Petitioner challenged termination of PTA-based college lecturer services, seeking grant-in-aid and permanent duties. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the writ petition, holding PTA appointments are stop-gap and non-preferential to regular teachers.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 1268 of 2011 Reserved on 25.10.2017 Decided on: 02.11. 2017
| Mohinder Singh Khagta …Petitioner Vs |
|---|
| State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents. |
| Co_ram_ |
| The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No |
| For the Petitioner : | Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior |
|---|---|
| Advocate, with Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. |
|
| For the Respondents : | Mr. J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. |
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
____________________ Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
2
respondents to allow the present petitioner to perform the duties throughout the year like all PTA Teachers in the State of Himachal Pradesh.”
3
candidates and selected and joined on 12.10.2009. However, this time the services of the petitioner were utilised only for four months as he was not allowed to continue beyond 31.12.2009. The petitioner was again called back to join somewhere in the month of August, 2010 and thereafter relieved on 31.12.2010 and currently is out of job and has filed the instant petition for the reliefs as already set out above.
4
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
5
rather is in compliance to the directions passed by this Court in
CWP No. 1163 of 2007, titled Ajeet Singh vs. State of H.P. and others , decided on 10.01.2008, wherein this Court after going through the Education Code, the Rules and the Scheme, have concluded that PTA has a right to appoint teachers only as stop-gap arrangements to meet the current shortage of staff and such appointees have no right to claim that they should not be replaced by regularly appointed teachers or by regular teachers on transfer. It was further observed that the selections to the post by the PTA are made on local basis without giving wide publicity and, therefore, such appointees cannot be given preference over the regularly appointed teachers.
“The PTA has been incorporated under the HP Education Code. One of the objectives of the PTA in clause 2.33.1(7), is “to make arrangement for teachers etc., when there is shortage of staff in the institution as a temporary measure”. This is the only statues which empowers the PTA to appoint teachers. The power is limited to appoint teachers when there is shortage of staff and only as a temporary measure.
6
The State of H.P. has framed the Grant-in-aid to PTA Rules 2006 laying down certain guidelines for appointment of teachers. These guidelines permit the PTA to even appoint unqualified persons as teachers. PTA has been empowered to also appoint over-aged persons as teachers. The rules, however, provide that Grant-in-Aid shall not be given in respect of teachers who do not fulfil the prescribed qualification or those who are over-age.
From a perusal of the Education Code, the Rules and the Scheme, it is apparent that PTA has a right to appoint teachers only as stop-gap arrangements to meet the current shortage of staff. The teachers appointed by the PTA have no right to claim that they should not be replaced by regularly appointed teachers or by regular teachers on transfer. The selections to the post by the PTA are made on local basis without giving wide publicity.
We have come across hundreds of cases where the PTA members have appointed their near and dear ones as teachers. The method of appointment is totally flawed. Such teachers appointed without giving due publicity and in violation of the recruitment rules
7
cannot be given preference over the regularly appointed teachers.”
November 02, 2017. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (GR) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, appointed as a lecturer on a specialist PTA basis, is entitled to grant-in-aid and arrears based on parity with continuing teachers.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim permanent appointment without undergoing H.P. Public Service Commission selection.
Whether the PTA has the right to appoint teachers that cannot be replaced by regularly appointed teachers.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajeet Singh vs. State of H.P. and othersRelied on¶24
CWP No. 1163 of 2007, Ajeet Singh vs. State of H.P. and others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohinder Singh Khagta
State of Himachal Pradesh
Principal, Government Degree College, Nerwa
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
