VIRENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Virender Singh claims to have been appointed on 6th April, 1995 as an Accountant in M.S.C. Memorial Degree College, Thural, respondent No.3 in this petition, on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.1800 -3200 which was revised to Rs.5800 -9200 w. e. f. 1.1.996. According to him, the respondent -College receives 95% aid so far salaries of the teaching and non -teaching staff is concerned and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the scale given to the Accountants in the Government. He also claims that though the College promoted him as Superintendent Grade -ll, but this action of the College has not been approved by the State in the Directorate of Education which is bad in law and against the Grant -in -aid Rules. He prays for the grant of the regular scale admissible to Accountant from time to time w. e. f. 6.4.1995, when he was recruited as Accountant by the respondent -College, and directions to respondents No.1 and 2 to approve his promotion as Superintendent Grade -ll.

(2.) Respondents No.1 and 2 in its return, on the affidavit of Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, says that M.S.C. Memorial College, Thural was brought on the list of 95% grant -in -aid w.e.f. 1.4.1995. But the petitioner was appointed directly as Accountant by the Management on 6th April, 1995 which was not permissible under the Rules as no direct appointment could be made as an Accountant and moreover no approval as envisaged under the "Grant -in -aid Rules" was taken by the Management of the College. The Selection Committee which selected the petitioner as Accountant did not have the nominee of the Director of Education which is necessary under the "Grant -in -aid Rules". In these circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner as an Accountant was against the Rules and his further claim to the post of Superintendent Grade -ll is untenable. In this view of the matter, there is no question of release or payment of regular scale to the petitioner.

(3.) Respondent No.1, State of Himachal Pradesh, has made Rules known as "The Himachal Pradesh Non -Government Affiliated Colleges Grant -in -aid, Rules 1994"forthe grant -in -aid to the private affiliated colleges. There is no dispute that the respondent -College was included in the list of 95% grant -in -aid w. e. f. 1.4.1995. The petitioner was appointed as Accountant by the Management on 6th April, 1995 i.e. after the respondent -College was included in the "grant -in -aid" list. His appointment was made without the approval of the Director of Education as required under the Grant -in -aid Rules. It is also admitted position that the Selection Committee, which selected the petitioner as an Accountant, did not have the nominee of the Director of Education as provided under the Rules.