Whether approved for reportin g?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

(Oral)

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That the respondent state may kindly be directed to modify clause (1) part-A of Annexure-PD dated 20.7.2011, so as to include the petitioner in its ambit and to take over her services;

(ii) That the respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be directed to release grant-in-aid to the petitioner from the due date i.e. w.e.f. 3.7.2007 with the arrears of the same;”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to press relief No. (i) at this stage and seeks liberty to agitate the same by filing an appropriate petition on the same cause of action. The praHyer is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to file an appropriate petition claiming the said relief on the same cause of action.

3. So far as other relief seeking direction to the respondents to release grtant-in-aid to the petitioner, is concerned, the facts, which emerge from the pleadings are that the post of Lecturer (Hindi) was lying vacant with respondent No.3-School since 01.12.2006. Earlier, one Sh. Ramesh Sharma, was working as Lecturer (Hindi) with resphondent No.3-School (wrongly mentioned as Lecturer Commerce), who retired on 30.11.2006. He was in receipt of 95% grant-in-aid from respondents-State, as respondent No.3-School was in receipt of the same. After retirement of Sh. Ramesh Sharma, Lecturer (Hindi), respondent No.3-School took up the matter with respondent No.2 to fill up the vacant and sanctioned post of Lecturer (Hindi) in respondent No.3-School through the Principal and management of the school, however, the permission was not granted. Since the studies of the students were being adversely affected, the Managing Committee of respondent No.3-School took steps to fill up the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and the petitioner being fully eligible and qualified for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) also applied for the sHame. Pursuant to an interview and in the interview conducted by the duly constituted Selection Committee, the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Lecturer (Hindi). The petitioner, in sequel to hetr recommendation, joined her duties as Lecturer (Hindi) on 03.07.2007 in respondent No.3-School. However, no grant-in-aid was released in her favour. Later on the respondents-State had taken over the school on 06.09.2012 along with its movable and immhovable assets and eligible staff, who were in receipt of 95% grand-in-aid, in pursuance of Notification dated 20.07.2011. Since the petitioner was not receiving 95% grant-in-aid, her services were not taken over.

4. The petitioner has prayed that since she was appointed by a duly constituted Selection Committee after following the due process of law and further possessed the requisite qualifications to hold the post, to impart studies to the students, which was being adversely affected on account of nonavailability of Lecturer (Hindi), the action on the part of the respondents-State in not releasing 95% grant-in-aid is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. The respondents-State filed reply Hto the petition and averred that neither any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed in any manner nor any cause of action accrued in her favour. The management of respondent No.3-School hatd appointed the petitioner on 03.07.2007 as Lecturer (Hindi) against the vacant post caused due to retirement of one Sh. Ramesh Sharma, however, her engagement was made by respondent No.3-School on its own, without following the proper procedure preshcribed under the Grant-In-Aid Rules, 1997 (for short GIA rules). It has been admitted that respondent No.3-School was taken over on 06.09.2012 along with its movable and immovable assets and eligible staff who were in receipt of 95% grant-in-aid pursu