1. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

"(i) That the impugned rejection order dated 18.12.2018, (Annexure P-14), may kindly be quashed and set-aside, with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefits of PTA Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006, to the petitioner without any discrimination at par with similarly situated persons in the light of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP 358/2015 at (Annexure P-12), from the date of initial appointment;

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the petitioner's service w.e.f. 31.3.2014 to 10.9.2014 towards seniority and continuity for all intent and purposes"

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that vide letter dated 6.2.2009 (Annexure P-3), petitioner came to be appointed as Lecturer (Political Science) at Government Sanskrit College at Nahan on PTA basis. Pursuant to aforesaid appointment, petitioner joined his duties in the aforesaid college on 7.2.2009. Till 31.3.2014, petitioner continued to render his services as Lecturer (Political Science) in the concerned college, but thereafter his services were disengaged and as such, Principal, Government Sanskrit College at Nahan, vide communication dated April, 2014 (Annexure P-5), requested the Director, Higher Education to sanction one post of Lecturer (Political Science) in the college. Vide aforesaid communication, the Principal specifically clarified that subject of Political Science is an optional subject and required to be taught on regular basis. Having taken note of the aforesaid communication, Director, Higher Education, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner against the post of Lecturer (Political Science) w.e.f. 10.9.2014. Vide aforesaid order, petitioner was reengaged purely on PTA basis (not in Grant-in-Aid) on monthly honorarium of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. for actual duty period keeping in view the requirement of specific Academic Session 2014-15. Though initially aforesaid appointment was for one year, but same was extended from to time, as a result thereof, petitioner is working till today in the college concerned against the post of Lecturer (Political Science).

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner is that that once petitioner was appointed on PTA basis in the year 2009 and since then, he has been discharging his duties regularly, department ought to have released Grant-in-Aid in his favour as was being done in the cases of other similarly situate persons.

4. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, perusal whereof clearly reveals that there is no dispute qua the facts as have been noticed herein above, rather stand admitted. Ground sought to be raised by the respondents in their reply for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that petitioner's initial appointment vide letter dated 6.2.2009, was not made in accordance with law, rather same was made on the recommendation of the local PTA and against the non sanctioned post and as such, he cannot be granted Grant-in-Aid in terms of the Grant- in-Aid Rules 2006. Besides above, it has also been stated in the reply that Grant-in-Aid rules had come to an end on 3.1.2008 and as such, appointments made thereafter on PTA basis cannot be covered under Grant-in-Aid Rules 2006. While making this court peruse communication dated 10.9.2014, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that otherwise also, services of the petitioner stood terminated on 31.3.2014 and he was given fresh appointment vide communication dated 10.9.2014, and department had made it clear to the petitioner that same shall be purely on PTA basis (not in Grant-in-Aid) with monthly honorarium of Rs. 6000 per month. He submitted that after being fully aware of the fresh appointment, petitioner not only joined the duties again on 10.9.2014, but till date, he is continuing in that capacity. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that initial appointment of the petitioner though has been termed to be made by the PTA, but same is not strictly in terms of PTA Policy and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent department by not releasing Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Rules 2006, which otherwise had come to an end before the appointment of the petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that vide appointment letter dated 6.2.2009, issued by the Government Sanskrit College, Nahan, petitioner came to be appointed as Lecturer (Political Science) in the college concerned (Annexure P-3). Though learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that initially, petitioner was given appointment by local PTA, but he was unable to point out anything from the PTA Policy, which talks about local PTA, rather specific term "PTA" has been used that means that PTA of the concerned college/school can make appointment of the teacher/lecturers on requirement/need basis. Though it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondent-State that appointment of the petitioner against the post in question was not against the sanctioned post, but it is not in dispute that pursuant to his appointment vide communication dated 6.2.2009, petitioner continued to work as Lecturer (Political Science) till his disengagement i.e. 31.3.2014. It is not understood that if there was no post and subject of Political Science was not in the curriculum, where was the occasion for the local PTA, to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer (Political Science). It is also not in dispute that again on 10.9.2014, President of the PTA of aforesaid college ordered that services of the petitioner on PTA basis, are hereby continued with immediate effect purely on PTA basis (not in Grant-in-Aid) on honorarium of Rs. 6000/-. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid communication, which is otherwise heavily relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General that even subsequent appointment dated 10.9.2014, was given by the Parent Teacher Association of Government Sanskrit College, Nahan, pursuant to instructions/ clarification issued by the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, vide letter No. En-H(8)B(2)-1/2005 (PTA) dated 6.8.2014, wherein Director (Higher Education) having taken note of the communication sent by the Principal of the concerned College, stating therein that subject of the Political Science is optional and required to be taught, specifically directed the Parent Teacher Association, Government Sanskrit College at Nahan, to appoint the Lecturer (Political Science) on PTA basis. Letter dated 10.9.2014, as has been taken note herein above, has been issued with the prior concurrence of the Director (Higher Education), who after having noticed requirement of Lecturer of Political Science in Government Sanskrit College, Nahan, authorized Parent Teacher Association to appoint the petitioner. Though it is quite apparent from the aforesaid communication that services of the petitioners were continued on PTA basis, against which he was initially appointed on 6.2.2009, but even otherwise material available on record, clearly reveals that after 31.3.2014, petitioner kept on discharging his duties in the examinations as is evident from the details placed on record (Annexure P-6 colly.). Perusal of aforesaid information clearly reveals that w.e.f. 12.4.2014, petitioner remained on examination duty till 2.5.2014 and as such, it cannot be said that petitioner remained absent or was not allowed to work w.e.f. 31.3.2014 till 2.5.2014, rather on one hand, department kept on extracting work from the petitioner, may be in different capacity, and on the other hand, disengaged him on the pretext that he was not appointed against the sanctioned post.

