IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.3115 of 2020 Decided on: 21.11.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sunita Thakur .....Petitioner Versus H State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy o Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State.

Respondent No.5 [SMC] ex-parte.

R anjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Sunita Thakur, initially filed Original Application No.5666 of 2017 before State H Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.3115 of 2020, wherein, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

“7(a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the grant-in-aid to the applicant w.e.f. her initial engagement alongwith interest;

7(b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to take over the services of the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

applicant on contract basis in pursuance to notification dated 29.12.2014.”

2. Perusal of petition reveals that the same is lacking necessary particulars regarding the date of initial engagement, the issuance of the appointment orders and the details of the order terminating her from service have not bfeen placed on record. Only a bald assertion has been made that she was appointed and her services may be taken over on contract basis in terms of Notification dated 29.12.2014 and she may be granted the salary as per Grant-In-Aid Policy/Rules. Even, the particulars as to whether the appointment was made in accordance with the Grant-in-Aid Rules to PTA and Policy are also absent from the details, as mentioned in the petition.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 08.11.2017, Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 08.05.2018, stating therein that as per information received from the Principal, GSSS Durgapur, no process for filling up the post of Drawing Master, GSSS Durgapur, through School Management Committee [SMC] was undertaken. It is further averred that no Resolution for appointment of Drawing Master, GSSS Durgapur, was initiated by SMC or the School. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the petitioner had not been appointe.d as Drawing Master in GSSS Durgapur, and the experience certificate [Annexure A-1] annexed with the petition had not been issued by the Principal of the said School. In Para 6 (iv) of the Reply-Affidavit, it is averred that as per the Attendance Register of GSSS Durgapur, the petitioner has not been working as Drawing Teacher in said School and, therefore, the claim for Grant-in- Aid is not tenable. In this backdrop, prayer is made for dismissing the writ petition.

4. Petitioner had filed a Rejoinder placing on record the photograph [Annexure R-1] to assert that H petitioner had been present in the School Premises.

5. Heard, Mr. M.A. Khan, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondents-

State.

6. During the course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record communication dated 29.11.2018, stating therein that in compliance to status quo orders passed by the State Administrative Tribunal on 24.10.2018, the petitioner had submitted a request to .the Principal of the School for permitting her to perform the duties. However, nothing could be pointed out as to what transpired in response to the orders of status quo dated 24.10.1998 and in case of non-compliance thereof, what action was taken by the petitioner thereafter.

7. Taking into account the above factual backdrop, this Court observes that the instant petition lacks material particulars regarding issuance of an Advertisement, Appointment Letter, Resolution of SMC and the fact