Back
2010 Supreme(HP) 995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
CWP (T) No.4196/2008 Decided on:27.9.2010
Mrs. Manjusha.Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
For the petitioner:Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt.
Advocate General for respondent No.1 and 2. 1.None for respondent No.3
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government is not obligated to take over the services of teachers working in a private school when a government school is upgraded or a new school is opened.
Headnote:
Volunteer Teacher - State Government Takeover - The court held that since the State Government had not taken over the school where the petitioner was appointed as a volunteer teacher, the services of the petitioner could not be taken over by the State.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a volunteer Teacher in a school, and the petitioner claimed that the State Government should have taken over their services when the school was taken over by the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government had not taken over the school where the petitioner was appointed, and therefore, there was no merit in the petition, leading to its dismissal.
Issues: The issue was whether the State Government should have taken over the services of the petitioner when the school was taken over by the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fact that the State Government had not taken over the school where the petitioner was appointed, and therefore, there was no obligation for the State to take over the petitioner's services.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no costs.
Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as volunteer Teacher in r espondent No.3-School on 12.6.1993. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that respondent-State has taken over Janta Primary School, Bhajolu, Tehsil Arki District Solan.
2. Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva has strenuously argued that since respondent No.3-school has been taken over by the State Government, services of the petitioner also ought to have been taken over by respondent-State.
3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the State Government has never taken over respondent No.3- school, however, new Government Primary School, Bhajolu, Block Dhundan, District Solan was opened vide notification dated 31.3.1995.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.
5. A bare perusal of Annexure D-1 dated 31.3.1995 makes it abundantly clear that the State Government has opened its own Government Primary School, Bhajolu.
Respondent No.3-school was never taken over by the State Government. It was being run by the private Managing Committee, who had appointed the petitioner as volunteer Teacher on 12.6.1993. Since the Government has not taken over respondent No.3-school, services of the petitioner could not be taken over. When a Government school is upgraded or new school is opened, there is no occasion for the State to take over the services of the Teachers working in a private school.
6. Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-8. However, Annexure A-8 cannot be looked into in view of specific notification dated 31.3.1995 (Annexure D-1). 7. Accordingly, in view of above observation, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