6. Leaving everything aside, this court finds that w.e.f. 6.2.2009 till 31.3.2014 and thereafter w.e.f. 10.9.2014, till today, petitioner is discharging duties of Lecturer (Political Science) at Government Sanskrit College at Nahan, but he is being paid meager honorarium of Rs. 6000/- per month, which action of the respondent- State, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be justifiable, rather same can be termed as exploitation.

7. No doubt communication dated 6.2.2009, whereby petitioner came to be appointed on PTA basis, nowhere suggests that he was promised to be given Grant-in-Aid, rather vide aforesaid communication, he was to be given salary of Rs. 6000/- per month, but once it is not in dispute that other similarly situate persons, who were also appointed on PTA basis, were released Grant-in-Aid in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Rules 2006, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to state that Grant-in-Aid in terms of aforesaid Grant-in-Aid Rules 2006, cannot be released in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was made by local PTA against the non-sanctioned post, which aspect of the matter has been already clarified by this court in the earlier part of the judgment.

8. Though it has been vehemently argued that argued on behalf of the respondents-State that Grant-in-Aid Rules 2006 were not in existence at the time of the appointment of the petitioner and in that regard, much reliance has been placed upon the communication dated 3.1.2008, whereby Deputy Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh, informed the Director, Higher Education as well as Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh that it has been decided that selection /appointment of teachers by the Parent Teacher Association be stopped immediately and the joining of PTA, provided teachers may not be accepted henceforth till further orders. Aforesaid communication nowhere talks about Grant-in-Aid Rules, rather aforesaid communication specifically provides that w.e.f. 3.1.2008, there will be no appointment of teachers by Parent Teacher Association. Since in the case at hand, it not in dispute that petitioner stood appointed as Lecturer (Political Science) in Government Sanskrit College at Nahan on PTA basis in the year 2009, he cannot be denied the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Rules in view of the subsequent, decision dated 3.1.2008, which otherwise nowhere specifically talks about repealment of the Grant-in-Aid Rules of 2006. It may be true that after 3.1.2008, no teachers could be appointed by the Parent Teacher Association, but teachers already stood appointed on PTA basis could not be denied the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Rules 2006, which were very much in existence at the time of the appointment of the petitioner.

