The court held that the non-payment of grant-in-aid to a teacher appointed against a sanctioned post is unlawful, reflecting a failure to follow proper hiring procedures.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

i) “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to grant the benefits of PTA Policy 2006 in favour of petitioner and further be directed to release the admissible dues of remuneration/salary in favour of the present petitioner immediately w.e.f. 2006 to till date alongwith the interest of 12% in the interest of justice and in future also.

ii) That in alternate, a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department may kindly be directed to release the admissible dues of remuneration/salary in favour of the present petitioner immediately w.e.f. 2015 to till date alongwith the interest of 12% in terms of SMC Policy 2012, in the interest of justice and in further also.”

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the grant-in-aid upon his appointment as a Lecturer (Commerce) in Government Senior Secondary School Rohanda, District Mandi, by the Parents Teacher Association for the period he served as such. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially engaged in the month of May 2006 and he continued to serve as such till the year 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner rejoined his position in the year 2015 upon a resolution, passed in this regard by the School Management Committee and he continued to serve as such until his services stood dispensed with during the pendency of the petition. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner was performing the duties of Lecturer (Commerce) in the School concerned, the act of the respondents of not releasing grant-in-aid in his favour and paying him due and admissible salary, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed by the State, submitted that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification when he was appointed as a Lecturer (Commerce) and further the selection of the petitioner by the PTA was without constituting a Selection Committee in this regard and his appointment was simply on the basis of the resolution passed by PTA. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the PTA on monthly remuneration of Rs.1200/- which was increased from time to time and as the petitioner had agreed to his appointment on said terms and conditions, he has no locus, seeking the reliefs as have been claimed by way of this petition. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition.

5. It is not a disputed fact that the petitioner, upon his selection initially by the Parents Teacher Association and thereafter by the School Management Committee, served in Government Senior Secondary School Rohanda as a Lecturer in the subject of Commerce, firstly from the month of May, 2006 upto the year 2013 and thereafter, from the year 2015 till his services were terminated in the year 2025.

6. The appointment of the petitioner by the Parents Teacher Association or School Management Committee was not in a Private School but in a Government School. This obviously means that he was appointed against a sanctioned post of Lecturer Commerce, because, it is not the case of the Department that there already was a Lecturer Commerce serving in the said School, yet the PTA or SMC arbitrarily appointed the petitioner against the said