IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 3027 of 2020 Decided on:16.07.2026 Sujata Rani …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents …………………………………………………………………………………… Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “That the impugned order dated 27.08.2011 (Annexure A-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii) That the action of the respondents to appoint regular incumbent in place of applicant is patently illegal and wrong and liable to be quashed and set aside; iii) That the respondents may further be directed to re-engage the services of the applicant and further respondent no.2 and 3 be directed to transfer regular incumbent against vacant station mentioned as above; iv) That the respondents may further be directed to continue the release Grant-In-Aid to the applicant.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner had acquired the qualification of B.A., M.A. (Hindi), M.Phil (Hindi) and Prabhakar from H.P. University in the years 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2008, respectively. Thereafter, she had done B.Ed. from IGNOU in the year 2010. It has also been averred in the petition that since the petitioner was having the qualification of M.A. (Hindi), she had become fully eligible to be appointed as Language Teacher in the Education Department as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the field. She was appointed as Language Teacher by School Management Committee/PTA in Government Senior Secondary School, Khatiar, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., (in short GSSS Khatiar) in the month of April, 2006, where she continuously discharged her duties till 21.06.2011. Thereafter, her services were terminated and she had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4115 of 2011, titled, Ms. Sujata Rani Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. This Court had passed an interim order on 03.08.2011 and gave directions to the respondents that in case vacancy of Language Teacher is still available and in case the petitioner has been working as on 22.06.2011, she shall be continued. After passing the order by the Court, the services of the petitioner 3 were re-engaged. However, after joining of regular hand, namely, Shri Puran Singh, who was posted vide office order dated 24.08.2013, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 25.08.2011, vide office order dated 27.08.2011 (Annexure A-5). Thereafter, respondent-State issued instructions on 05.09.2011 (Annexure A-6) when a policy decision was taken that all the contract/regular teachers, who had earlier replaced the PTA(GIA) at initial or at subsequent stage should be posted/transferred against vacant post(s) available in the State in condonation of short stay enabling joining of the PTA(GIA) provided teachers. The petitioner after issuance of the aforesaid communication dated 05.09.2013, as per the decision rendered by the Court in the writ petition preferred by her, which came to be disposed of on 08.01.2013 (Annexure A-12) and the orders passed in COPC No. 75/2014, which was decided on 12.08.2014, had submitted joining on 05.09.2014 (Annexure A-7). However, her joining was not accepted. 3. The petitioner thereafter again filed COPC No. 25/2016, titled, Sujata Rani Vs. R.D. Dhiman and another, which came to be disposed on 11.05.2017 (Annexure A-8) wherein the learned Additional Advocate General had produced 4 and placed on record communication dated 09.05.2017 annexing the order for release of Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner and in view of the said communication, the contempt petition was disposed of as having become infructuous, however, the liberty was reserved to the petitioner to agitate the remaining issues, if any, in accordance with law. 4. The petitioner after disposal of the contempt petition on 11.05.2017 filed the original application before the HP Administrative Tribunal(in short Tribunal), which after abolition of the Tribunal, has now been registered as present petition claiming that the action on the part of the respondents-State in terminating her services, despite the order dated 03.08.2011, passed by this Court is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as well as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has further been averred that the posting of the regular hand in place of the petitioner is patently illegal and arbitrary besides being discriminatory. It has also been averred that there are many posts lying vacant in District Kangra and the regular incumbent can be adjusted or accommodated in school where there is a clear cut vacancy and the petitioner can be engaged as a Language Teacher in view of instructions dated 05.09.2013. It has further been averred in the petition that in 5 similar cases, the Court has directed the respondents to post the regular incumbent in place where the Management Committee/PTA committee was not working and thus prayed for quashing the order of termination of her services and reengagement in service as Language Teacher. 5. Respondents No.1 to 4 filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was engaged against the vacant post of Language Teacher, vide Parent Teacher Association’s Resolution No. 36 dated 14.02.2026 on honorarium of Rs. 800/- per month with the condition that her engagement is till the policy was not in existence on the date of her initial engagement. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner has served in GSSS Khatiar w.e.f. April, 2006 till 25.08.2011. Further as per the condition mentioned in the Resolution, on joining of the regular incumbent on transfer from District Chamba, her services could not be continued and her services were not engaged in accordance with Parent Teachers Association Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 (in short GIA). It has further been averred that the petitioner is not holding the civil post under the respondents-State and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter finally. 6 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 and controverted the facts. 7. I have heard Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General duly assisted by Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General and also perused the record carefully. 8. From the reply filed by the respondents-State, it is clear that the petitioner had been serving in GSSS Khatiar w.e.f. April, 2006 and when her services were terminated on 22.06.2011, she had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4115 of 2011 and this Court had passed the order on 03.08.2011, which reads as under: “There will be a direction to the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Khatiar, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra,H.P., to be present before this Court with records pertaining to the engagement/disengagement of the petitioner as a P.T.A. teacher on 18th August, 2011. It is made clear that in case the vacancy of Language teacher is still available and in case the petitioner has been working as on 22nd June, 2011, she shall be continued. 2. A copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Master be supplied to the petitioner to be produced before the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Khatiar, Tehsil Fateshpur, District Kangra, H.P.” 9. A perusal of the order clearly reveals that this Court had given the direction that in case the vacancy of Language Teacher is still available and in case the petitioner has been working as on 22.06.2011, she shall be continued. In sequel to 7 the said direction given by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin her duties, however, her services came to be terminated on 25.08.2011 vide office order dated 27.08.2011 (Annexure A-5) on joining of Shri Puran Singh language teacher as per the office order dated 24.08.2011 issued by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education Chamba. Thereafter, the State Government had taken the policy decision as conveyed, vide communication dated 05.09.2013 (Annexure A- 6), wherein it was decided that all the contract/regular teacher, who had earlier replaced PTA (GIA) at initial or at subsequent stage should be posted/transferred against the vacant post available in the State in condonation of short stay enabling the joining of PTA(GIA) provided teachers. 