Road vs The State Of
2022 Latest Caselaw 8698 HP

                                                        .
       IN   THE    HIGH   COURT OF HIMACHAL              PRADESH,





                             SHIMLA
                 ON THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022





                              BEFORE
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
                CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1988 of 2015
    Between:

    SMT. KUSUM LATA, W/O SH.
    BALRAM    SHARMA,   R/O
    VILLAGE & POST OFFICE
    KUTHERA

               KHERLA,  UNA


    ROAD, AMB, TEHSIL AMB,
    DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL
    PRADESH.


                                                      ....PETITIONER.

    (M/S ONKAR JAIRATH AND SHUBHAM SOOD, ADVOCATES)




    AND





    1.   THE  STATE     OF
    HIMACHAL       PRADESH





    THROUGH      PRINCIPAL
    SECRETARY  (EDUCATION)
    TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
    HIMACHAL      PRADESH,
    SHIMLA.
    2.  THE    DIRECTOR   OF
    HIGHER        EDUCATION,
    HIMACHAL PRADESH, LAL
    PANI, SHIMLA­171001.
    3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
    HIGHER EDUCATION MANDI,
    DISTRICT MANDI.




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:04:27 :::CIS
                                          2




                                                                  .
    4.     THE     ADM­CUM­





    CHAIRMAN, PTA ENQUIRY
    COMMITTEE UNA, TEHSIL
    AND DISTRICT UNA.





    5.     THE    PRINCIPAL
    GOVERNMENT       SENIOR
    SECONDARY       SCHOOL
    MUBARAKPUR, TEHSIL AMB,





    DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL
    PRADESH.
    6. THE PARENT TEACHER
    ASSOCIATION
                   r   (NOW
    RENAMED     AS  SCHOOL

    MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE)
    OF GOVERNMENT SENIOR
    SECONDARY       SCHOOL
    MUBARAKPUR, TEHSIL AMB,



    DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL
    PRADESH THROUGH ITS
    PRESIDENT.




                                                            ....RESPONDENTS.





    (M/S DINESH THAKUR AND SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL
    ADVOCATES GENERAL, FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5­
    STATE)





    (NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)


    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes

         This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:


                JUDGMENT

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for

quashing of Annexure P­6, which is an order passed by the learned

Appellate Authority, dated 15.12.2014, in terms whereof an

.

application filed by the petitioner for her reappointment under the

PTA Guidelines, 2014 stood dismissed.

2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition

are that the petitioner was appointed on PTA basis as a teacher in

Government Senior Secondary School, Mubarakpur, District Una,

H.P., on 12.05.2006 and her services were terminated as such on

25.08.2006. The petitioner though did assail her termination firstly

before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal, wherein the Original Application filed by the petitioner was

dismissed for want of jurisdiction and thereafter, before this Court

by way of CWP No.1185/07, which was decided by this Court vide

Annexure P­3, dated 21.04.2008, the fact of the matter remains that

the termination of the services of the petitioner as on 25.08.2006

was not held to be bad by either any Court of Law or the Authority,

to whom the petitioner was relegated in terms of the judgment

passed by this Court in Annexure P­3. It appears that thereafter, the

Government came out with the PTA Guidelines, 2014, circulated by

the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Education,

letter No. EDN­A­B(6)8/2005­XI­L, dated 24.05.2014 and thereafter,

on the basis of these Guidelines, the petitioner filed an application

before the ADM­cum­Chairman, PTA Inquiry Committee for her re­

appointment in terms of these PTA Guidelines, 2014. This

.

application of the petitioner has been rejected by the authority

concerned vide Annexure P­6 and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner

has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned Additional Advocate General. I have also perused the

pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith.

4. For the purpose of the adjudication of the present

petition, this Court is of the considered view that reference to the

impugned order suffices the purpose. As already mentioned above,

the prayer of the petitioner before the Chairman of the PTA Inquiry

Committee, which has resulted in the issuance of Annexure P­6, was

to the effect that as the services of the petitioner were terminated on

25.08.2006, on the ground that a regular teacher was appointed in a

place in the school concerned, therefore, she be ordered to be

reinstated in service in terms of the Guidelines which were brought

into force by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, i.e. PTA

Guidelines, 2014. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates

that the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent

authority, on the ground that the petitioner was not covered by the

Guidelines, as the Guidelines provided for reinstatement of those

teachers appointed on PTA basis, who had served before 31.12.2007

and whose services were terminated due to some reason after

.

01.01.2008. Now, in the case of the petitioner, it is not in dispute

that though she was engaged as a PTA teacher on 12.05.2006, but

her services were terminated on 25.08.2006.

5. Keeping in view the fact that the Policy envisaged re­

engagement of those PTA. teachers, who though might have been

appointed before 31.12.2007, but whose services were terminated

after 01.01.2008, the rejection of the case of the petitioner by the

competent authority cannot be held to be bad in law. This is for the

reason that when the cut off date after which an incumbent ought to

have been terminated as envisaged in the Policy of 2014 was

01.01.2008 and the services of the petitioner stood terminated

before that date, i.e. on 25.08.2006, the findings returned by the

competent authority that the petitioner was not covered by the Policy

Guidelines are correct findings and the same do not call for any

interference. It is pertinent to mention that there is no challenge to

the cut off date as was envisaged in the PTA Guidelines, 2014 by the

Government of Himachal Pradesh and therefore also, this Court is of

the considered view that the relief being sought for by the petitioner

cannot be granted.

6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made

hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present

.

petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous

applications, if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 20, 2022

(Rishi)