SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
RAJNI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND ORS – Respondent
CWP/3738/2022



Petitioner Advocates:Vinod Chauhan Manish Thakur ,Respondent Advocate: AG

##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:18538-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 3738 of 2022

Decided on: 20.05.2026

Rajni Devi … Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others o … Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes

___________________________________________________________________

For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate.

For the respondents o : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General

with Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional

C AG.

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 Oder dated 28.5.2022 contained

in Annexure P-4 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to

extend the benefits of PTA Grant in Aid rules 2006 to the

petitioner without any discrimination, from the date of initial

appointment.

iii) That the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed

and the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the

benefit of Grant-in-Aid in favour of the present petitioner at

par with the similarly situated persons with all

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

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 15:37:35 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

2026:HHC:18538-DB

consequential benefits and take a decision in the light of the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2549 of

2015, titled as Hem Raj Sharma vs. State of HP and CWP

No. 2638 of 2015, titled as Devi Saran vs. State of HP

(Annexure P-7 and P-8.”

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition

are that the petitioner was engaged as a Drawing Master in

Government Senior oSecondary School, Pahara, Tehsil Palampur,

District Kangra, HP, by the Parents Teacher Association of said

school. She approached the Court earlier also with the prayer that

she bhe paid grant-in-aid in terms of the Grant-In-Aid Rules, 2006.

The earlier writ petition of the petitioner was ordered to be treated as

a representation and the Authority was directed to pass a decision

thereupon.

4. In terms of Annexure P-4, the Authority has rejected the

request of the petitioner by inter alia holding that the petitioner was

engaged by the SMC of the School when it was not authorised to

engage teachers in the school and as the engagement of the

petitioner was not in consonance with any policy of the State

Government, be it the grant-in-aid policy or some other policy, she

was not entitled for any relief.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 15:37:35 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

2026:HHC:18538-DB

petitioner since her engagement in the year 2010, is performing the

duties of a Drawing Master in a government school against the

sanctioned post. He further submitted that the petitioner is fully

qualified to hold the post in issue, yet, Grant-in-Aid is being denied

to the petitioner on the ground that she was not appointed under the

Grant-in-Aid Rules but was appointed by the SMC. With regard to

the impugned order, learned Counsel has submitted that though it

is the stand of the oAuthority that the SMC engaged the petitioner

when it was not authorized to engage teachers in the school, yet, fact

of the matter remains that the petitioner has been serving in the

schoohl concerned for the last 16 years, performing the duties of a

Drawing Master and no action has been taken by the Department

against her. In these circumstances, he submitted that neither the

impugned order is sustainable in the eyes of law nor the act of the

respondents of denying the petitioner the Grant-in-Aid is

sustainable. He also submitted that the petitioner was engaged by

Parent Teacher Association (PTA).

6. On the other hand, learned Advocate General by

referring to the reply filed by the State stated that in the present

case the petitioner was engaged by the School Management

Committee/Parent Teacher Association when there was no sanction

with the said Committee to appoint anyone. He further submitted

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 15:37:35 :::CIS

##PAGE4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top