Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(HP) 494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Vinod Kumar, S/o. Shri Kartar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Principal Secretary (Education) Government Of Himachal Pradesh, HP Secretariat Shimla - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 5828 of 2010
Decided On : 21-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Narender Thakur, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Manoj Bagga, Assistant Advocate General For R-1 To 4; Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate for R-7)

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a purely temporary appointment does not confer any right of permanence, and the petitioner was estopped from challenging the termination by way of the instant petition.

Headnote:
Termination - Appointment - PTA Scheme - [PETITIONER] - [EMPLOYMENT] - [PTA Rules-2006, Notification dated 19.04.2008] - The court dismissed the petition challenging the termination of the petitioner, emphasizing that the appointment was purely temporary and did not confer any right of permanence. The court also highlighted the establishment of committees to inquire into irregularly appointed teachers by PTAs, which did not cover the petitioner's case. The petitioner was estopped from challenging the termination by way of the instant petition, and on equity grounds, was not entitled to the relief claimed.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher (PET) on a temporary basis by the Parents Teacher Association (PTA) for the academic session 2006-07. The PTA terminated the petitioner's services, and the petitioner challenged the termination through various legal avenues.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's appointment was purely temporary and did not confer any right of permanence. The court also noted that the committees constituted to inquire into irregularly appointed teachers by PTAs did not cover the petitioner's case. The court held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the termination by way of the instant petition and was not entitled to the relief claimed on equity grounds.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of the petitioner's employment, the validity of the appointment of respondent No.7, and the applicability of the PTA scheme and rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and did not confer any right of permanence. The committees constituted to inquire into irregularly appointed teachers by PTAs did not cover the petitioner's case, and the petitioner was estopped from challenging the termination by way of the instant petition. On equity grounds, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no merit in the petition, and the same was accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: -

(i) That memorandum dated 31.08.2206 (Annexure P-3) and 12.10.2006 (Annexure P-7) may kindly be quashed and set side and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to work as PET on PTA basis in Government Middle School, Manal Douchi.

(ii) That the appointment of respondent No. 7 dated 09.11.2006 may be quashed and set aside.

(iii) That the order dated 02.06.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by Deputy Commissioner Sirmour may be quashed and set aside.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that on 02.08.2006, petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) by Parents Teacher Association (PTA) in Government Middle School, Manal Douchi, on temporary basis, for the academic session 2006-07. On 31.03.2006, PTA passed the resolution and terminated the services of the petitioner, on the ground that petitioner belonged to another Panchayat and as per resolution of the PTA, the appointment was to be made of teacher from the local Panchayat. Subsequently respondent No.7 was appointed as PET by PTA in Government Middle School, Manal Douchi.

3. Petitioner assailed his termination before erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A No. 3149 of 2006. The original application of the petitioner was dismissed on 06.08.2007 with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum. Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No. 1502 of 2007 before this Court. On 21.04.2008, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order and disposed of the CWP No. 1502 of 2007:-

“In light of the notification dated 19th April, 2008, whereby certain committees have been constituted, all the writ petitions having become infructuous are dismissed accordingly, so also all other pending applications. All the petitioners or any other aggrieved teacher who have not ever approached the court would be at liberty to make representation before the authority concerned who will consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law by a speaking order respectively. The representations shall be filed within one month from today and the same shall be decided by the authority concerned within three months thereafter.”

4. In pursuance to order dated 21.04.2008 passed by this Court, petitioner approached the Committee constituted by Government of H.P., vide notification dated 19.04.2008. Petitioner also assailed before the Committee the appointment of respondent No.7. The Committee headed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nahan, vide order dated 13.10.2008, set aside the appointment of respondent No. 7. However, nothing was held in respect of termination of the petitioner. Respondent No.7 filed an appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, H.P. which was decided on 02.06.2010. Vide his order dated 02.06.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, while upholding the termination of petitioner, set aside the order passed by the Committee and the appointment of respondent No. 7 was upheld.

5. Aggrieved against his termination dated 31.10.2006 and order dated 02.06.2010, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, petitioner has filed instant petition for the reliefs, as noted above.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no provision in PTA scheme prescribing the selection of teachers only from the local Panchayat in which the School concerned, was situate.

7. In reply, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, though, the factual position has not been denied, it has been submitted that appointment of the petitioner as PET was purely on temporary basis through PTA for session 2006-07 only. Petitioner was to be paid honorarium by PTA at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month and not under grant-in-aid Rules, 2006. Respondent No. 7 also filed separate reply. Besides adopting the averments made in reply of respondents No. 1 to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis