Sushma Devi vs State Of H.P And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Commerce) in Government College Chowari, District Chamba. The appointment was made by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) of the concerned college on 01.10.2007. The experience certificate placed on record by the petitioner, issued by the Principal of the concerned college on 12.12.2015, certifies that the petitioner had worked in the college on period basis and was paid out of College PTA fund. Further, as per this experience certificate, the petitioner had worked in the college on period basis in following different spells:-

1 st October, 2007 to 31st December, 2007

6 th September, 2008 to 28th February, 2009

18th July, 2009 to 28th February 2010

7th October, 2010 to 15th December, 2010

5th July, 2011 to 28th February, 2012

6th August, 2012 to 15th March, 2013

16th August, 2013 to 31st March, 2014

14th August, 2014 to 20th May, 2015

5th August, 2015 to till date.

It was pleaded that there were three posts in the faculty of Commerce in the College when the petitioner was appointed on PTA basis in the year 2007. In 2009, the sanctioned strength in the faculty of Commerce was reduced to two posts. Fearing her elimination from the college, the petitioner preferred the instant petition before the erstwhile learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal'), praying for continuation as PTA appointed Teacher as well as for release of Grant -in-Aid in her favour. Pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal on 06.01.2016, the petitioner is continuing to serve as Assistant Professor (Commerce) on PTA basis.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.

The two reliefs prayed for by the petitioner can be considered separately hereinafter:-

I. Release of Grant-in-Aid

It is an admitted factual position that the petitioner was not appointed in terms of the Grant-in-Aid to Parents Teachers Association Rules, 2006 (in short 'Grant-in-Aid Rules'). The petitioner was appointed by the PTA as a stop-gap arrangement on period basis and was to be paid a consolidated honorarium out of College PTA fund. That apart, Rule 7 of the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 stipulates that Grant-in-Aid to a PTA appointee shall not be admissible in respect of a teacher, who does not possess the required educational qualifications under the Recruitment & Promotion (R&P) Rules. Rule 7 of the Grant-in-Aid Rules reads as under:-

"7. Educational Qualifications - Grant-in-aid to a PTA shall not be admissible in respect of a teacher made available by it who does not fulfil the educational qualifications fixed by the government in respect of the posts under it for teaching the same subjects/classes."

It is also not in dispute that in terms of the R&P Rules for the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce), a candidate must be in possession of a Degree of Post-Graduation with 50% marks in the concerned subject and also must have qualified the National Eligibility Test/State Eligibility Test (NET/SET). The petitioner is only a Postgraduate in the concerned subject and has not qualified NET/SET. The petitioner, therefore, is not eligible for release of Grant-in-Aid to her.

II. Continuation of the petitioner as PTA appointed Teacher

In support of petitioner's prayer to allow her to continue to work as PTA appointed Teacher, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the instructions dated 26.07.2014. As per these instructions, condition of qualifying NET/SET is applicable for engaging new PTA Teachers after 18.07.2014. This condition is not necessary in case of those PTA appointed teachers, who were engaged prior to 26.07.2014. The petitioner, no doubt, was engaged prior to 26.07.2014, however, under the instructions dated 18.08.2017, the PTA provided teachers were granted time to acquire the requisite qualification within a period of five years, i.e. upto 16.08.2021. Admittedly, the petitioner has not improved her qualification and is not in possession of required qualification of NET/SET.

Further, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that w.e.f. the year 2009, there were only two posts of Assistant Professor in the faculty of Commerce in Government College Chowari. As per the reply filed by the respondents, both these posts have been filled-up by the respondents-State in accordance with law. This position has not been refuted in the rejoinder. Thus, there is no post against which the petitioner can claim to continue on PTA basis.

For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.