IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1552 of 2008. Decided on: 26.11.2010. Arti Kaushal …..Petitioner. vs. State of H.P. & ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr.Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Vinod Thakur, Dy.A.G., for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.B.C. Negi, counsel for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral) The petitioner in the present case was appointed teacher on PTA basis against a temporary vacancy caused due to the leave of Anita Sharma, who had gone abroad. The post was not permanently vacant and the petitioner was appointed on 9.6.2006 by the then Head Master/officiating Head Master and by the PTA. 2. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent State that the grant-in-aid is not to be given under the PTA Policy against the said post because it was not a permanently vacant post. 3. It was brought to my notice that challenge was laid to the appointment of the petitioner in CWP No.632 of 2007, titled Samriti Devi versus State of H.P. and others, by the present respondent No.5 on the ground that the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, who was also the Pradhan of the PTA, had no child studying in the said school and hence he 2 was incompetent to either be a member or the Pradhan of the PTA of the said School. The other ground taken in challenging the selection of the petitioner was that no interview had been conducted. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.4.2008 with a direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to make representation before the concerned authority, who was to consider and dispose of the said representation in accordance with law, by a speaking order. An enquiry was held into the matter by the SDM and as per his report Annexure R-3/B, dated 2.9.2008, it was observed by the SDM as under: “Complainant and PTA appointee heard. Statements of PTA appointee Arti Kaushal recorded. She has stated that since she was already working as TGT (Arts) I nthe school from May, 2006 without pay, therefore, she was appointed from Oct.2006 @ Rs.2000 per month without holding interview. In view of this, the allegation is found to be correct qua not holding the interview. Oral inquiry from those present above also reveals that no child of PTA Pradhan Sh.RamKumar Sharma is studying in the school concerned. So, prima facie his chairmanship of PTA is untenable. Hence committee recommends to PTA and Head of the Instituion concerned not to accept Arti Kaushal to the post of TGT(Arts).” 4. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Committee to the PTA and the Head of the Institution, the order of termination was to be issued but in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is 3 continuing against the said post. The learned counsel for the petitioner had been asked to file an affidavit, if any, as to whether any interview was held for the post as also on the question that the Pradhan Shri Ram Kumar Sharma had any child studying in the school and as such he was fit to be the Chairman of the PTA. No such affidavit is sought to be filed and on these findings of fact recorded by the SDM, there is no rebuttal. Therefore, it is clear that on both the grounds, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be valid. In view of the recommendations vide Annexure R-3/A, the Head Master/Principal of the Institution is competent to take action in accordance with law. The decision sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.1611 of 2007 and other connected matters, which decision is by a Division Bench of this Court passed on 22.4.2010, the same does not apply to the facts of the present case and it is in view of the facts of those cases that the said order was passed by the Division Bench. 5. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which stands dismissed. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. November 26, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.