Point of Law: Petitioner stood terminated before that date, i.e. on 25.08.2006, the findings returned by the competent authority that the petitioner was not covered by the Policy Guidelines are correct findings and the same do not call for any interference.

JUDGMENT :

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure P­6, which is an order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, dated 15.12.2014, in terms whereof an application filed by the petitioner for her reappointment under the PTA Guidelines, 2014 stood dismissed.

2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on PTA basis as a teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Mubarakpur, District Una, H.P., on 12.05.2006 and her services were terminated as such on 25.08.2006. The petitioner though did assail her termination firstly before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, wherein the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and thereafter, before this Court by way of CWP No.1185/07, which was decided by this Court vide Annexure P­3, dated 21.04.2008, the fact of the matter remains that the termination of the services of the petitioner as on 25.08.2006 was not held to be bad by either any Court of Law or the Authority, to whom the petitioner was relegated in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Annexure P­3. It appears that thereafter, the Government came out with the PTA Guidelines, 2014, circulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Education, letter No. EDN­A­B(6)8/2005­XI­L, dated 24.05.2014 and thereafter, on the basis of these Guidelines, the petitioner filed an application before the ADM­cum­Chairman, PTA Inquiry Committee for her reappointment in terms of these PTA Guidelines, 2014. This application of the petitioner has been rejected by the authority concerned vide Annexure P­6 and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General. I have also perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith.

4. For the purpose of the adjudication of the present petition, this Court is of the considered view that reference to the impugned order suffices the purpose. As already mentioned above, the prayer of the petitioner before the Chairman of the PTA Inquiry Committee, which has resulted in the issuance of Annexure P­6, was to the effect that as the services of the petitioner were terminated on 25.08.2006, on the ground that a regular teacher was appointed in a place in the school concerned, therefore, she be ordered to be reinstated in service in terms of the Guidelines which were brought into force by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, i.e. PTA Guidelines, 2014. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority, on the ground that the petitioner was not covered by the Guidelines, as the Guidelines provided for reinstatement of those teachers appointed on PTA basis, who had served before 31.12.2007 and whose services were terminated due to some reason after 01.01.2008. Now, in the case of the petitioner, it is not in dispute that though she was engaged as a PTA teacher on 12.05.2006, but her services were terminated on 25.08.2006.

5. Keeping in view the fact that the Policy envisaged reengagement of those PTA. teachers, who though might have been appointed before 31.12.2007, but whose services were terminated after 01.01.2008, the rejection of the case of the petitioner by the competent authority cannot be held to be bad in law. This is for the reason that when the cut off date after which an incumbent ought to have been terminated as envisaged in the Policy of 2014 was 01.01.2008 and the services of the petitioner stood terminated before that date, i.e. on 25.08.2006, the findings returned by the competent authority that the petitioner was not covered by the Policy Guidelines are correct findings and the same do not call for any interference. It is pertinent to mention that there is no challenge to the cut off date as was envisag