1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1701 of 2009 Decided on: 23rd November, 2010. Girdhari Lal. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-12 i.e. an order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Kullu, District Kullu7, Himachal Pradesh. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to give effect to Annexure P-12. Iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to issue the due grant in aid to the petitioner. 2. Annexure P-12 is an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the appeal filed by the petitioner against Annexure P-11, passed by the Head Master of the School, relieving the petitioner from the post of PTA. According to the petitioner, since he has been appointed prior to the introduction of the Grant-in-Aid Rules, as apparently held by the Sub Divisional 2 Magistrate in Annexure P-9 and the Deputy Director in Annexure P-10, there is no need to go into the matter considered by the authorities. However, without reference to Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-10, it is seen from Annexure P-12 that an enquiry has been conducted and in terms of the enquiry, only the petitioner has been relieved. But in case the petitioner has been duly working as PTA and in case the same is prior to the introduction of the Grant-in-Aid Policy and in case, the petitioner is duly eligible to work under Grant-in-Aid, no enquiry in that matter could be held on any other aspect. Apparently, the petitioner has not been participated in any enquiry. We are also informed that new guidelines have been introduced in that regard. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. However, it is made clear that if any enquiry is conducted in the matter, the petitioner shall also be participated. Needless also to say that so long as the petitioner has been working as PTA Teacher, his due and admissible renumeration shall be paid to him. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 23rd, 2010. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (hl/kck) Judge.