AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Deepak Gupta, J.—The petitioner, by means of this petition, has prayed for grant of the following reliefs: A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Appropriate Writ or direction quashing the impugned letter dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure P-12) issued by Principal Senior Secondary School Nandpur to Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and all further communication in pursuance to this letter.
B. Issue a Writ of mandamus of any other Writ, order or direction directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner in GSSS Nandpur, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla under PTA Policy 2006 and further direct them for the issuance of Grant-In-Aid and arrears of salary for the aforesaid post after adjusting the amount received by the petitioner as student contributory fund from retrospective effect 2006 as has already been issued to the other similarly circumstanced persons vide Annexure P-13.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was, at that time, studying in M.A., was appointed as a Language Teacher in Government High School, Nandpur on 01.04.2004. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that a meeting of the Parents Teachers Association of the School took place on 1st April, 2004, wherein it was resolved that since the post of Language Teacher is lying vacant in the school for a long time and the Government has not deputed any Language Teacher in the school, some local person, who can teach Hindi to the students, be appointed by the Parents Teachers Association. On the same date by the same resolution, it was resolved that the petitioner, Naveen Lata, be appointed as Language Teacher. No advertisement was issued inviting applications for filling up this post, no selection was made and the petitioner was appointed straightaway. The petitioner continued as such and in the year 2007, acquired the qualification necessary for being appointed as a Language Teacher. She, thereafter, claimed that she be appointed under the PTA Policy of 2006 and Grant-In-Aid be given in respect of her qualification. This claim was rejected by the Parents Teachers Association on the ground that her appointment had not been made after due selection and at the time she had been appointed, she did not possess the minimum requisite educational qualification required for the said post. It, however, appears that the petitioner continued to work and she continued to be paid by the PTA after collecting funds from the students and finally in the year 2010, her services were dispensed. It is, thereafter, that she approached this Court. 2. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General and perused the record.
According to Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner should be absorbed under the PTA Policy, since she now fulfills the requisite educational qualification and is teaching the students for many years after being appointed by the Parents Teachers Association.
In my view, this prayer cannot be accepted. The petitioner has not been appointed after due selection process. True it is, that the petitioner has continued to teach for a long time, but the fact remains that her appointment was made without advertising the post or inviting the other people, who may have eligible in the area. She did not fulfill the requisite educational qualification when she was appointed. May be, in all probability there must be, persons who were duly qualified, who could have been appointed to the post, but the Parents Teachers Association, in its wisdom, thought it fit to appoint the petitioner, that too without any selection.
By now, the law is well settled that a person, who comes in without facing the process of selection, is holding the post as a back door entry, cannot claim any equity or a right to be regularized. In this behalf, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others,
The whole problem appears to be that the State formulated the PTA Policy in the year 2006 and this policy provided that the State would give Grant-In-Aid for teachers, who were appointed after due selection and who furnished the minimum educational qualification. When this policy was framed in the year 2006, even at that time, the petitioner did not furnish the requisite minimum educational qualification. Therefore, there is no question of her being absorbed under the PTA Policy. All the PTA appointments are clearly made on short term basis and there is no question of being absorbed under the PTA Policy.
Be that as it may, if in the school in question, the post is still vacant and the PTA deems it fit to fill in the post, the same must be advertised and in case, the petitioner is eligible, she can also apply for the same and the selection must be made on the basis of merit determined as per the guidelines laid down by the State from time to time. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.