9. Grant-in-Aid Rules, which came to be notified vide notification dated 29.6.2006, if read in entirety clearly provides that in case a PTA with prior approval of the Principal makes available teachers for the regular day to day teaching of students in an educational institution, it may submit an application for Grant-in-Aid in Form-I, enclosing therewith character and antecedents of such teachers verified by a Gazetted Government Officer, meaning thereby, any person appointed on PTA basis is required to be provided Grant- in-Aid in terms of Grant-in-Aid Rules 2006. It is also not in dispute that after selection of the petitioner on PTA basis, Principal of the school concerned himself apprised the Director with regard to requirement of the Lecturer (Political Science) in the Government Sanskrit College at Nahan. If the communication dated August, 2014, (Annexure A-5) is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that factum with regard to appointment of the petitioner was very much in the knowledge of the Principal and he specifically recommended to the Director, Higher Education, to sanction one post of the Lecturer (Political Science) in the college concerned. After having taken note of the aforesaid communication, Director, Higher Education, himself vide communication dated 6.8.2014, authorized the Parent Teacher Association of Government Sanskrit College at Nahan to re-appoint the petitioner, however Parent Teacher Association while complying with the aforesaid direction passed by the Director vide communication dated 6.8.2014, issued office order in continuity of the earlier appointment letter dated 6.2.2009. In the office order dated 10.9.2014, it specifically came to be recorded that services of the following earlier PTA provided teachers are hereby continued with immediate effect purely on PTA basis. Though petitioner was re- appointed vide aforesaid communication, but his services recommended by the PTA basis vide communication dated 6.2.2009 were continued.

10. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General specifically invited attention of this Court to Clause 13 of the Grant-in- Aid Rules, to claim that at no point of time, Grant-in-Aid was sanctioned by the Director or other officer authorized by him because no recommendation in that regard was ever made by the Principal however this Court finds no force in the submission of learned Additional Advocate General for the reason that on account of omission, if any, on the part of the Principal or Director, petitioner who has been admittedly rendering his services in the college concerned w.e.f. 6.2.2009, cannot be allowed to suffer. Once Principal of the concerned college after having noticed the requirement of a Lecturer (Political Science) in the college concerned had recommended for sanctioning of the post, he ought to have made recommendation on prescribed format to the authority concerned for release of Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner. Recommendation for grant-in-aid is /was definitely to be made by the Principal and sanctioned by the Director, over whom, the petitioner cannot be said to have any kind of control and as such, he cannot be allowed to suffer for non-action, if any, on the part of both the aforesaid authorities.

11. Another argument raised by the learned Additional Advocate General that to avail the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Rules petitioner/lecturer should have been appointed against the sanctioned post falls to the ground because Section 5 of the Grant-in-Aid Rules nowhere talks about the sanctioned post, rather it clearly provides that in case PTA with prior approval of the Principal makes available teachers for the regular day to day teaching of students in an educational institution, it may submit an application before the competent authority for release of Grant-in-Aid. There is no specific mention, if any, in the Grant-in-Aid Rules with regard to the sanctioned post, rather aforesaid Rules have been promulgated to provide Grant-in-Aid to those teachers, whose services are taken on temporary basis, to meet out the exigency of service.

12. In the case at hand, respondent department has utilized the service of the petitioner for more than 14 years, but till date, he is not being released Grant-in-Aid that too on flimsy grounds. Once it is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed by Parent Teacher Association taking note of the requirement of the Lecturer (Political Science) and such recommendation was not only approved by the Principal of the concerned college, but he further demanded the authorities to sanction the post of Lecturer (Political Science), there appears to be no justification to deny the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Rules to the petitioner.

