State cannot deny admissible grant-in-aid to SMC appointees serving against sanctioned posts.

The petitioner was engaged by the School Management Committee (SMC) as a Physical Education Teacher (PET) at Government High School, Kansar, District Sirmaur, with effect from 20 February 2013, against a vacancy

He claimed that he had continued to perform the duties of a PET but had not been paid Grant-in-Aid. He therefore sought Grant-in-Aid from 20 September 2014 and consequential benefits, including seniority and arrears, relying also on the judgment in Villam Singh v. State of H.P., affirmed in appeal and by the Supreme Court

The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had been engaged merely pursuant to an SMC resolution, without advertisement, interview, or a lawful selection process, and that the engagement was not binding on the State

Whether the petitioner could be denied Grant-in-Aid on the ground that his SMC engagement was not preceded by a proper selection process and was allegedly made through the backdoor

Whether an SMC-engaged teacher working against a vacancy/sanctioned post in a Government school is entitled to Grant-in-Aid for the period during which the State accepted and utilised his services

Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of Grant-in-Aid and other consequential benefits, including seniority

The Court applied the principle that the State cannot deny due and admissible Grant-in-Aid to a person whose services it has utilised in a Government school against a sanctioned post, while simultaneously permitting the person to continue performing the duties attached to that post

Any alleged illegality or procedural defect in the SMC appointment does not, by itself, justify withholding payment for work actually extracted by the State; if the engagement is unlawful, the State must take appropriate action to discontinue it rather than deny payment for services rendered

The Court clarified, however, that payment of Grant-in-Aid does not validate or regularise the petitioner’s appointment

Grant-in-Aid was directed to be released as admissible under the applicable rules, with arrears limited to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition

The Court rejected the State’s reliance on the absence of advertisement, interview, or a formal selection process as a ground for withholding Grant-in-Aid. It focused on the undisputed fact that the petitioner had been serving as a PET since 2013 against a vacancy in a Government school

Since the State had allowed him to perform the work of a PET against a sanctioned post, it could not derive the benefit of his services and subsequently invoke alleged defects in his appointment solely to avoid its financial obligation

The Court preserved the State’s authority to remove the petitioner if his appointment was otherwise invalid, but held that such alleged invalidity could not justify non-payment for the period during which his services were utilised

The Court did not, however, treat the Grant-in-Aid direction as conferring regular appointment, seniority, or legal validation upon the petitioner

The respondents were directed to release Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules

The petitioner was held entitled to arrears for three years preceding the filing of the writ petition

The Court did not legitimise or regularise his SMC appointment, and the judgment did not grant the separately claimed benefits of seniority or appointment regularisation