AMARJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Drawing Teacher on 16.11.1988 in Janta High School, Basoli on ad hoc basis. She was regularized in the month of April, 1992. Janta High School, Basoli is included in the list of 144 schools, which have been held entitled to grant-in-aid.

(2.) Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though respondent No.4-school is getting 95% grant-in-aid, however, respondent-State has not released the grant-in-aid towards Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? .Yes the salary of the petitioner. Respondent-State has filed the reply. The precise case of the respondent-State is that as per staffing pattern provided under the Himachal Pradesh Non- Government Institution (Grant-in-aid) Rules, 1997, the Art and Craft Teachers are not entitled to grant-in-aid.

(3.) Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has strenuously argued that under the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Institution (Grant-in-aid) Rules, 1997, additional staff can be employed by the privately managed institutions on the same pattern as is observed in the Government run schools in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In other words, his submission is that the subject of Drawing is an optional subject and is taught in the Government run Schools and in these circumstances the post of Drawing Master is filled up by respondent No.4. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Himachal Pradesh Education Code approved by the Government vide letter dated 26.7.2001. In classes 9th to 10th, English, Maths, Hindi, Science and Social Studies are compulsory subjects. Drawing/ Home Science/Music/ Economics/ Agriculture/ IT Education are optional subjects. These subjects are taught in Government Schools. The Government Schools have been defined to mean a school, which is under administrative control of the Government and in which the course of study conforms to standards approved by the Department. Private school has been defined to mean privately managed which receives aids from the general revenue of the State. It may be true that as per the staffing pattern, Drawing Master is not included in 9th to 10th classes; however, it has been left to the discretion of the management to employ additional staff on the same pattern, as is observed in the Government run schools in the State. Since drawing is taught in 9 th and 10th standards, respondent-State was bound to release grant-in-aid to respondent No.4 for defraying it towards the salary of the petitioner. All the teachers appointed except the petitioner are getting salary by way of grant-in-aid. In view of this, the action of the respondent-State not to release the grant-in-aid to respodennt-4 towards the salary of the petitioner is declared illegal and arbitrary.