IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Arun Mehta - Appellant
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
CWP No. 16668 of 2024
Decided On : 24-02-2025
(A) Policy decision dated 22.05.2014 - Re-engagement of PTA provided teachers - Petitioner appointed as Language Teacher on SMC basis on 10.06.2010, discontinued on 14.02.2012 - Petitioner claims entitlement to re-engagement based on policy but was not engaged prior to 31.12.2007 - Delay of over 12 years in filing writ petition without justification. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(B) Delay and Laches - The court emphasized that unexplained delay in seeking relief undermines the petitioner's claim. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Language Teacher on SMC basis and her services were discontinued upon the joining of a regular teacher. She sought re-engagement based on a policy decision affecting teachers disengaged prior to 31.12.2007.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition as the petitioner was not engaged prior to the cutoff date and had not justified the delay in filing the petition.
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of the policy decision to the petitioner and the justification for the delay in filing the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not qualify for re-engagement under the policy as she was appointed after the cutoff date and failed to explain the significant delay in her application.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
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 upon a decision rendered in Aarti Bhanwal vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 4943 of 2021 decided on 04.11.2022. The relevant portion of the decision pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:-
“5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that communication dated 2.3.2013 (Annexure P-5) sent by Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Sandhole, District Mandi, H.P., to Deputy Director of Higher Education Mandi, enclosing therewith information of lecturers appointed on PTA basis, clearly reveals that the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer political science on 11.10.2007 and she remained absent w.e.f.25.02.2009 to 23.07.2009 on account of illness, there is no mention, if any, with regard resignation, if any, tendered by the petitioner and as such, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents at this stage to claim that since petitioner had resigned, she could not be considered in terms of policy decision taken by the Government vide communication dated 22.05.2014. As per policy decision taken on 22.05.2014, PTA provided teachers engaged prior to 31.12.2007 were required to be reengaged, if their services were disengaged for the reasons other than enquiry.
9. As has been discussed herein above, till the time, communication dated 22.5.2014, whereby respondents took a conscious decision to reengage services of all the PTA provided teachers, who were engaged prior to 31.12.2007, is either withdrawn or superseded, respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons, for reengagement against the post in question. True, it is that the respondents have filled up the post in question by a regular hand, but right of the petitioner, accrued to her with the issuance of communication dated 22.5.2014, cannot be defeated by transferring/appointing a regular hand against the post in question, regular hand so posted against the post in question, at Government Senior Secondary School Sandhole can be adjusted in some other school by the respondents.
10. Consequently, in view of above, this court finds merit in the case at hand, and accordingly, the same is allowed and order dated June, 2021 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner against the post of Lecturer (Political Science) at Government Senior Secondary School, Sandhole in terms of the policy decision dated 22.5.2014, within a period of four weeks from today.”
The aforesaid decision is based upon the policy/communication of the respondent-State dated 22.05.2014, wherein the decision was taken to re-engage services of all PTA provided teachers, who were engaged prior to 31.12.
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....
Validly appointed PTA teacher, post-set-aside of termination, entitled to re-engagement with service continuity from initial engagement, contractual status after seven years, regularization w.e.f. 01....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.