Eligibility for grant-in-aid under the State's teacher recruitment policy cannot be denied based on the absence of specific provisions if qualification and prior engagement are uncontested.

Satyen Vaidya, J.

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:

A) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to release the grants-in-aid from the date of her appointment i.e. 09.05.2011 till date alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.

B) That the respondents may be further directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgments passed by Hon’ble High Court in Annexures P-5 & P-6.

C) That the respondents may be further directed to continue the grants-in-aid in future also.”

2. Petitioner was appointed as Art & Craft teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Rehlu, District Kangra, w.e.f. 09.05.2011 by the local School Management Committee. Petitioner is continuously serving the said school since then.

3. Petitioner is claiming benefit of grant-in-aid under the policy of the State Government to engage teachers through the School Management Committee. It is contended that the State Government has been allowing the grant-in-aid to similarly situated persons and the petitioner has been wrongly divested from such benefit.

4. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner on the sole ground that the policy to engage teachers through School Management Committee had no provision for making appointment to the posts of Drawing Master/Art & Craft Teacher and for such reason, the respondents were not liable to provide any grant-in-aid in the case of petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

6. The fact that the petitioner was appointed as Art & Craft Teacher by the local School Management Committee of Government Senior Secondary School, Rehlu, District Kangra on 09.05.2011 and his continuous engagement as such since then has not been disputed by the respondents.

7. The claim of the petitioner that the local School Management Committee had appointed petitioner as Art & Craft Teacher against a vacant post and that the petitioner was qualified as per prevalent Recruitment and Promotion Rules has also not been refuted by the respondents.

8. The defence of the respondents that there was no provision in the policy for appointment of Drawing Master/Art & Craft teacher also stands falsified from the document Annexure P-8, filed by the petitioner alongwith rejoinder, which clearly reveals that a number of Drawing Masters are regularly getting grant-in-aid in District Mandi. The State Government had applied the policy for recruitment of teachers by the SMCs in the entire State and hence, the defence that there was no provision for appointment of Drawing Masters/Art & Craft Teacher, in the case of petitioner, is untenable.

9. Viewed from another angle, the respondents cannot be allowed to take the plea of absence of provision for appointment of DMs/Art & Craft Teacher in the policy, simply because they have allowed the petitioner to serve the school for more than 13 years without taking any action either against the petitioner or the SMC and the school authorities.

10. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.08.2019 passed in LPA No. 53 of 2018 , titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sh. Villam Singh , decided on 26.11.2018, has held that merely because the SMC policy of the State Government dated 17.07.2012, as extended in its application vide notification dated 16.08.2014 was subsequent to the date of appointment by SMC, the incumbent could not be denied the benefit under the policy more particularly when the qualification and eligibility of the incumbent for th