TRIPTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks mainly issuance of the following reliefs:

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that she was having all requisite qualification to be appointed as Language Teacher in pursuance to applications invited by the 4th respondent to make the appointment against the post of O.T. The interviews were conducted on 5.10.2007. Out of 14 candidates, who had appeared in the interview, the petitioner being brilliant, was at the top of selection-list securing 50.83 marks, as indicated in the evaluation-sheet Annexure P-1. Accordingly, she was to be given appointment, but because of the enforcement of the model code of conduct (Vidhan Sabha Election) in the year 2007 her appointment could not be made but she continued to serve in the school at the rate of '.1500/- per month. She taught Hindi and Sanskrit to the students of 6th to 10th standard. According to her, she was appointed on PTA basis since November, 2007. The petitioner rendered her services as Language Teacher, as is evident from her experience certificates Annexures P-2 and P-3 attached by her with the petition, but she was terminated and a regular appointment was made. It is also her case that the 4th respondent refused to consider her appointment under the PTA policy. Though, she kept on representing against her termination, but nothing was explained to her satisfactorily. Though later she got information Annexure P-4 under the RTI that one post of L.T. was lying vacant, yet the petitioner was wrongly terminated. She had also taken up the matter with the 4th and 5th respondent to release her benefits of grant-in-aid, which were available under the PTA Scheme, but to her utter surprise her services were terminated.

(3.) IT is contended that the petitioner was permitted verbally by PTA Committee to teach Hindi and Sanskrit, but however, her appointment was not made on the basis of interview and no appointment letter was ever issued to her by the PTA Committee/Principal of GSSS, Gahlian, District Kangra. But, the petitioner was engaged vide Resolution No.31 dated 5.5.2008 much after the conduction of the interview on monthly honorarium of '.1500/- to teach the subjects of Hindi and Sanskrit as aforesaid by the PTA Committee. Further, that Annexure P-3, experience certificate shows that the petitioner was not working in the Institution in the year 2007. Later the petitioner was rightly removed on joining of the regular teacher. It is admitted that one post of O.T. is lying vacant, but keeping in view the low strength of students and also being single class section, the services of another O.T. were not required in the Institution, hence her re-engagement as O.T. does not arise, as already explained in Annexure P-4. Since the petitioner was not engaged as per PTA policy of 2006, she was not entitled to grant-in-aid, as claimed by her.