IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.426/2008 Reserved on: 5.11.2008 Decided on:10.11.2008 Sanjay Kumar and another. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajinder Kishore Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in the subjects of Commerce and Biology, respectively by respondent No.4 on 14.6.2007 in Government Senior Secondary School, Garali, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. The Pradhan, Parent Teachers Association has sent a communication to the Director of Higher Education on 12.7.2007 about the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 engagement of the petitioners by the Parent Teachers Association. The appointment of the petitioners is claimed to have been made under the Parent Teachers Association Policy, 2006. The Principal of the school sent a correspondence to the Deputy Director Higher Education, Hamirpur for the release of grant-in-aid towards the salary of the petitioners under Grant-in-Aid Policy. The copies of the communications are Annexures P-8 and P-9 respectively. However, the grant-in-aid was not released by the respondent-State. The present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to release the salary to the petitioners with effect from 14.6.2007 after the release of grant-in-aid. Mr. Sandeep Chauhan has strenuously argued that the action of the respondent-State not to release the grant towards the salary of his clients is against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that the appointment of the petitioners is in accordance with law. Mr. Rajinder Kishore Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the appointment of the petitioners is not in accordance with law. He also contended that no committee was constituted as per the clarification issued vide communication dated 19.8.2006 whereby it is mandatory to constitute a selection committee comprising of the following: i) President, Parent-Teachers Association; ii) Secretary, Parent-Teachers Association; and iii) Subject specialist/expert. In other words, his submission is that since the petitioners have not been selected by the Parent-Teachers Association in accordance with law, the action of the State in not releasing the grant is justified. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Respondent No.4 was directed to produce the entire records. I have gone through the entire record with the help of the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, which has led to the appointment of the petitioners as Lecturers by the Parent-Teachers Association. It is evident from the records that no selection committee had been constituted by the Parent-Teachers Association as per clarification dated 19.8.2006. The copy of the same was produced on record by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. Para 4 of the same reads thus: “Since the Principal has such a pre-eminent role in the implementation of this scheme, he should distance himself from the selection of candidates by the PTA. He should advise the PTA to constitute a selection committee comprising of the following: i) President, P.T.A. (Parent) ii) Secy., P.T.A. (Teacher) iii) Subject specialist/expert. The selection committee should preferably not have more than three members. If subject specialist/expert is not available in the institution, then expert may be invited from a neighbouring institution on the request of PTA.” The grant-in-aid can only be released in those cases where the appointment is in conformity with the “Grant-in-Aid to Parent-Teachers Association Rules, 2006” read with clarification dated 19.8.2006. In the present case since the selection committee was not constituted in accordance with law by associating Secretary, Parent-Teachers Association and subject specialist/expert at the time of the selection by the Parent-Teachers Association, the decision of the State Government not to release the grant-in-aid cannot be faulted with. 4 Consequently, in view of the aforesaid reasoning, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 10.11.2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*