IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16667 of 2026 Decided on: 24th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mamta Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Chand, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against order dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2, turning down her prayer for release of Grant-in-Aid and also for reinstatement in service. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 2(i). The School Management Committee of GSSS Kupvi, District Shimla, engaged the services of the petitioner as Teacher (Hindi). This was done on the basis of a resolution passed on 05.07.2010 without holding any 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 interview for the post. It appears that in terms of the resolution, the petitioner was to be paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month out of some local funds. No appointment order was even issued to the petitioner. 2(ii). Government of Himachal Pradesh on 17.07.2012 notified the SMC Policy for engaging teachers through School Management Committees on period basis in State Elementary/Higher Education Department in tribal/ difficult areas, which was extended under notification dated 16.08.2014 to all the schools, which were upgraded during the academic session 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, irrespective of the area in which they fell. 2(iii). One Sh. Puran Chand was promoted as Post Graduate Teacher and posted as such at GSSS Kupvi, District Shimla. He joined there on 18.12.2018 on the post held by the petitioner. Consequently, the services of the petitioner were automatically dispensed with on the joining of regular incumbent. 2(iv). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted OA No.7339 of 2018 before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. During hearing of the instant petition, it was apprised by learned counsel that in the said original application, the relief claimed was for reinstatement of the 3 petitioner. The original application was disposed of with following operative directions:- “In the facts and circumstances and interest of justice, the original application is disposed of with the stipulation that subject to the applicant making a detailed representation, supported by documents alongwith certified copy of this order, taking all the grounds as set up in the original application, to respondent No.2, the Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh within three days from today, who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, sympathetically, and the SMC and transfer policies framed by the State Government, by exploring the possibility whether private respondent no.4, a regular PHT (Hindi) can be suitably adjusted at another station, thereby facilitating the continuance of the applicant, a PGT (Hindi) on SMC basis at GSSS Kupvi, Distt. Shimla, by 31st December, 2018, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant as well as private respondent No.4.” 2(v). In compliance to above, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it on 04.01.2019. The rejection was primarily for the reason that there was already a regular Lecturer (Hindi) posted in the institution, therefore, it would not be feasible to allow the petitioner, who had not been engaged in accordance with law and whose appointment was neither as per the procedure nor her engagement fell within the purview of SMC Policy. 2(vi). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted CWP No.2476 of 2023. The writ petition was disposed of on 03.05.2023 with direction to the respondents to consider 4 the case of the petitioner in light of Villam Singh Versus State of H.P. & others2. It is pursuant to above directions that the respondents have passed the impugned order on 07.08.2023. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on considering the case file, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This is for the reason that in Villam Singh2, it was not the case of the respondents that appointment of the petitioner therein was illegal, contrary to law or that he was not qualified. In the instant case, it is the case of the respondents, which is not disputed by the petitioner, that petitioner's appointment was only on the basis of a resolution issued on 05.07.2010 by the School Management Committee and without conducting any interview whatsoever. She was not in receipt of Grant-in-Aid under the Grant-in-Aid Rules. Furthermore, the petitioner had ceased to be in service w.e.f. 18.12.2018 on joining of a regular incumbent. Even otherwise, the petitioner had not claimed any Grant-in-Aid with effect from termination of her services. O.A. No.7339 of 2018 instituted by her was with the prayer for her reinstatement. The aforesaid relief was justly declined to her on account of joining of a regular incumbent and 2 CWP No.2467 of 2015, decided on 07.04.2016 5 keeping in view the facts of the case, which as noticed earlier, make it evident that petitioner's appointment was without conducting any interview, without following proper procedure and without issuing any appointment order. 4. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 24, 2026 Judge Mukesh