HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 2123 of 2007 Date of Decision: 24.6.2008 Bhup Singh ……. Petitioner. versus State of H.P. & others …….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For respondents 4 & 5: Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner Bhup Singh and private respondent No.5 Shri Bhaskra Nand appeared in the interview held on 25.9.2006, conducted by the P.T.A. for filling-up the post of P.E.T. Govt. Middle School, Bhanera, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi. The consolidated result sheets of the interview were drawn up and marks in accordance with the laid down criteria were allotted to the candidates. Petitioner Bhup Singh secured 50.62% marks and private respondent No.5 Shri Bhaskra Nand secured 57.82% marks. Shri Bhaskra Nand being first in the marks list, having secured the highest marks was accordingly appointed. In order of merit, Shri Bhup Singh was placed at Sr. No.6. The fact that the marks have been awarded in accordance with the laid down criteria is not in dispute in the present writ petition. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has challenged the appointment of Shri Bhaskra Nand on the ground that the constitution and formation of the P.T.A. Body, which conducted the interview for the post of P.E.T. was bad in law inasmuch as respondent No.4 Shri Nand Lal Sharma could not have been appointed as President of the P.T.A., as none of his children were studying in the school at the relevant time. 3. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has brought to my notice the record from which it is evident that the petitioner himself had participated in the proceedings dated 27.8.2006, whereby the said private respondent No.4 was appointed as President. I am in respectful agreement with Shri Dogra that the record of proceedings do not reflect that any objection with regard to the status or eligibility of the said private respondent No.4 was taken by the petitioner at the time of his election. The proceedings took place on 27.8.2006 and the writ petition was filed on 5.12.2007 i.e. after a gap of more than 15 months. There is no explanation for the delay. No objection was ever taken prior to the filing of the present petition. 4. That apart, learned counsel for the respondents have also brought to my notice the relevant provisions of the H. P. Education Code, 2007 dealing with the formation of the Parent Teacher Association. Code 2.33.4(2) makes it evidently clear that the parents or the guardians of the students studying in the school and teacher of the school shall constitute the General Body of the P.T.A. It has been brought to my notice that respondent No.4 was acting as guardian of two students, namely, Shri Tilak Raj and Ms. Tiranjana, who admittedly are the students of the school. Shri Nand Lal Sharma is the real uncle of the said students. 3 5. Shri Nand Lal Sharma as guardian of the children studying in the school was totally eligible to have participated and acted as member of the P.T.A. Body. 6. In my view, the constitution of the P.T.A. and the selection of respondent No.4 as its President, is totally in accordance with law and no fault whatsoever can be found with the same. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ) Judge. June 24, 2008 (rana)