The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's regularization based on established criteria, highlighting discrimination against similarly situated lecturers.

JUDGMENT :

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.)

Petitioner is serving as Lecturer (Public Administration) in Government Degree College, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur. He is serving as such on Parent Teacher Association (‘PTA’) basis from 25.07.2005. Petitioner is also being paid grant-in-aid by the respondent-State under the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006. His grievance is that despite rendering almost 20 years of service, the respondent has not regularized his services till date; He is being discriminated viz-a-viz similarly situated lecturers, who were appointed on PTA basis.

2. The case may be summarized as under:-

2(i). As noticed above, petitioner is serving as Lecturer (Public Administration) in Government Degree College, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur on PTA basis w.e.f. 25.07.2005. Grant-in-Aid Rules were promulgated by the respondents in the year 2006. A duly constituted PTA Committee, appointed the petitioner under the provisions of Grant-in-Aid Rules as Lecturer (Public Administration) on 19.08.2006.

2(ii). Grant-in-aid has been released to the petitioner by the respondent-State w.e.f. 07.05.2009. It is not in dispute that ever since the petitioner is being paid this grant-in-aid by the respondent.

2(iii). Petitioner’s case is that respondent-State formulated a Policy for regularization of PTA appointed Lecturers. In terms of this Policy, services of such PTA appointed Lecturers were regularized, who had completed 7 years of continuous service. In this manner, services of about 70 PTA appointed lecturers were regularized in different colleges under the notification dated 04.09.2020. The case of the petitioner was also required to be considered for regularization along with these persons. However, the respondent left out petitioner's case. His services have not been regularized. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted this writ petition seeking regularization w.e.f. 04.09.2020.

2(iv). The respondent has not disputed the fact that petitioner is serving as Assistant Professor (Public Administration) on PTA basis in Government Degree College, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur and is in receipt of grant-in- aid under the GIA Rules 2006 w.e.f. 07.05.2009. The respondent has also not disputed the fact that under notification dated 04.09.2020, it had decided to regularize the services of such PTA appointed Lecturers, who had completed 7 years of continuous service.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. The respondent has justified not regularizing the services of the petitioner on the grounds that:-

3(a). The Department had regularized the services of only those PTA provided Lecturers, who had been engaged between 29.06.2006 to 03.01.2008, as per the PTA (GIA) Rules, 2006. According to the respondent, petitioner had been engaged prior to 29.06.2006, i.e. on 25.07.2005, therefore, his services cannot be regularized under notification dated 04.09.2020.

3(b). Petitioner did not fulfill requisite qualifications either at the time of his initial engagement or as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules in vogue as on date. Hence, his services cannot be considered for regularization.

4. Consideration.

4(i). The first ground of defense taken by the respondent for not regularizing the services of the petitioner, is without any merit. Respondent has not disputed that petitioner was engaged on PTA basis as Lecturer (Public Administration) on 25.07.2005. This appointment was prior to coming into force of Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006. Thereafter, a Committee duly constituted in terms of Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006, again appointed the petitioner on PTA basis on 19.08.2006. It is also an admitted position that respondent is paying grant-in-aid to the petitioner under the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006, w.e.f. 07.05.2009. The release of grant-in-aid to the petitioner is for the obvious reason that respondent has treated petitioner’s appointment to be in conformity with the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006. That being the position, the respondent cannot be per