IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 833 of 2008. Decided on: 28.2.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Ravinandan Kaur … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G. For respondent No.4 : Mr. R.N. Chaudhary, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (b), (c) and (d):- “7 (b). That the action of the respondent No.3 in orally terminating the services of the petitioner be declared illegal and arbitrary and consequently be quashed and set aside. ( c) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to regularize the attendance of the petitioner during the period she was not allowed to record her attendance in the attendance register, following the oral order of termination. (d) That the petitioner be declared to be entitled to the complete emoluments for the period, for which, she was prevented from recording her attendance and discharging her duties at Govt. Sr. Sec. School Haripur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P.” 2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the following stand vide paras 2, 3 and 5 of their reply:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “2. That the respondent Nio.3 has not terminated the service of the petitioner as the Parents Teachers Association has passed resolution No. 12-2 dated 10.3.2008 resolving that since the Parents Teachers Association has no funds and hence the teachers engaged cannot be allowed to continue after 31.3.2008, therefore, the respondent No.3 i.e. Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Haripur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh has asked the petitioner that the P.T.A as passed the resolution dated 10.3.2008 not to continue the services of P.T.A. teachers and hence after 31.3.2008 need not to come to the school. 3. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the petitioner was engaged by the resolution of Parents Teachers Association and appointment vide order dated 30.5.2006 as is also evident from Annexure P-1 when the New Grant-in-Aid to the Parents Teachers Association Rules 2006 were not in force and the appointment order was issued by the Principal. The petitioner was being paid salary out of Parents Teachers Association funds and due to the lack of funds with the Parents Teachers Association the petitioner was asked not to continue. 5. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the respondent No.3 cannot give the copy of resolution dated 10.3.2008 as this was not the document of the Principal and was the resolution passed by the PTA. Be it further submitted that the Parents Teacher Association had appointed the Teachers, therefore it was for the PTA concerned to decide with regard to their continuance, and the PTA concerned had decided not to continue with petitioner services due to lack of funds. The respondent No.3 had only to act in pursuant to the decision taken by the Parents Teachers Association who engaged the petitioner. The petitioner has no plausible 3 reasons/grounds to seek the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court as no injustice has been caused to her by the replying respondents.” 3. Respondent No. 4 has taken the following stand vide paras 9 to 13 of its reply:- “9. Further, on the 10th of March, 2008 another resolution No.12, Annexure R4/2, R4T/2 was passed by the present PTA whereby it was observed/resolved that the petitioner alongwith other two PTA teachers namely Ms Renu Bala, Lecturer Biology and Ms. Sumna Devi, Language Teacher were to work uptil the 31st of March, 2008 since the financial condition of the PTA fund was in dire straits and therefore the above said lecturers/language teacher could not be paid their due enumerations in case they were to teach after the 31st of March, 2008 and also that the same would be offered the work of teaching in the next session of the school, subject to the number of students enrolled by the school and be paid revised respective enumerations accordingly. It was also decided as per this resolution that the PTA fund shall be increased by Rs. 25/- (Rupees Twenty Five only) from the next session as detailed in the said resolution Annexure R4/2, R4T/2. 10. That the financial condition of the PTA fund as in the month of March, 2008 is evident from the copy of the PTA Fund Cash Book, maintained in a register as per the Code annexed as Annexure R4/3, R4T/3 which shows the funds reduced by more than 50% in March, 2008. 11. Subsequently, the petitioner as well as the other two lecturer/language teacher were requested to note down the above described resolution so passed by the PTA Executive Council on the 10th of March, 2008 but the directions of the same were not adhered to by 4 the petitioner as well as the other two above said PTA teachers. 12. That on the 29th of March, 2008 the Headmaster of the said school recorded his observations/orders Annexure R4/4, R4T/4, in the School Order Book No. 261 in verbatim as “Smt. Sumna Devi working against the post of LT Smt. Ravinandan Kaur Letc. Commerce & Miss Renu Bala Lect. Bio were requested to note the resolution passed by the PTA committee in the presence of P.T.A. Secretary Sh. Milap Singh Lect. In Physics. But all P.T.A. teachers refused to note the resolution of P.T.A. in the presence of P.T.A. Secretary. Again P.T.A. appointed teachers are directed to note the said resolution of P.T.A. passed on 10.03.2008 under No. Resolution No. 12. All concerned to note for compliance pl.” The names of the petitioner as well as other two PTA teachers namely, Miss Renu Bala and Mrs. Sumna Devi were recorded along with the above order in the School Order Book. 13. The above said School Order Book containing Order No. 261 of the Headmaster of the school was thereafter sent to the above said PTA teachers by hand through Ms. Nirmala Devi, Peon that very same day. Subsequently, Ms. Nirmala Devi, Peon recorded in the School Order Book, above her signatures, that, the above said PTA teachers refused to note down the above said order and stated that they would note down the same on the 31st of March, 2008.” 4. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of respondent No.4 and re-iterating the averments set up in the petition has also been filed. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.4 as Lecturer Commerce on PTA basis vide office order dated 1.6.2006, Annexure P-1. She worked as such up to 29.3.2008 5 when according to her she was disengaged by respondent No.3- Principal by an oral order. Per contra the stand on behalf of respondent No.4 is that services of the petitioner along with two other PTA Lecturers were dispensed with for want of funds vide resolution dated 10.3.2008, which forms part of Annexure R4/2 but she had refused to sign it in token of having informed about the same. 6. In view of the above without going into an elaborate discussion of the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties, suffice it to say that teachers are appointed by Parents Teachers Association to meet an exigency, such as, that in some schools there are not sufficient number of regularly appointed Teachers in each subject and in order to make some arrangement to continue with the education of the students, the parents and the teachers contribute small sums of money and PTA hires the services of local youth who are qualified and eligible to be appointed as PTA Teachers in the particular subject. In the present case also, the petitioner was engaged as Lecturer in Commerce on PTA basis. However, it appears that at the end of the academic session feeling a financial crunch the PTA decided to dispense with the services of the petitioner and some other Lecturers for the time being. Needless to say that PTA appointees are not Government servants and are not governed by normal service rules such as CCS (CCA) Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution. True it is that the petitioner was appointed by an order in writing (Annexure P-2) yet the fact remains that the aforesaid resolution dated 10.3.2008 whereby her services and those of similarly situate Lecturers have been dispensed with was though stated to have been brought to their notice but they did not acknowledge such intimation in writing. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 (PTA) that in case no other PTA 6 Lecturer in Commerce has been engaged in place of the petitioner or the vacancy has not been filled up by a regularly appointed or contract teacher and in case the PTA decides to fill in the vacancy of Lecturer Commerce by PTA appointee, in that event the petitioner shall have the first preferential right to be so appointed. In case in future at any point of time the post of Lecturer Commerce in Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Haripur, District Kangra is brought under the purview of PTA Grant-in-Aid, the benefit thereof shall also be extended to the petitioner in case she is offered appointment as PTA Lecturer (Commerce) in terms of this judgment. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. February 28, 2011. (cr)