IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

AT SHIMLA

CWPOA No.4131 of 2020 Decided on: 12.12.2025

__________________________________________________________

Savita Devi ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjano Sharma, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?.

For the petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Vidush Chauhan and Mr. Happy Thakur,

uAdvocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma,

Deputy Advocate General for the

respondents-State.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner, Savita Devi, had initially filed

Original Application No.1434 of 2018 before State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.4131 of 2020, seeking the following

reliefs :-

“(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed

to transfer the person working against the applicant to some other place and re-engage

the applicant will all consequential benefits.

(ii). That the applicant may kindly be allowed to

work as Lecturer Political Science at Govt. Sr. Sec. School Nangal Khurd Distt. Una on PTA grant-in-aid basis with all consequential

benefits.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that she was engaged as a Lecturer [Mathematics] under PTA in Government Senior Secondary School Nangal- Khurd, District Una, (H.P) on 26.08.2006. It is averred that pursuant to complaint filefd by one Sh. Yash Pal Singh, the services of the petitioner were dis-engaged on 26.09.2008. t

2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the termination, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority-cum- Additional District Magistrate and thereafter filed a writ petition No. CWP No.2125 of 2009 and this Court remanded back the matter for fresh decision by the Inquiry Committee. It is further averred that based on the Government Notification, the petitioner approached Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner Una, by way of an Appeal filed on 10.07.2014 [Annexure A-1] which was decided on 10.10.2014 [Annexure A-1] whereby, the Appellate Authority directed the State Authorities that it will be open for the State-Authorities to re-engage the petitioner, in view of the fact that the complaint filed by Yash Pal Singh, stands withdrawn. Consequently, the termination of the petitioner on 26.09.2008 was set aside.

In this background, the ins.tant petition has been filed with a prayer that since the date of passing of orders by Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner Una on 10.10.2014 [Annexure A-1], the respondents have neither re-engaged nor granted the admissible Grant-in-Aid as per the norms to the petitioner, which is unfair, arbitrary and illegal. STAND OF RESPONDENTS -STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on h17.04.2018, the Respondents-State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 29.10.2018, of Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh.

3(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that after passing of orders by the Appellate Authority on 10.10.2014 [Annexure A-1], the case of the petitioner for re-engagement as Lecturer [Mathematics] in the same School could not be considered in view of the fact that a regularly appointed Teacher-Respondent No.4 had been posted as Lecturers [Mathematics] in place of the petitioner. It is averred that an Interim Order dated 28.10.2013 was passed in CWP No.7483 of 2013 not to dislocate the regularly appointed incumbent by PTA appointees. It is further averred that the. issue as to whether the regularly appointed Teachers could be replaced by PTA appointed teachers was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2813 of 2017, 2814 of 2017 and 2815 of 2017. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that pursuant to the Government Notification dated 26.05.2014 [Annexure A-2], the petitioner was to prefer an appeal/re-appeal within a period of one month but petitioner did not file the same, within the stipulated period.

3(ii). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that t