IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.178 of 2009 Date of decision : November 30, 2010 Kuldeep Sharma …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner was appointed by Parent Teachers Association (PTA) as TGT (Arts) in the year 2005, vide order Annexure P-1. Permission for his appointment was accorded by Deputy Director (Education), vide order dated 11th November, 2005, copy Annexure P-6. Petitioner thereafter joined as PTA teacher. In the year 2006, Government of Himachal Pradesh, in Education Department, issued Rules, regarding grant-in-aid to PTA teachers. Rule-7 of the said Rules says that grant-in-aid to PTA shall not be admissible, in respect of a teacher made available by it, who does not fulfil the educational qualification fixed by the Government, in respect of posts under it for teaching the same subject/classes. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Petitioner did not fulfil the condition of educational qualification, inasmuch as he did not possess degree of Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.), when he was appointed. So, the Government refused to release grant-in- aid to the concerned PTA, in respect of the petitioner. Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court, by means of the present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a direction to respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 to release grant-in-aid to the Parent Teachers Association, in respect of his salary. 3. Stand taken by the respondents, in their reply, is that since the petitioner did not fulfil the qualification, as he did not possess degree of B. Ed., at the relevant time, the PTA, which engaged him, is not entitled to grant-in-aid, in respect of his salary. It is pertinent to mention here that in October, 2007, petitioner has acquired degree of B. Ed. and copy of marks-sheet is available on record as Annexure P-12. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. At the time when the petitioner was appointed by the PTA, Rules regarding grant-in-aid were not there. Rules came into force in the year 2006. Appointment of the petitioner had been approved by respondent No.3, i.e. Deputy Director, Education (Elementary), vide order copy Annexure P-6. Order reads that honorarium/remuneration to the petitioner will be paid from PTA fund. …3… 6. PTA fund was sourced, at that time, by membership fee, donations and grants & aids from the Government, per Para 2.33.5 of H.P. Education Code. Now, unless the Government provides money, by way of grants and aids, teachers engaged by the PTA cannot be remunerated. Probably, there was no condition at the time when the petitioner was appointed by the PTA that he should possess degree of B. Ed. His appointment was with the approval of Deputy Director Education, a functionary of the State Government. Now, the petitioner has passed B.Ed. examination also and, thus, he is qualified to be appointed as teacher. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to pay remuneration to the petitioner, at the rate at which the PTA teachers were being paid at the time of his appointment, upto October, 2007 and from October, 2007, when he acquired the qualification of B. Ed., Parent Teachers Association be released grant-in-aid, in respect of the petitioner also, at the rate prescribed in Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules, 2006. Order be complied with, within three months. November 30, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J