Mohan Lal vs State of H.P and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

That the directions may kindly be issued to the Respondents to disburse the salary of the Petitioner against the post of Drawing Master under P.T.A.G.M.S. Junni w.e.f. 8th November, 2006 till date, with 12% interest per annum, by holding the action of the Respondents, as vide order dated 13.07.2007 (Ann. P-4), as illegal and arbitrary.

That the record of the case may kindly be called.

That the Respondents may kindly be burned with heavy cost.

According to the Petitioner, the appointment has been made pursuant to the directions issued by the second Respondent, Director of Education (Elementary), Shimla, H.P. It is the stand of the Respondents, as pointed out by Learned Senior Additional Advocate General that the appointment is in violation of the instructions and that the same is during -2 the ban period. According to the Petitioner, the ban does not apply to these appointments since the process had already commenced prior to the ban. It is also submitted that being P.T.A. appointments and since Government is giving only grant-in-aid, the ban as such will not apply as these are not regular posts. Yet, another submission is that in view of the requirement of a teacher, the ban would not be in the public interest also. We find some force in some of these submissions. Be that as it may. Since the appointment has been made pursuant to the direction issued by the Director and since it is only an appointment of teacher by Parent Teacher Association, it will be only appropriate that the second Respondent looks into the matter and takes appropriate action in accordance with law so as to ensure that for the period the Petitioner has worked, the wages are paid. Action in this regard shall be taken within two months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.