Date of appointment for re-engagement eligibility under PTA policy is actual joining date, not initiation of selection process.

Judgment :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

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

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioner in terms of the decision dt 19.2.2013 by appointing the petitioner to the post of Lecturer Political Science(PTA, GIA) in Government College Dharampur, Distt-Mandi, H.P Records of the case may be called for and examined.”

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a typographical error in the prayer clause and the petitioner is claiming re-engagement on the strength of press release (Annexure P-6). Learned Senior Counsel submitted that an advertisement was issued in the newspaper on 18.09.2007, calling for applications to fill up the posts of Lecturer of various subjects in Government Degree College, Dharampur, District Mandi. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Political Science) along-with other incumbents. Interviews were held on 04.10.2007. One Shri Shrawan Singh, who was adjudged by the Selection Committee to be the most meritorious, was offered the appointment. However, he resigned the said post after one month. Thereafter, the petitioner was offered appointment on 01.12.2008. His services were disengaged on 24.12.2009, when a regular Lecturer was appointed in Government Degree College, Dharampur, District Mandi. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that subsequently a decision was taken by the State Government, as is also evident from Annexure P-6, to re-engage all those PTA appointed Teachers, who were terminated on account of the joining of regular incumbents and despite the fact that the petitioner was also entitled to be offered appointment, he has not been offered appointment and hence, the present petition.

3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that the process itself, in terms whereof, the petitioner was selected, is under challenge in CWP No. 676 of 2014, titled Rakesh Kumar Vs. ersus State of HP & Ors., which case is also listed today. Learned Assistant Advocate General further submitted that even if it is to be assumed that the offer of appointment to the petitioner, on the strength of the said process, was a valid offer, then also, in terms of the averments made in the writ petition itself, the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 01.12.2008, meaning thereby, that he either joined on 01.12.2008 or thereafter, whereas, in terms of Annexure P-6, i.e., the press release, which the petitioner is relying upon, re-engagement was offered only to those PTA appointed Teachers under GIA to PTA Rules, 2006, who were appointed up to 30.12.2007 and whose services were terminated later. Learned Assistant Advocate General thus submitted that as the petitioner was not appointed on or before 30.12.2007, he is not covered by Annexure P-6 and, therefore, prima facie, there is no merit in the writ petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel in rebuttal submitted that in light of the fact that the process which culminated into the appointment of the petitioner was commenced much before 30.12.2007, therefore, it is to be construed that the petitioner was appointed “up to 30.12.2007”.

5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General and have also been gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition.

6. Without going into the correctness of the process through which the petitioner was appointed, this Court is of the considered view that the relief, which is being prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be granted. It is a matter of record th