PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders whereby he has been directed not to function as Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) in Government Primary School, Bounch.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was, after interview, selected as PAT in Government Primary School, Bounch, vide order dated 25.08.2007, Annexure P-4. Pursuant to this order, he joined as such on 27.08.2010. Petitioner entered into an agreement with the Gram Panchayat and continue to work as such. THE case against the petitioner is that he unauthorizedly remained absent from 27.06.2010 to 01.07.2010. In fact, show cause notice was issued to him by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Shilai, District Sirmaur, in this regard. THE petitioner received the copy of this notice on 3rd July, 2010 and replied that he had gone to take the JBT Entrance Examination on 27.06.2010. According to him, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case by the police and, therefore, could not attend the school up to 1st July, 2010. According to the petitioner, he re-joined on 2nd July, 2010, but his attendance was not marked. THErefore, he sent a legal notice through his counsel on 10th July, 2010. Finally, on 13th July, 2010, the Deputy Director of Elementary Education has passed an order under Section 5j (iii) of H.P. Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme, 2003, whereby the petitioner was directed not to attend the Subsequently, on 15th July, 2010, a notice was school. issued to the petitioner as to why action be not taken against him.

(3.) NO doubt, under the scheme, it is the Panchayat who is the master, but if the master does not take action against the errant employee, the State cannot be debarred from taking suitable action and in this regard reference may be made to Section 5 (l) of the Scheme, which clearly states that the Government shall be free to make departure from the terms and conditions of the agreement in the exigencies of public service or in public interest. If the allegations against the petitioner be true, then there can be no manner of doubt that the public interest requires that he should not serve as a teacher.