The court established that acquiescence by the respondents in the appointment of the petitioner precludes them from denying Grant-in-Aid based on procedural non-compliance.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Petitioner was appointed as Drawing Master on 23.11.2015 by the School Management Committee of Government Senior Secondary School (GSSS) Balera, District Solan by passing a resolution. Petitioner was not being paid Grant-in-Aid. He, therefore, instituted Ajay Bhardwaj Versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No.6219 of 2023, decided on 08.09.2023. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law and taking into consideration the judgments rendered in Villam Singh Versus State of HP & Ors.,CWP No.2467 of 2015, decided on 7.4.2016, Bhadur Singh and another Versus State of H.P. and others, CWPOA No.7906 of 2019, decided on 08.10.2021 and State of Himachal Pradesh & others Versus Sauju Ram, LPA No.80 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matter on 17.08.2023.

Respondent No.2 in compliance to the above directions, passed an order on 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-6), rejecting the case of the petitioner. Grant-in-Aid was declined in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his engagement was in contravention of School Management Committee (SMC) Policy. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that post of Drawing Master had been lying vacant in GSSS Balera, District Solan for more than three years prior to petitioner’s appointment against it on 23.11.2015 on SMC basis. Petitioner is entitled to Grant-in-Aid consequent upon his such appointment. This right flows to the petitioner under SMC Policy notified on 17.07.2012 as also the SMC Policy dated 20.12.2018. Whereas, according to the learned Assistant Advocate General, petitioner was though appointed under SMC Policy, but without following the prescribed norms, hence, not entitled to Grant-in-Aid under the quoted policies.

3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was engaged by the SMC of GSSS Balera, District Solan against the sanctioned post of Drawing Master on 23.11.2015. The respondents have declined to release Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was without following any procedure and norms as notified in the SMC policy dated 17.07.2012.

At this juncture, it will be appropriate to refer to Ramesh Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, Latest HLJ 2024 (HP)(2) 1093. In the said case, the stand of the respondents was that appointment of the petitioner therein, who was engaged as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on SMC basis, was without following any valid procedure, therefore, he was not entitled for Grant-in-Aid. It was also urged for the respondents in that case that there was no provision in the SMC Policy to engage PET. The Court did not accept the reasons assigned by the respondents and observed that if the Department was of the view that SMC had not been conferred any power for engaging any PET, then, as soon as the petitioner was engaged as such by the SMC, the Department should have called upon the SMC to dis-engage his services; This course was not adopted by the Department; The petitioner therein was allowed to continue to serve as PET; Such action of the Department would amount to its acquiescence insofar as engagement of the petitioner therein as PET by the SMC is concerned.Relevant paras from the decision are as under:-

“5. Learned Additional Advocate General while referring to the reply filed by the State has submitted that as the appointment of the petitioner on PET basis was without following any valid procedure, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, he has prayed for. He has further submitted that as there is no provision in the policy to engage PET on SMC basis, therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. However, it could not be disputed that order passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench