MANJU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, the respondents, declined the releasing(s), of, grants-in-aid, vis-a-vis, the schools, whereat, the writ petitioners are serving, thereupon, the latter are constrained to, through, the extant writ petition, hence, make strivings, for a mandamus, being rendered, upon, the respondents concerned, for the grants-in-aid being released, to, the school concerned.

(2.) The prime arch of the petitioners' espousal, is, rested, upon, a verdict pronounced by this Court, in a case titled, as, Sangeeta Devi & Ors vs. State of H.P. & Ors, bearing CWP No. 2218 of 2018, decided on 11.03.2019. Upon the afore verdict, made, by this Court, the writ petitioners claim parity of treatment, with the writ petitioners therein, and, on anvil thereof, they pray, for, a, mandamus being issued, upon, the respondents concerned, for, the grants-in-aid being released to the schools concerned, whereat, they are purportedly working, as, PTA teachers.

(3.) Apparently, the writ petitioners, became inducted purportedly, as PTA teachers, in the schools/colleges concerned, respectively on 5.10.2008, and, on 1.07.2010. The respondents in their reply/affidavit, as, becomes furnished to the writ petition, raised a vociferous contention therein, vis-a-vis, the post, whereagainst selections and appointments, of the writ petitioners, were made, purportedly, on, a PTA basis, in the schools/colleges concerned, rather not being made in consonance with the grants-in-aid policy, as, became formulated in the year 2006, (i) inasmuch, as, contra thereto(s), rather the posts whereagainst they became appointed, becoming never advertised nor their selection(s) being made, by a duly constituted committee, as contemplated in the grants-in-aid policy, formulated in the year 2006. Moreover, it has been contended in the reply, as becomes, furnished, by the respondents concerned, to the writ petition, vis-a-vis, the PTA Grants-in-aid, PTA Policy, as became formulated in the year 2006, suffering termination, on 3.01.2008, (ii) and, with the appointments/selections, of, the writ petitioners against the post concerned occurring thereafter, hence, the writ petitioners becoming rather not entitled to stake any valid claim, for, the Grants-in-aid being released, to, the Schools/Colleges concerned, and, whereat(s) they are rendering their duties, as, lecturers in the subject(s) concerned. Moreover, it has also become contended, in the reply/affidavit, as, furnished by the respondents, vis-a-vis, the discontinuation of the PTA Grant-in-aid, Rules, as, formulated in the year 2006, hence suffering termination on 3.01.2008, however, with an exception, (iii) inasmuch as, the apposite exception thereofs, being limited only to the 14, notified newly opened government colleges, in the State, and, only to make them functional, and, obviously, rather with the petitioners not working, in, those exempted schools/colleges, thereupon, they become fully disabled, to, claim the espoused reliefs. In addition, it has also been contended in the reply/affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondents, that the parity, as strived to be capitalized, by the writ petitioners, from, a verdict rendered by this Court, in, a case titled, as, Sangeeta Devi vs. State of H.P., bearing CWP No. 2218 of 2018, decided on 11.03.2019, being a mis-strived parity, (iv) inasmuch, as the afore verdict becoming pronounced, vis-a-vis, those colleges or schools or those lecturers inducted on PTA basis, qua wherewith, the, PTA Grant-in-Aid Policy, as formulated in the year 2006, rather never thereat suffering any termination, through, the notification made in the year 2008. Consequently, the reliance made, upon, the verdict supra holding, no, leverage, vis-a-vis, the petitioners.