MANJU BALA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a writ petition is maintainable against the order of appointment/termination passed by the Parents Teacher Association" is the question desired to be considered by the Full Bench at the instance of the learned Single Judge. At the outset, we may note that the question had been directly considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Pooja Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, 2009 3 ShimLC 13. The said Division Bench was called upon to decide the issue only on maintainability. The Bench was considering a batch of cases pertaining to regularization/appointment of teachers by the Patent Teachers Association. After elaborately considering the scheme in the background of the H.P. Education Code and the Grant-in-Aid to Patent Teachers Association Rules, 2006 and instructions and Government orders issued thereafter, it was held as follows:-

(2.) Yet, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the Division Bench decision in Pooja Devi's case had not considered the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Baldev Singh vs. State of H.P and others, 2007 3 ShimLC 100. It is significant to note that the question of maintainability was not the issue in Baldev Singh's case. The questions were different, which read as follows:

(3.) No doubt the Division Bench in Baldev Singh's case also considered in detail the H.P. Education Code and the Scheme of appointment under the Patent Teachers Association Rules, 2006 and related issues. However, as we have already referred to above, the questions were different. They were not on the maintainability of the writ petition. It is also worth noting the ratio in Baldev Singh's case, at Paragraph 26 and 27:-