IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 873 of 2010, with CWP No. 1165 of 2010 Decided on : 21.2.2011 Rajesh Sharma ..… Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent N o. 4 in person. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) Both these petitions being inter-connected are taken up for disposal together. 2. The petitioner holds a diploma in Art & Craft, Annexure P-3. Vide Resolution, Annexure P-4, dated 21.01.2005, he was initially engaged as PTA Drawing Teacher by respondent No.4 and worked as such upto 28.02.2010, when his services were dispensed with. 3. CWP No. 873 of 2010, has been filed on the following prayers:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 (i) That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondent No.3 to recommend the case of the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 for granting him the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 and pay him the salary as per these rules, immediately. (ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay arrears of salary as per these rules from the year, 2006 to till date including arrears also. 4. However, since in the meantime his services were dispensed with, CWP No. 1165 of 2010, has been filed for grant of the following reliefs:- (i) That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to take back the services of the petitioner as Drawing Teacher on PTA basis forthwith after quashing P-5. (ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner again except in accordance with law. 5. Admittedly, from the very inception the petitioner was not covered under any Gra nt-in-Aid from the Government. He was being paid monthly honorarium of ` 500/- which was later on increased to ` 1000/-. 6. Admittedly, Drawing is one of the compulsory subjects in Middle Schools in the State of H.P. It is also not disputed that there is no Drawing Teacher in Govt. Middle School, Banakoti,Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur, at present. In such circumstances, it is not understandable as to how the studies of the students in the schooll are going on smoothly. Shri Ram Dutt, President, Parents Teachers Association of the school, is 3 present in the Court in person. He states that he shall convene a meeting of the PTA as soon as possible and place the matter for consideration of the said association. Hopefully, the association shall take appropriate decision in the matter as the current academic session would come to an end by the end of March, 2011 and the new session would commence from first or second week of April, 2011. 7. Against the above backdrop, in case Parents Teachers Association decides to engage a Drawing Teacher in the school, in that event, the petitioner, who has been certified by the association to be a competent and pains taking teacher vide copy of resolution, Annexure P-5, in CWP No. 1165 of 2010, shall have preferential right to be engaged as Drawing Teacher. In future, in case, the Government decides to cover the post of PTA Drawing Teacher in the school under Grant-in-Aid scheme, the petitioner shall be considered for the said post in accordance with Rules, preferentially taking into consideration his past service. 8. Both the petitions as also pending CMPs, if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. 9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to respondent No.4, President, PTA, Govt. Middle School, Banakoti, Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur (H.P.) (V.K. Sharma) Judge 21st February, 2011. Lsp* 4