State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Shyama Rana

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 7915 of 2019, titled as Smt. Shyama Rana vs. State of H.P. and others.

The respondent/petitioner approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 3448 of 2016, titled as Shyama Ran vs. State of H.P. and others, praying for the following substantive reliefs: -

“(i) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to frame a policy for conferring contractual status on the teachers working on SMC under Local Fund/Student Welfare Fund basis in the Government School, and for regularization in due course of time.

(ii) That the applicant may be held entitled to all consequential benefits from due date pursuant to her initial appointment vide resolution dated 16.05.2013, Annexure A-4;

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the grant in aid in favour of the applicant from due date i.e. 17.5.2013 with interest on market rate on delayed payment;

(iv) That in the alternative the respondent department may be directed to treat the applicant continue in service in view of notification dated 17.7.2012, extended from time, with all consequential benefits.”

After abolition of the learned Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No.7915 of 2019.

The case of the respondent/petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that she was engaged as a Language Teacher by the School Management Committee of Government Senior Secondary School, Timbi, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P. vide resolution dt. 16.05.2013. A notification was issued by the State on 17.07.2012 for engaging teachers through School Management Committees (SMCs), in terms whereof, the Grant-in-aid was payable to the teachers appointed by the School Management Committee, provided that the appointee was fulfilling the educational qualifications for appointment to the post as prescribed by the State from time to time. According to her, she was fulfilling the educational qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post at the time of her engagement.

As the Department was not allowing her to continue for the Session 2014-15, feeling aggrieved, she filed OA No. 4464 of 2015, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dt. 24.11.2015, directing the respondents-State to allow the petitioner to continue on the same terms and conditions on which she was engaged. Thereafter, in terms of order dt. 01.02.2016, Deputy Director of Elementary Education, District Sirmaur at Nahan, allowed her to continue as a Language Teacher in the School in issue. According to her, the Department was not releasing Grant-in-aid in her favour nor was framing a policy with regard to the teachers appointed under local fund/ Students Welfare Fund. Feeling aggrieved, she filed the petition, praying for reliefs already enumerated hereinabove.

Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by holding that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2467 of 2015, titled as Villam Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein the directions were issued to release Grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner therein who was similarly situated as the petitioner.

Learned Single Judge further held that the judgment passed in CWP No. 2467 of 2015 was confirmed in LPA No. 53 of 2018 and even the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State against the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench before Hon’ble Supreme Court, was dismissed. Learned Single Judge also observed that it was not the case of the State that there was no necessity of appointing Language Teacher in the school concerned and the appointment through School Management Committee was on account of lapse of the Department to cater to the needs of the students. Learned Single Judge held that as the State failed to provide teachers to teach students and rather SMC was allowed to appoint such teachers, therefore, when responsibility of paying to the teachers arose, the State could not be allowed to wash its hands off on the plea that teachers were engaged by SMC and not by the Department and therefore, they were not the responsibility of the Department. Accordingly, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing the State to release Grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner as per relevant Rules w.e.f. 16.08.2014.

Having heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner and having carefully gone through the judgment passed by learned Single Judge as well as the writ record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings returned by learned Single Judge. This is more so for the reason that the only argument raised before us on behalf of the State was that the appointment of the respondent-petitioner in the School was not by following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules. In our considered view, the need to appoint teachers like the respondent-petitioner through SMC was a result of inaction on the part on the State to fill up the posts of teachers in the Schools as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Besides this, the school in which the respondent-petitioner was appointed as a Language Teacher was not a private school but a government school. The Department acquiesced to the appointment of the teachers through SMC and thereafter when it came to paying the Grant-in-aid etc., the State/Department turned its back by disowning such like teachers on the ground that they were appointed by the SMC. Learned Single Judge rightly held that it was the duty of the Education Department, being functionary of the State, to provide sufficient teachers in the school which was opened by the State. Learned Single Judge rightly held that on account of lapse or failure on the part of the State to provide teachers, SMCs were constrained to appoint persons like the petitioner to cater to the needs of the students and the State allowed the SMCs to make such like appointments, therefore, the act of the State of denying payment of Grant-in-aid and other emoluments equivalent to similarly situated persons as the respondent- petitioner, for the reasons assigned by the Department was unwarranted. We fully concur with the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge because, as observed hereinabove, the primary reason for appointment of the petitioner as a Language Teacher through SMC was inaction on the part of the State/Department to appoint regular teacher as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The State cannot be allowed to shun away from its duty to pay to the respondent-petitioner the Grant-in-aid as well as other emoluments as were payable to the similarly situated persons. This is more so for the reason that during the course of hearing, learned Additional Advocate General could not dispute the fact that the petitioner otherwise was similarly situated as Villam Singh, relying upon the judgment in whose case, the relief was granted to the respondent- petitioner by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as we do not find any merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.