Guru Parshad vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner was appointed as TGT (Non Medical), in the year 2002, on the basis of a resolution passed by the Parent Teachers Association (PTA), in Government Senior Secondary School, Mair. In June 2006, he, vide another resolution of PTA, was required to teach history subject to the students of plus one and plus two classes, as he had passed master''s degree in history. In 2006, a scheme was formulated by the Government, copy Annexure P3, for providing grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the teachers appointed under PTA scheme.

Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (History) for teaching plus one and plus two students w.e.f. 25.8.2007, vide letter dated 23.7.2007, copy Annexure P2.Thereafter a reference was made by the Principal of the school, on 23.7.2007, to the Deputy Director, intimating that the Petitioner had been appointed as Lecturer in History. Though the letter does not say as to what specific action the Deputy Director was required to take on that reference, yet it is stated that the aforesaid information was given to him for necessary action.

A reference was made by the Deputy Director (Education), perhaps in response to letter dated 23.7.2007, copy Annexure P4, to the President of PTA, intimating that there was No. information about the attendance of the Petitioner and that action for grant-in-aid would be taken only on receipt of such information. No. grant-in-aid has been sanctioned so far, despite issuance of a legal notice.Petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition, seeking issuance of direction to Respondents No. 1 to 3, for providing grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the Petitioner, in accordance with the Rules, copy Annexure P-3.

Respondents in their reply have stated that appointment of the Petitioner, as lecturer, has not been made by following the procedure prescribed for making appointment under PTA scheme

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General.

Respondents have not placed on record any prescribed procedure for selection and appointment of PTA teachers nor have they indicated as to what procedure is required to be followed and that such procedure had not been followed in the case of the Petitioner. Petitioner was appointed initially as TGT (Non Medical) in the year 2002., In 2006, he was required to teach history to the students of plus one and plus two classes and he was formally appointed as Lecturer (History), pursuant to resolution No. 49 dated 19.7.2007, passed by the Parent Teachers Association. This fact is borne out from the letter of appointment, copy Annexure P2. It appears that the Petitioner was allowed to join as Lecturer (History) by the Principal of the school, because he addressed a letter, copy Annexure P2, on 23.7.2007, to the Deputy Director of Education (Higher), intimating that the Petitioner had been appointed as Lecturer (History) on the recommendation of PTA. Deputy Director wrote letter Annexure P5 to PTA President, asking for information about attendance of the Petitioner. He found No. fault with appointment of the Petitioner, but asked for the aforesaid information only, so that grant-in-aid for paying him salary could be released.

In view of the above stated position, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to reconsider the matter, regarding grant-in-aid, in respect of salary payable to the Petitioner, in the light of above discussion and to pass a speaking order, with regard to the claim of the Petitioner, within two months from today.