AMRIT LAL Vs. S K BALDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner complaints that the respondent has committed contempt of court in not complying with the judgment, dated 29.4.2010. THE issue pertains to the continuance of the petitioner as PTA teacher. This court in the judgment, dated 29.4.2010, permitted the petitioner to file a representation. THE respondent disposed of the representation stating that the petitioner had to be ousted on the appointment of a teacher through Public Service Commission. Having gone through the reply filed by the respondent, we find it difficult to see any contemptuous conduct on the part of the respondent. We do not find any wilful disobedience of the judgment as above. THErefore, the contempt petition is dismissed.

(2.) THOUGH, we have dismissed the contempt petition, we feel it necessary to make passing observation as well, so that a second round litigation by the petitioner could be avoided. There cannot be any dispute on the proposition that the Government is entitled to appoint regular teachers and on the appointment of regular teachers, ad-hoc teachers, PTA teachers or otherwise will have to give room for such teachers appointed on regular basis. But, the simple question is that in case, the regular teachers can be accommodated in the institutions, where there are no PTA teachers and where also there is need for teachers as to why PTA teachers should be ousted. The State should also bear in mind that PTA teacher is also a teacher possessing qualification as per R&P Rules and also appointed as per Grant-in-aid Rules. The State should also bear in mind that PTA teacher is paid only around half of the remuneration that is paid to the regular teacher. Therefore, continuance of the PTA teacher in the above circumstances, on need basis, is only advantage and not disadvantage to the State. We do not find from the reply that the State has applied its mind on these aspects. Therefore, we direct the respondent to consider representation in the light of observations made above and in case, there are vacancies in nearby institutions, where regularly recruited teachers can be accommodated (where also there is a need for such teachers), PTA teachers need not be disturbed in the interest of the children. This is of course subject to further condition that such PTA teacher possesses required qualification in terms of the R&P Rules and the appointment of the PTA teacher is in accordance with Grant-in-aid Rules. Needless to say that PTA teacher does not have any lien or right to continue as such since it is only an ad-hoc arrangement. While taking decision, as above, one of such vacancies, as pointed out by the petitioner, is existing in the Government Degree College Joginder Nagar, will also be considered by the respondent. Orders, as above, will be passed within two weeks from the date of production of copy of this Judgment by the petitioner.