PURAN SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the relief in the nature of a direction to the second Respondent-Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh to release 95% grant-in-aid to the 3rd Respondent towards alleged arrears of salary due to the Petitioner for the period from 1.4.1993 to 7.8.1996.

(2.) On notice being ordered the Respondents 1 and 2 filed their common counter-affidavit in which at the threshold it has been said that there is no letter of the District Education Officer whereunder the appointments of the Petitioner was approved and in the absence of approval in writing from the District Education Officer, and therefore the Petitioner cannot assert any rights or claim in this writ petition. Reference is also made to the provisions contained in Article No. 47(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which provides for the staffing pattern for privately run but recognized school. After noticing the factual details with reference to the entitlement of the school, the appointment by the Management of M/s. Santosh Kumar, Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) and Shri Puran Chand, Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) in what is described to be High Unit and Mr. Sukh Dev, TGT (Arts)-Headmaster and Mr. Rajinder Kumar, TGT(Science) in what is described to be as Middle Unit is adverted to and it is explained further as hereinunder while pointing out the illegalities and infirmities in the appointment made:

(3.) Heard Mr. Bhunesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned Counsel for 3rd Respondent. The learned Counsel appearing on either side reiterated the stand taken in the respective pleadings filed on their behalf. In the teeth of the undisputable material on record that the Petitioner though appointed by the 3rd Respondent was at their risk and responsibility, his appointment not having been approved by the competent authority of the State in the Education Department, he can have no legitimate claim against the department and particularly any legally protected right which he can even attempt to project in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this ground alone, the claim is liable to be rejected. Even that apart the relevant portion in the reply filed by Respondents 1 and 2 which has been extracted in this order 4supra) would go to show that there was no scope in law or on facts to appoint the Petitioner in the Institution as TGT(Arts) as long as Shri Sukh Dev TGT (Arts) continued and was not legally and properly appointed as Headmaster in the Middle School. Therefore, it is futile for the Petitioner to contend in the writ petition which is projected before us also at the time of arguments that is is not his concern as to the fate of Shir Sukh Dev inasmuch as in our view the fate of the Petitioner depends very much upon the fate of the said person Shri Sukh Dev Sharma who was only TGT (Arts) and there was no scope for appointing one more teacher (Arts) in the Institution. We are not only surprised but shocked at the attitude of the 3rd Respondent who is projecting a role of dictation to the Department itself, despite having committed a grave irregularity in appointing as Headmaster in the Middle School when there is no scope for doing so, and even without 'a factual vacancy and in a self created vacancy appointing the Petitioner without seeking or getting any formal order of approval, but calling upon the departmental authorities to adjust the post of the Petitioner against the TGT (Science). Such claims and stand taken by the 3rd Respondent only reflect the sorry state of affairs in which the Institution is being run without his being conscious of the fact that a TGT (Arts) and TGT (Science) is to discharge different duties and their qualifications itself have to be specially different for such appointment. We are equally surprised at the indifferent attitude of the departmental authorities in blindly turning their eyes away from such irregularities without taking any stern action against the 3rd Respondent except merely denying the grant only, which as we have already held cannot be released in favour of either the Petitioner or the 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent if he had extracted any work from the Petitioner it is the 3rd Respondent who is to meet the claims of the Petitioner and the plea that the 3rd Respondent-Institution is not an economically viable Institution and has no funds, is no answer. It is for the Petitioner even if the Institution as such has no funds to proceed against the Management who appointed him unlawfully and extracted service from him to recover salary if any, but whatever may the justification or otherwise to do so there is absolutely no justification for the Petitioner to demand from the Public funds any grant to be released for the period from 1.4.1993 to 7.8.1996 to the credit of the Petitioner. Equally misconceived is the plea of the Petitioner that merely because in the periodical inspection there was no objection raised by the inspecting auhorities the appointment of the Petitioner must be deemed to have been ratified. It calls for a probe by the State Government as also the Director for action against such erring officers also who have been either pretending to be oblivious to their responsibility and they are to be equally proceeded against departmentally, to avoid recurrence of such malfunctioning.