IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2524 of 2018 Decided on: 18.04.2026 Sh. Sandeep Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and othoers … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________

For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional C Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

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

“i) That the impugned order Ann P6. may kindly be quashed H and set aside and the petitioners may be re -engaged as PTA Teacher Art and Craft (DM) in Government Middle School, Kathaji and suitable directions may also be issued to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue his duties as teachers on PTA basis with all consequential benefits.

ii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to pay / release honorarium to the petitioners as per the PTA Policy for which

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

the petitioners admittedly served as PTA Teachers in the school in question.”

2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that according to the petitioner he waos engaged as an Arts and Craft Teacher in Government School Kathaji w.e.f 01.01.2006, by the Parent Teacher Association of the said School. He continuously served as such till thue month of June, 2010, when his services were dispensed with on account of the joining of a regular teacher. The petitioner preferred CWP No. 3801 of 2014 and in compliance to the orders passed in the said petition, Annexure P-1 has been passed by the Authority and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Hpetitioner was engaged by the PTA w.e.f 01.01.2006 as he was fulfilling the criteria to be appointed as an Art and Craft Teacher. Learned Counsel further submitted that the termination of the services of the petitioner in June, 2010, was bad in law because he could not have been terminated nor his services could not have been discontinued simply on the ground that the regular incumbent had joined the station. Learned Counsel further submitted that in fact the post fell vacant again in the year 2012 when the person, who was appointed therein in the year 2010, stood transferred, yet, no endeavour was made by the respondents to re- engage the petitioner. Learned Counsel further argued that in the interregnum, a decision was taken by the department to reengage all such PTA appointees, whose ser vices were terminated on the ground of joining of the some other incumbents and though more than 60 such PTA appointees were reengaged, however, but the petitioner was not reengoaged. It was in this backdrop, as per the learned counsel, that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition, in which, a direction was passed by the Court to place this case before the Hhigh Power Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order passed by the High Power Committee argued that reasons which are assigned in Annexure P-1 are per se not sustainable in the eyes of law and it is incorrect that the petitioner was not appointed as per the Grant-in-Aid policy. He submitted that the petitioner was appointed as per the Grant-in-Aid policy and therefore, non grant of benefit to the petitioner is bad.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State, submitted that the engagement of the petitioner was not as per the Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules, which were framed in the year 2006. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was engaged unilaterally by the PTA of the school concerned without following the PTA Rules and therefore, as he was not entitled for reengagement in terms of the decision taken by the department to reengage those teachers