IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1569 of 2006 (S/S) Mukesh Pant a/a 28 years S/o Sri Satish Chandra Pant ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri B.D. Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed on a contract basis as a P.T.A. teacher in Janta Inter College Gadigaon, District Pauri Garhwal which was a recognized institution under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Pursuant to a Government Order dated 7th July, 2006, the institution was provincialized as per para 6 of the said Government Order and the teaching and non- teaching staff of the institution was merged in government service. Since the petitioner was engaged as a P.T.A. teacher on a contract basis and was being paid an honorarium and no provision was provided for absorption of P.T.A. teachers, the Principal revoked the contract and terminated the services of the petitioner by an order dated 28th November, 2006. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Section 41 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 read with Rule 2 (b) of the U.P. Provincialised Educational Institutions (Absorption of the Employees in Government Service) Rules, 1992, the petitioner, being an employee, was entitled to be absorbed under the Government Order dated 17th July, 2006 and that the termination of his contract of service was wholly illegal. 2 In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provision of Section 41 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 and the provisions of Rule 2 (b) of the U.P. Provincialised Educational Institutions (Absorption of the Employees in Government Service) Rules, 1992 needs to be considered and which are extracted hereunder:- “41. Ad hoc appointment of part-time Teachers / Acting P.T.A. Teachers by Committee of Management – The Committee of Management shall appoint on ad hoc basis such part-time / P.T.A. teachers as were employed upto 5-6-2003 by the Committee of Management from its own resources for which sub-substantive posts were created at the time and who possessed qualification prescribe for the corresponding posts and who were paid honorarium from the government funds. 2. …. (b) ‘employee’ in relation to a provincialised institution means a person who immediately before the provincialisation of the education institution was working as Principal or Head Master or Lecturer or L.T. Grade teacher and on the date of provincialisation of such institution was given temporary appointment against the newly created post and has since then been working in any post under the State Government;” Section 41 of the Act provides that the Committee of Management can appoint, on adhoc basis, part-time P.T.A. teachers from its own resources. Rule 2 (b) defines employee as a person who was working as a Principal or Head Master or Lecturer or L.T. grade teacher and, on the date of provincialiasation of such institution, was given a temporary appointment against a newly created post. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a P.T.A. teacher u/S 41 and, such P.T.A. teacher would come under the definition clause of an “employee” as defined under Rule 2 (b) of Rule 1992 and, therefore, was entitled for absorption as per the Government Order of 17th July, 2006. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit and the submission cannot be accepted on two folds. In the first instance, the petitioner is only a P.T.A. teacher and was not working as a Principal or Head Master or Lecturer or L.T. grade teacher. Further, under Rule 2 (b), an employee was required to work against a newly created post whereas u/S 41 of the Act, a P.T.A. teacher was required to work under a sub-substantive post which, in my opinion, is totally different and distinct from a newly created post. In view of the aforesaid, since there was no provision under the Government Order of 17th July, 2006 for absorption of P.T.A. teachers, the Principal was justified in revoking the contract of service. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 09.03.2010 Shiv