Whether approved for reporting?, (Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?)

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to extend the bene Grant-in-Aid in favour of the present petitioner w.e.f. due date at par with the similarly situated persons under the grant-in-aid policy with all service benefits along with interest @9% per annum.

ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to strictly adhere to the rules of the PTA Policy and not to replace the petitioner either by way of fresh regular/contract appointment or transfer.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Drawing Master on PTA basis by the School Management Committee of Government Senior Secondary School, Golwan, Tehsil Lad Bharol, District Mandi, on 01.6.2011. According to the petitioner, she continues to serve as such till date, yet Grant-in-Aid is not being released to her in terms of the PTA GIA Rules of 2006 .

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since her initial appointment in the year 2011, the petitioner is performing the duties of a Drawing Master. She is imparting education to the students who are enrolled in 6th Class to 10th Class. She is performing all the duties which a regular Drawing Master performs, yet, she is being discriminated against and the Grant-in-Aid to which she is entitled to is not being released to her.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed by respondents 1 to 4, argued that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as her engagement in the year 2011 was not pursuant to any validly constituted School Management Committee or selection process. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that when the petitioner was engaged, there was no policy framed for the engagement of the teachers by the Government, nor there was any statutory rule or policy based mechanism existing at that time that could have validated the appointment. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that a purely temporary or stop-gap arrangement was made to ensure that the academic activities of the students were not hampered which does not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim the Grant-in-Aid.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the Grant-in-Aid under the Parents Teachers Associations Rules of 2006 was closed for new engagements with effect from 3.1.2008 and, therefore, no benefit of the PTA framework could have been extended in the year 2011 when the petitioner was engaged. Her engagement was without following any process or procedure and, as the engagement by the School Management Committee was without the consent of the Department and as the petitioner otherwise was also not eligible to having been appointed as a Drawing Master on account of her qualifications, she is not entitled for any relief.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record carefully.

8. It is not in dispute that since her appointment in the year 2011, the petitioner is imparting education till date, to the students of the school as a Drawing Master. The appointment of the petitioner as a Drawing Master by the School Management Committee is not in any private school. It is in a government school. This means that it cannot be the case of the Department that they were not aware about the appointment of the present petitioner by the School Management Committee, which, as per the Department, was not in consonance with any policy or statutory mechanism. If that was so, it is not understood