IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.4609 of 2020. Reserved on: 23 rd June, 2020. Decided on : 28 th June, 2025. Sapna .. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the Original Application may kindly be allowed and further the impugned order dated 29.04.2013 (Annexure A-10) may kindly be quashed and set aside. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ii) That the action of the respondents to appoint contract 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 with all consequential benefits. iv) That the respondents may further be directed to continue the release of Grant- in Aid to the applicant.” 2. Petitioner was engaged as Language Teacher (for short, “LT”) in Government High School, Jharet, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. w.e.f. 04.05.2006 by the Parent Teacher Association (for short, “PTA”) of the school. 3. Petitioner possessed degree in BA with Hindi as optional subject. She has also qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). 4. Recruitment and Promotion Rules for post of Hindi teacher as notified on 28.12.1963 were prevalent at the time of engagement of petitioner in GHS, Jharet. The essential qualification was Honours in Hindi with Matric and LT training from a recognized 3 university/institute. The R&P Rules were amended in the year 2009 and the essential qualification for the post of Hindi teacher was prescribed as B.A. with Hindi as an elective subject from a recognized university with 50% marks in Hindi or its equivalent. 5. The PTA Grant-in-Aid Rules (for short, “Rules”) were notified by the State Government on 29.06.2006 which inter alia made provision for grant towards the salary of teachers appointed by PTA. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the grant-in-aid was released in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.2 but the Head Master of the school did not release the same to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of LT. 7. The petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 2429 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 26th April, 2011. The petitioner was afforded opportunity to file representation before respondent No.1 and the 4 respondent was directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law. It was ordered that in case the petitioner was found eligible for any benefit as per law, the same would be extended to her within one month. 8. In compliance to the aforesaid order, respondent No.1 passed order dated 06.06.2011 and rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that since, the PTA policy had come into force w.e.f. July, 2006, there was no question of appointment of petitioner on PTA basis prior to said date. It was held that the post of LT in GHS, Jharet was not advertised and further neither any process for appointment was stated to have conducted as per the PTA (GIA) Policy nor the merit list was allegedly prepared. It was also noticed in the order dated 06.06.2011 that the petitioner stood disengaged w.e.f. 28.03.2011. 9. Petitioner again filed CWP No. 9459 of 2011, which came to be decided on 01.12.2012. The said 5 petition was disposed of with direction to respondent- State to release grant-in-aid to the petitioner on the analogy of Annexure P-6, relied upon by the petitioner in the said petition. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.04.2013 again rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the engagement of petitioner in GHS Jharet was prior to coming into force of PTA (GIA) Policy; her selection was not as per the rules; petitioner was not qualified as per the R&P Rules and lastly that the case of the petitioner was different than the case exhibited by Annexure P-6. 10. It was noticed in the order dated 29.04.2013 that Annexure P-6 related to the decision of the Government on the representations of those teachers, who had been appointed on the basis of diploma from Sahitya Samelan Allahabad. Since, the petitioner had not based her case on diploma from Sahitya Samelan Allahabad, her case was said to be difference than Annexure P-6 relied upon by the petitioner in CWP No. 9459 of 2011. 6 11. Petitioner has also placed reliance on communication dated 05.09.2013 from Principal Secretary, Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Director of Higher Education, which reads as under:- “I am directed to refer to this department letter of even no. dated 27th August, 2013 on the subject cited above and to say that the transfers of Lecturer (School Cadre) as well as DPEs which has been approved by the Government and conveyed to you vide the above mentioned letter has again been reconsidered at the Government level and it has been approved by the competent authority that all the contract/regular teachers, who had earlier replaced the PTA (GIA) provided teachers 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 PTA (GIA) provided teachers. You are, therefore, requested to make amendment in the transfers of Lecturers (School Cadre)/DPEs at your own level at the earliest enabling joining of PTA (GIA) provided teachers immediately. Action taken in the instant 7 matter may also be intimated to this department.” 12. The respondents have filed the reply and have taken a specific objection as to the limitation. It has been submitted that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on joining of contract teacher on 28.03.2011 and the petitioner had filed this petition on 13.06.2018. