IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2163 of 2007. Date of Decision: 4th January, 2010. Rattan Singh .. Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Shri J.R. Thakur, Advocate. For respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral): By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought judicial review of order dated 25th September, 2007, Annexure P-1 of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (now abolished), whereby Original Application No.231 of 1993, filed by him, seeking a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to appoint him as Headmaster of Government High School, Tipper, District Hamirpur, has been dismissed. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Relevant facts may be stated thus. There used to be a private High School known as ‘Janta High School’ in village Tipper. Petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of that School in the year 1973 by the Managing Committee of that School. Also, there used to be a Government Middle School in the same village. Government of Himachal Pradesh took a decision, vide order dated 20th April, 1989, to upgrade this Middle School to the level of High School. The order inter alia reads that if privately managed recognized classes are in existence and there is a request from management that the staff employed to teach such classes be taken over by the Government, in the context of up-gradation of the Government Middle School, the request may be considered in the light of the instructions as contained in memos dated 5th July, 1973, 18th July, 1979, 25th May, 1981 and 31st July, 1985. We also find on record letter dated 7th September, 1989 issued by the District Education Officer, Hamirpur to the Headmaster of Government High School, Tipper, for taking over the charge of admission and withdrawal register of Janta High School, Tipper from the Headmaster. There is another communication dated 18th September, 1989, for relieving the staff of Janta High School, including the present petitioner, in the capacity of Headmaster of Janta High School, pending decision by the Government about the taking over the services of the staff. This order of 18th September, 1989 further shows that Janta High School, Tipper, - 3 - had also been taken over by the Government simultaneously with the up-gradation of Government Middle School, Tipper to the level of High School. Representations were made by the petitioner to the Government for taking over his services as Headmaster through the management of the private High School, i.e., Janta High School. Claim made by the petitioner was that he having been appointed as Headmaster of the private School in accordance with the rules and regulations of the School and being qualified to be appointed as Headmaster, his services ought to have been taken over in the same fashion, as has been done in the case of other staff of the School. Respondents did not deny that the petitioner had been appointed as Headmaster of the School in the year 1973 and that he possessed the qualification of Trained Graduate Teacher, but they offered him the post of only TGT Teacher in the upgraded High School and not that of Headmaster. Petitioner was not prepared to join as TGT Teacher and insisted that he be appointed as Headmaster. Matter kept hanging fire for quite sometime. Ultimately, the petitioner filed Original Application before the learned Tribunal in the year 1993. Respondents pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the petitioner had been appointed as Headmaster directly, without approaching the employment exchange, to sponsor - 4 - suitable candidates and as such, his appointment by the Management of the private School as Headmaster in the year 1973, was contrary to the Government instructions issued in the years 1979 and 1985, regarding employment of Headmaster, Teachers and other staff in privately run Schools. Another objection raised by the respondents was that in the year 1988, the petitioner had been elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat and that his election to a public office indicated that he was not a regularly appointed Headmaster. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the OA holding that the Government had upgraded its own Government Middle School and did not take over private Janta High School and as such, it was not bound to accommodate the petitioner or to take over his services. View taken by the learned Tribunal that the School in which the petitioner had been employed as Headmaster in the year 1973, is not correct. As already noticed, we find on record an office order dated 18th September, 1989, issued by the respondents to the effect that the private High School in which the petitioner was employed as Headmaster had also been taken over simultaneously with the up-gradation of Government Middle School. It is not in dispute that other staff members of the private School had been accommodated/ their services taken over by the Government. Respondents (the Government), were prepared to take over the services of the - 5 - petitioner also but in a capacity lower than that in which he had been working. As already noticed, he had been working as Headmaster of the School, but the respondents offered him the post of TGT (Arts). This was not acceptable to the petitioner, because after having remained Headmaster of High School for 20 years, he was offered the post of TGT (Arts) in the year 1993. Objections, which were raised by the respondents, before the learned Tribunal, were different from the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal to dismiss the Original Application. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had not been sponsored by the employment exchange and as such his appointment was contrary to the instructions issued by the Government in the years 1979 and 1985 regarding appointment of staff in private Schools. Petitioner was appointed in the year 1973. Government instructions were issued in the years 1979 and 1985 or say much after the appointment of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been denied the claim of taking over of his services on the ground that his appointment was contrary to the instructions issued by the Government, because no such instructions existed, when he was appointed. Another objection raised by the respondents was that the petitioner had been elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat in the year 1988. That objection is also not legally - 6 - sustainable because the petitioner was the Headmaster of a private School, when elected to that office and nothing has been brought on record that an employee of a private School cannot contest the election for a public office, like Prahdan of the Panchayat. In view of the above stated position, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Tribunal is set aside. Respondents are directed to take over the services of the petitioner as Headmaster of the School from the date the private Janta High School was taken over. He shall, however, not be paid the arrears of salary upto date because he has not worked after taking over of the School to this date, even though he cannot be blamed for his having not so worked for the aforesaid period. Instead he will be paid Rs.2 lacs, as lump sum compensation, within two months from today, failing which, the aforesaid amount of compensation shall be payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of compensation. Writ petition shall stand disposed of. (Surjit Singh), Judge. 4th January, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.