IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.16911 of 2006 Date of Decision: May 09, 2008 Smt.Chander Kanta Bhola .......Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL --- Present: Mr.SK Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.OP Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction claiming writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to absorb the petitioner as Social Studies Mistress. The petitioner was appointed on 3.10.1988 as Social Studies Mistress in Jainendra Gurukul Senior Secondary School, Panchkula. The said School is an aided School but the post, against which the petitioner was appointed, was not a sanctioned and aided post, therefore, the petitioner was being paid salary @ Rs.4,250/- per month, whereas a teacher appointed against the sanctioned and aided post was being paid Rs.9,000/- Civil Writ Petition No.16911 of 2006 -2- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that one post of Social Studies Mistress and that of English Master/Mistress was available in 2004 but because of the ban imposed by Education Department vide letter dated 14.3.2005, these posts were not filled up. Now, vide circular dated 6.1.2006, the Government has allowed the filling up of posts in aided Schools. It is contended by the petitioner that had the ban not been imposed, the petitioner was eligible for appointment on regular basis under Rule 73 of Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as '2003 Rules'). It is the case of the petitioner that those who were working against unsanctioned/unapproved posts, are immediately absorbed/appointed on regular basis when approved posts are sanctioned and become available. It is further contended that now two posts of Social Studies teachers have been advertised by the School on 26.7.2006, whereas the petitioner is not being absorbed against the post of Social Studies teacher and the post is now sought to be filled up by direct recruitment. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner, who has worked in the School for 18 years after she was appointed by a duly sanctioned Committee, will be at a disadvantageous position as inspite of 18 years of service, she will get lesser pay, whereas appointment if made against the advertisement now published will get higher salary as such appointment is against the aided post. On behalf of the State, reliance is placed upon Rule 80 of 2003 Rules to contend that the petitioner is working against un-aided post appointed by the Managing Committee without the approval of the Department, thus, it is the liability of the Managing Committee of the School to appoint/absorb the petitioner. It is further averred that as and Civil Writ Petition No.16911 of 2006 -3- when the Managing Committee of the School will seek the approval for appointment of the petitioner against the sanctioned post of Social Studies Mistress, the same will be considered under the Rule by the Department. Somewhat similar question arose before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.17260 of 2007 (Smt.Shashi Tejpal Vs. State of Haryana and others) in the context of Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979. Considering the provisions of the aforesaid Act, this Court has directed the Lecturer appointed against the unaided post to be absorbed against the aided post. Though the method of recruitment of a College Lecturer is different than that of a School teacher, but keeping in view the provisions of Rule 75 as amended by Haryana School Education (Amendment) Rules, 2007, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for absorption against the aided post before making appointments against the posts advertised in the year 2006. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) May 09, 2008 JUDGE SRM