on 16.9.2008. The petitioner applied RTI to collect the information these PTA teachers appointed years 2008 and once before policy appointed on resolution basis 1st March, 2006 without conducted interview they were appointed resolution basis. But the present petitioner has not been ignored from his legitimate claim to the reason best known to the petitioner. The copies of similar situated persons are annexed herewith as Annexure P-7 and P-8 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.".
6. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner by filing reply wherein it has simply been averred that the impugned decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner has rightly been passed by them. Insofar as the specific averments contained in para 6 (c) of the petition are concerned, same have been replied in the following manner:
"That this para calls for no submissions in view of the facts and submissions as submitted in the preliminary submissions. However, it is submitted that Annexure A-6 has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:44:47 :::HCHP 4 rightly been issued by the replying respondent in view of the facts and submissions as submitted in the preceding paras. The reply to sub paras of this para are as under:
.
A) That this sub para is not admitted in view of the facts and submissions as submitted in the preceding paras. B) That this sub para calls for no submissions in view of the facts and submissions as submitted in the preceding paras.
of C) That this sub para also calls for no submissions in view of the facts and submissions as submitted in the rt preceding paras."
7. When the matter came up for consideration on 11.3.2016, this Court observed that the replies being filed by the Director, Elementary Education, in most of the cases, were evasive and accordingly directed him to appear in person.
8. On 1.4.2016, Director, Elementary Education appeared before this Court and requested for time to file supplementary affidavit to the specific averments as contained in para 6 (c) of the petition (supra).
9. Respondents have now filed supplementary affidavit, the relevant portion whereof reads thus:
"2. That in reply to para 6(c ), it is submitted that vide letter No.EDN-A-Kha(7)-3/2006 dated 3.1.2008, it was directed to stop selection/appointment by Parents Teachers Association and the petitioner was appointed by the Parents Teachers Association on 20.9.2008 in violation of instructions dated 3.1.2008. The copy of letter dated 3.1.2008 is annexed and the same is marked as Annexure SA-1. It is further submitted that all the teachers as named in this para were ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:44:47 :::HCHP 5 appointed before 3.1.2008. The detail of the teachers named in this para is as below:
.
S.No. Name of PTA Date of Date of Remarks
teachers Engageme
joining
mentioned in para nt on PTA
6© of the petition basis
1. Aarti Bala, Lect. 8.11.2006 8.11.2006
2 Nisha KUmari 9.10.2007 5.7.2008 All thee teachers
of
were appointed prior
3. Sanjeev Kumar 9.10.2007 5.7.2008 to 3.1.2008.
rt However, their
4. Subhash 9.10.2007 7.7.2008 joining was not
taken. They were
5. Jeevan Lal 9.10.2007 4.7.2008 allowed to join in
compliance to the
6. Manish Kumar 9.10.2007 4.7.2008 directions passed by
the Hon'ble High
7. Deepak Chauhan 1.3.3006 1.3.2006 Court in CWP
No.93/2008 titled as
8. Mukand Lal 1.11.2006 1.11.2006 Sanjeev Kumar and
& ors Vs. State of HP
9. Kaura Devi 15.9.2006 15.9.2006
3. That it is submitted that it is clear from the above table that all the teachers name in para 6 ( c ) were appointed before 3.1.2008, whereas the petitioner was appointed after the issuance of instructions dated 3.1.2008, i.e Annexure SA-1. Hence, the petitioner is not similarly situated to the persons named in para 6 ©"
10. The moot question, therefore, is as to whether the present is a case of invidious discrimination as alleged by the petitioner or are the respondents fully justified in denying him the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:44:47 :::HCHP 6 grant in aid though the same has been granted to the similarly situated persons but under the orders of the court.
.
11. Identical issue came up before a learned Division Bench of this court in CWP No.2549 of 2015, titled as Hem Raj Sharma Vs. State of HP & ors decided on 7.8.2015 and the court therein was also seized with an issue, wherein three teachers who had of been appointed on PTA basis after 3.1.2008 were being paid grant in aid. This court termed the action of the respondents to be rt discriminatory and arbitrary and the petition was accordingly allowed. It is apt to reproduce paras 3 to 5 of the judgment which reads thus:
3. Petitioner was appointed as DPE in Government Senior Secondary School, Thona on PTA basis on 1.10.2008. Petitioner has given instances of 5 teachers, who were appointed after 3.1.2008 in para 9 of the petition vide Annexure P-5. It has come in the reply that these 5 teachers were offered appointment by the PTA, Government Senior Secondary School, Dheera on 9.10.2007 after conducting the interview, but they were not allowed to join the duties. They filed CWP No. 93/2008.
Thereafter, these 5 teachers were permitted to join on PTA basis in Government Senior Secondary School, Dheera. Petitioner has also given the instances of 3 teachers, namely, Indira Devi, Kaurra Devi and Mukand Lal, who were appointed on PTA basis after 3.1.2008 and are being paid grant-in-aid. Respondents have not denied the averments made qua these 3 teachers, who were appointed after 3.1.2008 but are beingpaid grant-in-aid.
4. Petitioner has been discriminated against by the respondent-State. He was constrained to approach this Court repeatedly for the redressal of his grievances.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:44:47 :::HCHP 7Petitioner's case should have been considered on the parity of Indira Devi, Kaurra Devi and Mukand Lal for the purpose of release of grant-in-aid. The decision of the .
respondents not to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner is arbitrary.
5. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-9 dated 9.4.2015 is quashed and set aside.
of Respondents are directed to release grant-in-aid to the petitioner on the parity of Indira Devi, Kaurra Devi and Mukand Lal within a period of 6 weeks from today. rt Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs."
12. The judgment rendered in Hem Raj Sharma's case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case because herein also it was pursuant to the orders passed in CWP No. 93/2008 that all the teachers as mentioned in para 9 supra had been given the grant in aid, whereas the petitioner alone had been discriminated. In such circumstances, I have no option, but to allow the present petition and consequently the order dated 25.9.2014 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside and the respondent State is directed to release the grant in aid to the petitioner with effect from 20th September, 2008. The same be positively released forthwith along with all arrears within a period of three months from today, failing which respondents shall be further liable to pay an interest @ 9% p.a. on this amount.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:44:47 :::HCHP 8With these observations, petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms along with all pending application(s), leaving the .
parties to bear their costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
July 1,2016 of (sl) rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:44:47 :::HCHP