Santosh Damakta vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by an undated letter, copy Annexure P-9, written to the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Jubbal by the President of Parents Teacher Association, Government Senior Secondary School, Sarot,Tehsil Jubbal, Respondent No. 4 herein, by which her appointment as Sanskrit Lecturer has been directed to be cancelled.

Parents Teacher Association, Government Senior Secondary School, Sarot passed a resolution Annexure P-3 on 2.8.2006, by which five School lecturers in Hindi, History, English, Economics and Sanskrit subjects were resolved to be appointed on account of up-gradation of the School from High School to Senior Secondary School. Thereafter, a letter Annexure P-6, dated 17.10.2006 was written by the President of Gram Panchayat, who also happened to be President of Parents Teacher Association of Government Senior Secondary School, Sarot, to the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Sarot, requesting him to appoint the Petitioner as lecturer. Though no appointment letter was issued by the said Principal, Petitioner was allowed to join on 26th June, 2007 and she was allotted 7th and 9th classes of the School, for teaching Sanskrit and 8th class for teaching Hindi. Thereafter, there were some vacations and when after the vacations, Petitioner went to join duty on 16th February, 2008, she was not allowed to resume duty, on the plea that communication Annexure P-9, for cancelling the appointment of Petitioner had been received from the President of Parent Teacher Association.

Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. the State Government, Director(Education) and School, have filed common reply in which it is stated that appointment had been made when the post of Sanskrit lecturer was not there and also the required procedure for making appointment had not been followed, inasmuch as neither the post has been advertised nor had any selection Committee been constituted to select suitable candidate for the post. Respondent No. 4 has stated that since there was no post of lecturer in Sanskrit and there was no student of 10+1 and 10+2, opting for Sanskrit Subject, Petitioner''s appointment could not have been made.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

There is no document on record, indicating that post of lecturer in Sanskrit subject had been created. Also it is not in dispute that the post of Sanskrit lecturer had not been advertised nor had any Selection Committee been constituted for making selection. It is not in dispute that there are rules, regarding appointment of teachers by Parent Teacher Association and under those rules posts are required to be advertised and a Selection Committed headed by PTA Pradhan with an expert in the subject and some other persons, as member of the Selection Committee, is constituted and such Selection Committee interviews the candidate and makes recommendation. In the present case, neither the post was advertised nor was the prescribed selection process followed and just by passing a resolution by the Parent Teacher Association, Petitioner was ordered to be appointed as lecturer in Sanskrit subject, without there being even a post of lecturer in that subject.

In view of the above stated position, petition is dismissed.