Uttarakhand High Court
Anisha Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 November, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1442 of 2021
Anisha Devi ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents
Advocates : Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. CSC, for the State
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The Uttarakhand School Education Act of 2006, was notified to
be made enforceable in the State of Uttarakhand w.e.f. 29.12.2006. In
order to meet certain academic contingencies, the powers have been
provided to the Committee of Management exclusively to make part-
time/acting PTA teachers' appointment, exclusively on temporary
basis in order to meet the academic contingencies. Section 41 of the
Act is extracted hereunder:-
41. Ad hoc Appointment of Part Time Teacher/Acting
P.T.A. Teachers by Committee of Management:-
[Such part time teachers/P.T.A. teachers employed from
private sources upto dated 18.10.2011 by the Managing Committee
may be appointed as ad hoc by the Managing Committee which for
the post were created prescribed qualifications for the relevant
posts, the result, conduct and behavior are best and the payment of
honorarium is admissible from the Treasury.]
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that petitioner's
late husband Ranbeer Singh, who was working in the institution of
respondent Nos. 4 & 5, which is a grant-in-aid institution had met
with the sad demise on 04.08.2019, and since having met with the sad
demise, during the course of the services, being rendered by him with
the respondents, the petitioner had claimed to be considered for
appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. When the claim thus raised by the petitioner and the same was
not considered, she had approached the writ Court by preferring a writ
petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1909 of 2020, which was
disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment
dated 05.01.2021, directing the respondents to consider and decide the
representation of the petitioner sympathetically as per the rules. The
respondents, in compliance of the judgment dated 05.01.2021 had
considered the claim of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate grounds and had rejected the same by the impugned
order dated 07.04.2021.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going
through the impugned order, which has been passed by the
respondents rejecting the representation of the petitioner, rejecting her
claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, in fact, the
reasoning which has been assigned by the Manager of the College in
question, who is the appointing authority under the Act, is on the
ground that; once, the appointment of the late husband of the
petitioner with the respondents institution, was under Section 41 of
the Act, as a PTA teacher, who was working on a consolidated
honorarium paid to the late husband of the petitioner. Meaning
thereby, the appointment of the late husband of the petitioner was not
as a regular appointment, against sanctioned cadre strength of the
teachers. In that eventuality, the nature of appointment of the late
husband of the petitioner will not create any lien or would be treated
as to be a regular appointment because the intentions expressed by the
provisions to Section 41 as already extracted above are quite explicit.
5. Secondly, the application of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate grounds could not have been considered, because the
State Government has issued an order No. 1974/xxiv/2016-
10(20)/2016 dated 21.12.2016, wherein it has been provided that any
appointments which are made by the Committee of Management
under the PTA Scheme, would not be entitled for claiming a regular
appointment and it would be treated as to be a contractual
arrangement only.
6. Hence, it was observed in the impugned order that in view of
the earlier Government Order No. 266 dated 10.07.2009, the
appointment of the late husband of the petitioner was under these
stipulated conditions provided therein.
7. In that eventuality, since the petitioner was claiming a
compassionate appointment, which would not be available to the
teachers appointed under Section 41 of the Act under the PTA
Scheme, in an aided institutions, the claim of the petitioner had been
rightly rejected by the respondents by the impugned order dated
07.04.2021. As such, I am of the view that writ petition lacks merit
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
16.11.2021
Mahinder/
