Employees of recognized aided schools entitled to grant-in-aid on parity with similarly situated teachers granted aid despite procedural irregularities or excess sanctioned strength, to uphold equality.

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Petitioner, Monika Sharma, has come up before this Court seeking the following relief :-

“(i) that the respondent state may be directed to release to the applicant grant in aid from the date the applicant is serving in the respondent No.3 school and to pay arrears alongwith interest @ 12% per annum within such time as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Precisely, the case is that after passing of Graduation in 1998 and Bachelors in Education [B.Ed in 2012], the petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher in respondent No.3-School i.e. S.D. Chand Public Senior Secondary School, Ghuggar, which was being run by respondent No.4-Goswami Snatan Dharam Education Society, Baijnath. It is averred that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis and thereafter vide order dated 25.05.2011 her services were regularized by the School Authorities which is clear from Annexure A-1. It is averred that 42 teaching and non-teaching incumbents filed a CWP No.27 of 1997 titled as Prathana & Ors. vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 13.10.2003 [Annexure P-2], whereby. the writ petition was disposed of with the directions contained in Paras (a) to (e) of the aforesaid judgment, mandating the respondents to examine the claim of petitioners therein for admissibility and release of grant-in-aid who were employees of Respondent No.3-Institution, which was one of the 144 Institutions to whom grant-in-aid was admissible in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1995 [4] SCC 507 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs Himachal Pradesh State Recognized and Aided College Managing Committee & Others. It is further averred that pursuant to the directions dated 13.10.2003, the incumbents namely Prathana and others were extended the grant-in-aid by the respondents. In above background, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking directions for considering her case for grant-in-aid and for extending the admissible grant-in-aid as extended to other teachers, namely, Prathana and others, as referred to above.

STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY:

3. The Director of Elementary Education filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 19.10.2016, with the stand that the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Institution [Grant-In-Aid Rules 1987], came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and the grant-in-aid is inadmissible to petitioner, for the reason, that petitioner was appointed without seeking approval of the department as well as without following the due process as laid down in GIA Rules. Moreover, it is further averred in the reply that since petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee i.e. Respondents No.3 and 4 at their own level, therefore, the grant-in-aid could not be released to the petitioner.

REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:

4. The stand in the Reply-Affidavit was rebutted by petitioner by filing rejoinder, stating therein, that as per the Grant-In-Aid Rules, the aforesaid Respondent No.3-School had seven sanctioned strength of primary teachers and the petitioner being the 7th incumbent, deserves to be extended the grant-in-aid. So far as the plea with respect to non-adherence to procedure is concerned, it is stated in the rejoinder that petitioner was fully eligible and was appointed as primary teacher by the Managing Committee of respondents No.3 and 4- Institution after following due process and therefore, the plea of respondents is not tenable. Moreover, reference has been made to the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP No.4196 of 2013 titled as Sushma Rana & Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, asserting that similar plea set up by Respondents-State Authorities that