IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 14218 of 2008. Decided on: 24.06.2011. ___________________________________________ Sunita Kumari. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhupender Pathania, Advocate vice Mr. I. N. Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 already ex- parte. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was interviewed for the post of Shashtri on 16th October, 2006 by the P.T.A. for appointment in Government Middle School, Chowkia. She was found suitable 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - and was permitted to join duties on 20th October, 2006. However, respondent No.3 has directed the Head Master, Government Middle School, Chowkia to terminate the services of the petitioner with immediate effect vide Annexure P-1, dated 17th November, 2006. 2. Mr. Bhupender Pathania, Advocate appearing vice Mr. I.N. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appointment of petitioner was made by the Parents- Teachers Association and her services could not be terminated by the Head Master of Government Middle School, Chowkia on the basis of Annexure P-1, dated 17th November, 2006. He then argued that to fill up the post of P.T.A., it is not necessary to possess the educational qualification as prescribed for regular recruitment. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that since the petitioner was not in possession of essential qualification, i.e. diploma in Shashtri, her services have rightly been directed to be terminated on the basis of Annexure P-1, dated 17th November, 2006. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has been interviewed on 16th October, 2006 for appointment as PTA Teacher in Government Middle School, Chowkia and she was permitted to join her duties on - 3 - 20th October, 2006. Petitioner possesses the qualification of Degree of Bachelor in Visharad. It is evident from Annexure P-4 that so far as educational qualifications are concerned, the Rules nowhere debar appointment of teachers by P.T.As. who do not have qualification as prescribed for regular recruitment. However, grant-in-aid will not be admissible to such PTAs who make available teacher without prescribed qualification. Thus, the petitioner was not required to possess the qualification required for regularly appointed teachers in the State Government. The only handicap the PTA faces is if the teacher is appointed without educational qualification, which is essential for regular appointment, it will not be entitled to grant-in-aid. Thus, the petitioner was not required to possess the qualification of diploma in Shashtri to be appointed as Shashti. The appointing authority of the petitioner is the P.T.A. and the services of the petitioner could only be terminated by the P.T.A. Thus, issuance of Annexure P-1, dated 17th November, 2006 by respondent No.3 whereby the Head Master of Government Middle School, Chowkia has been directed to terminate the services of the petitioner with immediate effect is illegal. The Principal was not vested with any authority to direct the Head Master to terminate the services of the petitioner. - 4 - 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-1, dated 17th November, 2006 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 24, 2011. (sck).