13. Division Bench of this court vide judgment dated 17.4.2023, passed in CWP No 1621 of 2021, titled as Manoj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, deprecated the aforesaid practice and directed to release grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner in that case without any further delay. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under:

"11. The respondents have utilized the services of petitioner for about nineteen years for their own cause and requirement. It is on record that administrative department has recommended for creation of a post of PET in GSSS Drang. Such fact is clearly evident from the written instructions dated 26.11.2022, placed on record on behalf of respondent No.2. The failure of the Government to create a post of PET in GSSS Drang, despite requirement, cannot be used as a tool to exploit the petitioner. In case there is no requirement of PET in the school, petitioner should not have been allowed to work for such a long period. Once the respondents have utilized the services of the petitioner, they are now stopped from denying him the claims, as have been given to other PTA Teachers under PTA (GIS) Scheme, 2006."

12. In CWP No. 226 of 2010, titled Promila Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 02.04.2015, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in almost identical facts, posed a pertinent question as under:

"6. At this stage, a wider issue arises for consideration as to whether the State as a model employer after having extracted nearly a decade of service from the petitioner can claim that she had not been regularly appointed. Further, can the State be permitted to argue that petitioner even in these days of high cost of living should remain content with the remuneration of Rs.1000/- more particularly when admittedly the petitioner has already been paid the salary out of PTA fund with effect from April 2010 to March 2013."

13. While answering the above noted question, it was observed as under:

"9. The matter can be looked from a different angle. Indisputably the petitioner had been appointed and assigned the duties to teach the students and such duties have been continuously performed by her. Then can the respondents, who are model employers, be permitted to act with total lack of sensitivity and indulge in "Begar", which is specifically prohibited under Article 23 of the High Court of H.P. Constitution of India.

10. The State government is expected to function like a model employer, who is under an obligation to conduct itself with high probity and expected candour and the employer, who is duty bound to act as a model employer has social obligation to treat an employee in an appropriate manner so that an employee is not condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model employer should not exploit its employee and take advantage of their helplessness and misery. In the present case the conduct of the respondents falls short of expectation of a model employer."

14. In a Review Petition No. 20 of 2020, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Sangeeta Devi and Ors, decided on 27.9.2023, Division Bench of this Court clarified that PTA Rules/Policy, 2006, alleged to have been withdrawn w.e.f. 3.1.2008, was actually not discontinued, rather was made applicable to other 14 colleges. Para 6 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:

"6. In the impugned judgment, it has been recorded that Scheme has again been made applicable in the Government Colleges vide Notification dated 08.09.2014. It has not been stated in the impugned judgment that Scheme has been made applicable to all Colleges of the State. On the basis of Notification dated 08.09.2014, it has been observed that Scheme was made applicable to the Government Colleges, and this fact is not incorrect because in the year 2014 Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules/Policy was extended to 14 newly opened Government Colleges. In reply to the writ petition, it was stand of the respondents that Scheme, at relevant point of time, was not applicable to the Colleges, as it was discontinued on 03.01.2008. In this context, it has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that Scheme was made applicable in Government Colleges, which is a correct fact recorded in the judgment, because admittedly, vide Notification dated 08.09.2014, Scheme was extended to newly opened 14 Degree Colleges. It is also noticeable that extension of Scheme is only possible, if the same is in existence. With respect to discontinuation of the Scheme on 03.01.2008, no Notification has been placed on record either during pendency of the Writ Petition or alongwith Review Petition. It is also noticeable as evident from Annexure 'C' placed on record by the State during hearing of writ petition that there were large number of other Teachers working in various Colleges on PTA basis under the PTA Policy/Scheme, who were continued as such till 2015 when their services were taken over by the State, on contract basis vide Notification Dated 17.01.2015 and this fact also indicates that PTA Scheme was in existence and in force in Government Collages and Teachers/Lecturers were being continued on PTA basis. There is material on record to establish that PTA Lecturers engaged in Government Colleges were being granted Grant-in-Aid under Rules whereas petitioners, doing the identical work as PTA Lecturers were being deprived from the same."

15. Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11.10.2022 in CWP No. 1901 of 2015 titled as Sh. Kishore Kamta v. State of Himachal Pradesh, rejected the plea raised by State Government that there was no vacancy, against which petitioner in that case was appointed on PTA basis. Since in that case, services of the petitioners were utilized for 17 years, court held that respondent State cannot be permitted at this stage to rake up the issue of vacancy of sanctioned strength. Paras 6 to 9 of the afore judgment read as under:

"6. It is evidently clear from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner has been working as DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla since October, 2005. Almost 17 years have elapsed since the appointment of petitioner. Petitioner is being paid meager emoluments out of the PTA funds. Petitioner has been denied the benefit of PTA-GIA Policy-2006 only on the ground that he was not appointed against the sanctioned post. It is also not denied that respondent No.2 had allowed the Principal, GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla vide communication dated 13.07.2005 to appoint a DPE in the school out of the PTA funds keeping in view the strength of the students in the school. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of such sanction accorded by respondent No.2, a selection process was initiated and petitioner was appointed as DPE in the school in pursuance thereto. The qualification of petitioner for the post of DPE is also not in question.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the question arises whether the petitioner can be denied the benefit of PTA-GIA-2006 policy and further benefits of contract employment and regularization, merely on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post

8. The State Government has been justifying the appointment of teachers by PTA on the grounds of its financial constraints. The temporary employment to teachers by PTA has continued for many years. The continuance of the employment in aforesaid form crystallized certain rights in favour of the incumbents so employed. The State Government formulated the PTA-GIA Policy in 2006. Subsequently, after requisite number of years, the incumbents appointed by the PTAs were given contract employment followed by regularization.

9. Petitioner was appointed by the PTA of the school before formulation of PTA-GIA-2006 Policy. The mere fact that petitioner has been allowed to work as DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla for such a long spell proves that the requirement of deployment of second DPE to cope with the pressure of work continued throughout. That being so, the stand of the respondents to deny petitioner the grant-in-aid and all consequential benefits is clearly unjustified."

16. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General specifically invited attention of this court to the communication dated 19.8.2006, wherein certain clarifications/administrative instructions for Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules 2006, came to be circulated. He specifically invited attention of this Court to clause-4 of the instructions to state that selection committee for selection of teacher PTA should be comprised of President PTA, Secretary PTA and Subject Specialist/expert. He submitted that since in the case at hand, Secretary PTA was not member of the selection committee and selection committee was of more than three persons, initial selection of the petitioner made in the year 2009 cannot be said to be valid on record and as such, petitioner is stopped from claiming the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Rules. Before ascertaining the correctness of the afore submissions of learned Additional Advocate General, it is apt to take note of clause 4 of the aforesaid instructions.

"4.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 neighboring institution on the request of PTA."

17. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid provision that Principal shall not be a part of the selection committee, rather same shall be headed by the President PTA and other members would be Secretary PTA and subject specialist/expert. Though it has been provided in the aforesaid clause that selection committee should preferably not have more than three members, but that does not mean that selection committee is estopped from associating other persons. In the case at hand, apart from President, Secretary and Expert, two members have been associated, but that would not make selection process bad. Had department not associated the President, Secretary and the subject specialist, it would have been right in contending that selection is bad.

18. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner has been working as Lecturer (Political Science), which subject has been otherwise provided in the curriculum, claim of the petitioner otherwise cannot be denied on the ground of non-availability of vacancy/posts. Post/vacancy is to be created by the department, not by an individual but definitely after extracting work of more than 14 years, department cannot turn around and state that petitioner was not appointed on the against the sanctioned post. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nihal Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and Ors. with connected matters, (2013) 14 SCC 65, [LQ/SC/2013/864] wherein it has been held that vacancies are not to fall from the heaven, rather same are to be created by the State. Relevant paras No. 21 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:

"21. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need.

35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State."

19. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed and impugned rejection order dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure P-14) is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to extend the benefits of PTA Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. Needless to say, break in service w.e.f. 31.3.2014 to 10.9.2014 shall also be counted for all intents and purposes. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.