2025:HHC:37767 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17488 of 2025 Decided on: 11th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Santosh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner has assailed an order passed by the respondents on 05.06.2025 (Annexure P-6), rejecting his case for re-engagement on Parents Teacher Association (Grant-in-Aid) [PTA (GIA)] basis. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case file. 3. The case projected for the petitioner is that:- 3(i). The Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Committee of GSSS Karkoh, District Mandi interviewed the petitioner and selected him as PGT (English) on PTA basis in October 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:37767 2001. Petitioner rendered service as PTA Appointed Teacher w.e.f. 09.10.2001 to 21.02.2002. His services were terminated on 21.02.2002 on joining of a regularly recruited teacher. 3(ii). Petitioner accepted the above order, whereby he was removed from service on 21.02.2002. 3(iii). Further case of the petitioner is that subsequently the State of Himachal Pradesh on 31.08.2013, re-engaged services of several incumbents, who were working as DPEs/Lecturers with the respondent- Education Department and whose services had been terminated on account of joining of regular/contract incumbent. According to the petitioner, he had also represented the respondents for re-engaging him as PTA appointed teacher, but nothing was done in the matter by the respondents. 3(iv). CWP No.7031 of 2025 was instituted by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances concerning his re-engagement. The petition was taken up for consideration on 30.04.2025, when it was projected for the petitioner that he would be satisfied in case the respondents were directed to consider his representation within a time bound schedule. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with 3 2025:HHC:37767 direction to the respondents to consider and decide petitioner’s representation in that regard. 3(v). Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered petitioner’s case for re-engagement and rejected it on 05.06.2025. It is this order, which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 4. Consideration:- 4(i). In the impugned order, respondents have given the reasoning that petitioner’s engagement as PTA Teacher was only a stop-gap arrangement. He was engaged keeping in view the interest of the students studying at that time, in absence of any PTA (GIA) Policy. The petitioner was not appointed as per the PTA (GIA) Policy. 4(ii). Besides the above reason, petitioner’s claim also suffers from delay, laches and acquiescence. The cause of action had first accrued to the petitioner in the year 2002, when his services were terminated on joining of regular hand. Petitioner had not assailed the termination of his services at the relevant point of time. As per the pleaded case, cause of action again accrued to the petitioner in August, 2013, when the respondents statedly decided to re-engage the PTA appointed teachers, whose services had been terminated on account of joining of regular/ contractual incumbents. Even at that stage, petitioner had 4 2025:HHC:37767 not taken any legal recourse. Merely because the petitioner instituted a writ petition (CWP No.7031 of 2025) in April, 2025, which was directed to be decided as a representation by the respondents and based upon the direction, respondents considered the case of the petitioner & rejected it on 05.06.2025, will not give life to an otherwise stale claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner next alleged discrimination by the respondents vis-à-vis one Sh. Hem Raj Sharma, who was stated to be similarly situated as the petitioner and whose services were statedly re-engaged by the respondents vide Annexure P-7. Even though the complete facts pertaining to said Sh. Hem Raj Sharma are not discernible, however, a perusal of Annexure P-7 reflects that the aforesaid Sh. Hem Raj Sharma had instituted a civil writ petition, being CWP No.2549 of 2015, before this Court seeking quashing of an order issued on 09.05.2015. It can be reasonably presumed that Sh. Hem Raj Sharma had promptly taken legal recourse for redressal of his grievances. Further, pursuant to the directions issued in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents had issued Annexure P-7 way back on 19.11.2016, whereas, the present petitioner did not seek any remedy, judicial or administrative etc. before instituting CWP No.7031 of 2025 5 2025:HHC:37767 though cause of action accrued to him in the year 2002 and thereafter in the year 2013. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in petitioner’s claim for re-engagement on PTA (GIA) basis at this stage. The present writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 11, 2025 Judge Mukesh