10. The petitioner thereafter made a representation dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure A-7) to accept her joining, which was not accepted by the Principal of GSSS Khatiar. The petitioner came to the Court again by way of COPC No. 25 of 2016 (Annexure A-8), when the respondents-State had released the Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner as noticed in the order dated 11.05.2017, passed by this Court and in view of this, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the remaining issues, if any, in accordance 8 with law. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of the instant petition against termination of her services vide order dated 27.08.2011. 11. Learned Advocate General for the respondents- State has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was not appointed as per GIA Rules, she is not entitled to any relief. He further vehemently argued that the original application preferred by the petitioner, which has now been registered as present petition was hopelessly time barred in view of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and further the petitioner was not holding the civil post and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. 12. So far as the first submission made by learned Advocate General with respect to the fact that the petitioner was not appointed under the GIA Rules, is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that this Court vide order dated 03.08.2011 had given direction to the respondents that in case the vacancy of Language Teacher is still available and in case the petitioner has been working as on 22.06.2011, she shall be continued. Once the said order has not been assailed, the plea now being taken by the respondents that the petitioner was not appointed under GIA 9 cannot be countenanced, more particularly when after the direction given by the Court, the petitioner was permitted to join her services and her services came to be terminated only after joining of the regular hand. Not only this, the respondents-State also released the Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner. 13. Regarding the second plea raised by the learned Advocate General that the original application was barred by delay, the petitioner after issuance of the instructions by the respondents-State on 05.09.2013 had submitted joining report on 05.09.2014 after the decision in her petition on 08.01.2013 and COPC No.75/2014 and when no decision was taken, she had again approached the Court by way of COPC No.25 of 2016, which was disposed of on 11.05.2017 after release of the Grant-in-Aid in her favour and the liberty was reserved to her to raise remaining issues, if any. Thereafter, she filed the original application on 11.10.2017, which has now been registered as present petition. Thus, it cannot be said that the original application instituted by her was barred by time. Had the respondents-State not taken a conscious decision to permit the PTA(GIA) Teachers as per the policy decision dated 05.09.2013, to enable them to rejoin, the plea taken by the respondents-State would have been accepted. 10 14. Learned Advocate General has also vehemently argued that since the petitioner was not holding the civil post, this Court may not like to consider the case put forth by the petitioner. The said plea also deserves rejection for the reason that after abolition of the Tribunal, the original application has been registered as present petition and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to advance substantial justice can look into the grievance raised by the petitioner. This Court may not have entertained the petition or the relief sought by the petitioner could not have been considered, had the respondents-State not taken a policy decision on 05.09.2013 that the contract/regular teachers, who had earlier replaced the PTA(GIA) provided teachers should be posted/transferred against vacant post available in the State to enable the PTA (GIA) to rejoin. It is not the case of the respondents-State that the said instructions had not been adhered to by them inasmuch as they have not offered the appointment to the PTA(GIA) teachers whose services came to be terminated on account of joining of the contract/regular teachers. 15. Learned Advocate General has also vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner to reinstate her services on the ground that her appointment was backdoor entry. The said 11 submission cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that this Court had given the specific direction on 03.08.2011 to continue her in case she was working as on 22.06.2011 and the respondents-State had not assailed the said order, rather in compliance with the directions, the petitioner was offered the appointment and her services came to be terminated only after the joining of regular hand w.e.f. 25.08.2011. Not only this, as already observed above, the respondents-State had even released the Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner and, therefore, the plea taken by the respondents-State that the petitioner was not appointed under GIA Rules cannot be accepted. 16. Learned Advocate General has also vehemently opposed the prayer for reinstatement of the petitioner, keeping in view the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 2011. However, the said prayer is rejected for the reason that the petitioner has approached the Court after the liberty granted to her on 11.05.2017 to agitate the remaining issues and the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner can be denied the monetary benefits but she cannot be denied the benefit of reinstatement. 17. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the termination of the petitioner is illegal, she may be 12 held entitled to all the consequential benefits after setting aside the order of termination. However, the said submission made by learned Senior Counsel is not accepted to the extent of allowing her monetary benefits for the reason that no material has been placed on record which can suggest that after the termination of the services of the petitioner, she has not joined somewhere else. The petitioner, having acquired the qualification of M.Phil after termination of her services, may have served in other institution and since the petitioner has not served the respondents-State after 25th August, 2011, she is not entitled to any monetary benefits, except to count her services from the initial date of appointment solely for other service benefits as granted to the employees engaged on PTA basis. 18. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.08.2011 (Annexure A-5) terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed and set aside and the respondents-State is directed to re-engage the services of the petitioner as Language Teacher within three months from today. The petitioner is entitled to count the entire service from the initial date of her appointment for the purpose of seniority and other consequential benefits as granted to PTA Teachers, who were in receipt of GIA. The monetary benefits 13 shall be paid to the petitioner after expiry of three months from today and in case the petitioner is not offered the appointment within three months from today, the respondents-State shall pay the salary to the petitioner from today. 19. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also pending applications if any. No order as to costs. 16th July, 2026 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (Guleria) Judge