Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Arun Mehta – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
1. Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to re-appoint her on School Management Committee (‘SMC’) basis against an available vacancy in the schools mentioned in the writ petition along with all consequential benefits.
3. Petitioner’s case is that:-
(i) As a result of an interview, petitioner was selected and offered appointment as Language Teacher (Hindi) on SMC basis. Petitioner was appointed accordingly on 10.06.2010 and continued in service upto 13.02.2012. Her services were discontinued on 14.02.2012 on the joining of regular hand on transfer.
(ii) In this writ petition, filed on 20.12.2024, the petitioner contends that the respondents-State has taken a policy decision to re-engage the SMC/PTA Teachers, who were disengaged on account of joining of regular hands and all such incumbents have been re-engaged by the respondent-Department; the petitioner is similarly placed and therefore, is also entitled to be re-engaged as a Language Teacher.
4. The sole reliance of the petitioner in furtherance of the relief claimed is up
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to re-engagement under the policy as she was appointed after the cutoff date and failed to justify the delay in filing her petition.
Date of appointment for re-engagement eligibility under PTA policy is actual joining date, not initiation of selection process.
The court emphasized the need for fair reengagement practices for terminated employees, ruling that dismissal based on erroneous policy interpretation constitutes discrimination under Articles 14, 16....
Termination of temporary employees requires adherence to natural justice principles, including the right to a hearing before punitive actions are taken.
Termination of PTA teacher's engagement without show cause notice, defying prior grant-in-aid directions, is arbitrary, violates natural justice and Article 14; mandates quashing and retrospective re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of meritorious conduct for re-employment and the limited scope for judicial review in matters of re-employment in unaided schools.
Re-employment of teachers is at the discretion of the employer and not a vested right; conduct of the teacher must be considered.
The court affirmed that once an appointment is validated, reinstatement must occur despite interim orders, ensuring continuity and benefits for the appointee.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
