IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5765 of 2010. Judgment reserved on 21.7.2011. Date of decision: 08.08.2011 ___________________________________________________ Kumari Viplav …. Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. ______________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner prays that the respondents may be directed to release grant-in- aid to the petitioner for the period 10.11.2006 to 30.5.2008. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner had applied for the post of TGT Non-Medical on PTA basis in Government Middle School, Lalag, Lower Karsog, District Mandi, HP. The interview for the post of TGT Non-Medical and Drawing Master was held on 27.9.2006. Three other ___________ Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes. 2 posts on PTA basis were also advertised and for these posts interviews were held on 27/28.9.2006. Appointment letters in respect of the teachers who had applied for the post of TGT Arts and Drawing Masters were issued on 3.10.2006. The appointment letter in favour of the petitioner against the post of Non-Mecical was also issued on 8.11.2006 and the petitioner joined as TGT Non-Medical on 10.11.2006. The case of the petitioner is that the State of HP had notified the Grant-in-Aid to the Parent Teachers Association on 29.6.2006 and, therefore the State of HP is bound to give grant-in-aid, since the petitioner fulfils all the necessary qualifications. 3. The stand of the respondent-State is that vide letter dated 6.11.2006, the Director Elementary Education had clearly directed all concerned that the posts of TGT and C&V categories which fall vacant should be kept vacant and PTA arrangements should not be made against these posts. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on 8.11.2006 is contrary to this letter and she is not entitled to grant-in- aid. 4. It is contended by Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner that his client had a legitimate expectation that she would get grant-in-aid and nobody conveyed the letter dated 6.11.2006 to her and she joined 3 as such. It would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner continued working on PTA basis till 30.5.2008 when she was replaced by a regular teacher. Till that time she did not file any writ petition and it is only after one and half years that she filed the present writ petition. Once the State had taken a decision that no vacancy of TGT should be filled on PTA basis, the State cannot be held responsible to pay grant-in-aid to the Parent Teachers Association. Grant-in-aid is to be given to the Association and not to the teachers. This grant-in-aid cannot be granted to the petitioner who was appointed after the letter dated 6.11.2006 which clearly prohibited the appointment of PTA teachers against the post of TGT. 5. Therefore, I find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 8, 2011. (Krn Guleria)