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for grant-in-aid or any other relief on the grounds firstly, that the engagement of petitioner was prior to coming into force of PTA (GIA) Rules and secondly, her appointment was made without following due procedure. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 14. Undeniably, the petitioner has never assailed the termination of her services w.e.f. 28.03.2011. CWP No. 2429 of 2011 filed by the 8 petitioner was decided on 26.04.2011 i.e. after disengagement of the petitioner from service. Evidently, the petitioner did not point out or disclose the said material fact before the Court when the petition was disposed of on 26.04.2011. It will be relevant to reproduce the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2429 of 2011 which reads as under:- “Petitioner is aggrieved since despite the order from the Government, grant-in-aid is not released to her by the Head Master. The petitioner prays for an opportunity to approach the first respondent. The petitioner may file an appropriate representation before the first respondent within two weeks from today, in which case the first respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice, without discriminating the petitioner, within another one month. In case, the petitioner is found eligible for any benefit as per law, the same shall be disbursed to her within one month. 2. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, as also the pending application (s), if any.” 9 15. In compliance to order dated 26.04.2011 passed in CWP No. 2429 of 2011, the order dated 06.06.2011 was passed by respondent No.1 and the said authority also considered only the aspect of extension of grant-in-aid under PTA (GIA) Rules to the petitioner and rightly so because the petitioner had not challenged her disengagement. 16. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of CWP No.9459 of 2011. It is not the case of the petitioner that in the said writ petition, she had assailed the order of her disengagement. Rather in the said petition also her claim was for release of grant-in-aid. Thus, the petitioner cannot seek the relief to re-engage her at this belated stage by way of instant petition filed in the month of June, 2018. The said relief would clearly be barred by delay and laches as her services were terminated on 28.03.2011 and till the filing of this 10 petition, she had no raised any grievance with respect thereto. 17. Even otherwise, there is no factual foundation in the instant petition for the second relief. What has been mentioned in para “XXX” of the petition is that the posting of contract teacher in Government High School Jharet, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra against the post of petitioner was illegal, arbitrary besides discriminatory. Except as above, no other material has been placed on record to challenge the termination of services of petitioner w.e.f. 28.03.2011. 18. Though, petitioner has placed reliance on government instructions dated 05.09.2013 to alleged that the government had decided to enable the joining of the PTA/Grant-in-Aid provided teachers, who had earlier been replaced by contract teachers, however, the petitioner is not entitled to base any claim on the basis of said instructions dated 05.09.2013 also for the reasons, firstly, that she has 11 not placed any material on record to show that she had sought the benefit of said instructions from respondents No.1 and 2 at any point of time and secondly, she did not make any claim in that regard for almost five years before the filing of the instant petition. 19. As regards relief with respect to release of grant-in-aid, again the foremost impediment before the petitioner is of delay and laches. The order passed on 29.04.2013 was not assailed or challenged by the petitioner till June, 2018 when the instant petition was filed. 20. Further, a perusal of impugned order dated 29.04.2013 reveals that the petitioner lacked essential qualification at the time of her engagement. The findings of respondent No.2 to this effect cannot be faulted because before amendment of R& P Rules in 2009, the essential qualification was Honours in Hindi with Matric and LT training from a recognized university/institute. Admittedly, the petitioner did 12 not possess essential qualification as required under the contemporary Rules. It can also be seen that the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2012 in CWP No. 9459 of 2011 was to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner on the analogy of Annexure P-6. Respondent No.2 has given reasons as to why Annexure P-6 was not applicable to the case of petitioner and there is no challenge to such findings. 21. Another ground on which the case of petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 29.04.2013 was that the selection of the petitioner was not as per the Rules. Except for making bald assertions that the engagement of the petitioner was in pursuance to a selection process, nothing tangible has been placed on record to corroborate the assertions. 22. In light of above discussion, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief as prayed in the 13 petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 28th June, 2025. (jai)