Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Whether approved for reporting? ¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

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 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 Soenior Secondary 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 shhe be 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 decisionthereupon.

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, shewas not entitled for any relief.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 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 th at 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 oof the Authority 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 shchool 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 byParent 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 that in this backdrop as the appointment of the petitioner was during the period when the SMC/PTA was not authorized to engage a teacher, on the strength thereof, even if the petitioner is continuing till date, she cannot claim Grant-in-Aid. Learned Advocate General further su bmitted that Grant-in-Aid was permissible only to those who were appointed under the Grant-in- Aid Rules and fulfilling the criteria laid therein and Grant-in-Aid cannot, as a moatter of right, be claimed by anyone, who has not been appointed against a post by the SMC/PTA and that too whenSMC/PTA was not aut