IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 522 of 2007. Date of decision: 31.7.2009 Surjeet Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate For the respondents: Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 5. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the action of the respondents in removing him from the post of TGT (Arts) on PTA basis. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was duly selected by the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) of the Government Middle School, Kadingcha, District Kullu and was offered appointment vide letter dated 13.10.2006. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 7.4.2007 vide communication of the respondent No.3 dated 3.7.2007. The petitioner urges that his termination 2 was ordered without giving any notice to him and has challenged the same in this Court. The respondents in their reply have justified the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground that he was appointed by a PTA not constituted in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Himachal Pradesh Education Code and also on the ground that the PTA did not follow the procedure and criteria laid down by it for selection of the candidates. We have called for the records of the case. On going through the record, we find that an inquiry was conducted by the State through the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Kullu into the appointment of the petitioner. For arguments sake, we shall proceed in this matter on the basis that the PTA was properly constituted. We are not commenting on the question as to whether the PTA was properly constituted or not, only on account of the fact that the Pradhan of the PTA and other members of the PTA are not arrayed as respondents in their personal capacity before us and, therefore, we do not want to decide this issue. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the PTA was properly constituted, it is apparent that one Sh.Dile Ram was the Pradhan of the 3 PTA. On 23.8.2006 Resolution No.7 was passed by the Committee of the PTA to fill up the vacant post of TGT (Arts). The petitioner was offered appointment against this post without inviting applications from any member of the public or holding any interview in the matter. Sh.Dile Ram who was the Pradhan of the PTA objected to the same and stated that this Resolution has been passed by a teacher of his own. The petitioner was offered honorarium of Rs.500 per month but due to the protest of Dile Ram, Pradhan, the petitioner could not be appointed pursuant to this Resolution. Surprisingly another Resolution No.8 is supposed to have been passed by the PTA in which it is stated that Sh.Dile Ram, Pradhan is vitiating the atmosphere in the school. We find that this Resolution is only signed by the teachers and peon of the school and no parents of the students or other members of the public being members of the PTA have signed the said Resolution. Thereafter another Resolution was passed under the Presidentship of Sh.Dile Ram, Pradhan signed by other members of the PTA and the appointment offered to the petitioner pursuant to the earlier Resolution dated 23.8.2006 was cancelled. Thereafter, the PTA decided to invite fresh applications for 4 filling up the post of TGT (Arts). 15 applications were received. The date of interview was fixed for 29.9.2006. 14 persons appeared for the interview. As is evident from the record, the PTA laid down the criteria for appointment of the teachers. According to this criteria, 10 marks were to be awarded for the marks obtained in B.Ed, i.e., a person would get marks prorata to his performance in B.Ed. 10 marks were to be awarded to persons belong to reserved categories such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, IRDP etc. For experience 10 marks were kept. These marks were to be awarded on the basis of 2.5 marks for every six months’ experience. Thus a person having two years’ experience would get full 10 marks. 10 marks were kept for distance and if the person belongs to the village he would get 10 marks and if his residence is at distant place, he would get less marks. A total of 10 marks were earmarked for personal interview. Thus the candidates were to be graded out of 50 marks. The petitioner was offered appointment on 13.10.2006 pursuant to the said interview. It is apparent from the record that Sh.Dile Ram did not agree to the appointment of the petitioner and in fact did not sign the marks-sheet. 5 One Tara Chand who was the vice President was made to act as the Pradhan without passing any Resolution by the PTA in this behalf. After the appointment of the petitioner, a number of complaints were received including a complaint from the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned and these were got inquired into by respondents No.3 and 4, i.e., the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Kullu and the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Shallang, District Kullu. On inquiry it was found that the Selection Committee had not followed the criteria which had been formulated by the PTA itself and one candidate who belonged to the reserved category was not awarded 10 marks. During the course of the inquiry, it was also found that though the petitioner was granted 7.5 marks for experience even though he had not produced any experience certificate on the date of interview, other persons who had produced their experience certificate(s) were not awarded any marks for experience. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 7.4.2007 and the petitioner challenged the same by filing the present writ petition. 6 Sh.Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been condemned unheard and that the principals of natural justice have not been followed in this case. Normally in a case affecting the civil right of any party, the rules of natural justice must be followed. Before ordering the termination of the services of the petitioner, the better course would have been to issue notice to him and after hearing him, an order should have been passed. In normal course in such an eventuality, we would have set aside the order and remanded the case back for taking appropriate action after giving reasonable hearing to the petitioner. In the present case however, we find that the manner in which the petitioner has been appointed smacks of total illegality. Therefore, we do not want to exercise our writ jurisdiction in his favour. The rules of natural justice are made to help those who act fairly themselves. We have ourselves gone through the entire records of the case and have found that the appointment of the petitioner was totally illegal. Even assuming that the PTA was properly constituted, it was Sh.Dile Ram who was the Pradhan of the PTA and there is 7 no Resolution of the PTA removing him from the post of Pradhan. We also find that though 10 marks were earmarked for the reserved category candidates, one candidate at Sr.No.14, Sh.Anil Kumar in the merit list belonged to the Scheduled Tribe and he was not given any mark in this regard. In case Sh.Anil Kumar who belonged to the Scheduled Tribe had been given 10 marks, he would have ranked higher to the petitioner. On the basis of the material which is on the record of the file, it is clear that the experience certificates of other candidates were ignored. Even assuming that the petitioner had produced an experience certificate and was entitled to 7.5 marks as awarded to him, the fact that the experience certificate of other candidates were ignored clearly shows that the interviews were conducted in a total biased manner. Another interesting aspect of the matter is that purportedly vide Resolution passed on 13.10.2006, the PTA Committee comprising of Sh.Dile Ram, Pradhan was dissolved on the ground that he was vitiating the atmosphere in the school. Interviews were held on 29.9.2006 when Dile Ram was the President of the PTA. Thereafter Tara Chand was appointed President as per 8 the Resolution dated 13.10.2006 and Resolution was passed on 16.10.2006 approving the appointment of the petitioner as TGT (Arts). Surprisingly the Resolution dated 16.10.2006 is Resolution No.10 and the Resolution dated 13.10.206 whereby Dile Ram is supposed to have been removed is numbered as Resolution number 11. This clearly shows that the record of the PTA was forged and interpolated with a view to help the petitioner. In such circumstances, even if the rules of natural justice were violated while terminating the services of the petitioner, we feel that the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court and is not entitled to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. We, therefore, reject this writ petition. Sh.Ramesh Sharma has argued that the respondents be directed to release the salary of the petitioner due and payable to him. The petitioner may take appropriate legal steps for recovery of the salary in accordance with law. We do not intend to pass any orders in this regard in the present case. 9 The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge July 31, 2009 (Surinder Singh) (m) Judge