IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2315 of 2010 Decided on : May 19, 2010 Neelam Churia …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Justice Kurian Juseph, C.J.(Oral) CMP No.3527/2010 Allowed. CWP No.2315/2010 The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:- “1. That the order of posting of private respondent against the petitioner and the termination of the petitioner may kindly be quashed with all consequential benefits while issuing the writ of certiorari. 2. That the petitioner may kindly be allowed to work as PTA teacher with all consequential benefits from the date of illegal termination as per grant in aid rules while issuing the writ in the nature of mandamus and further the respondents may kindly be directed to make the seniority list of PTA teachers as per the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court or any other order which may deem fit be passed in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that only a regular teacher has been appointed in the post occupied by the petitioner and by the very fact that the petitioner is a PTA teacher, the petitioner has to give room for a …2… regular teacher since the PTA is only an adhoc arrangement made by the Parent Teacher Association. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that there are several vacancies available to accommodate the regular teacher and the fourth respondent need not be appointed in place of the petitioner and in case the fourth respondent is accommodated, the petitioner will have to go out and there is no other place where he can be accommodated since he is only PTA teacher. 4. It is certainly open to the petitioner to point out this aspect before the second respondent, in which case the second respondent will consider whether the fourth respondent can be accommodated at any other suitable place so that the petitioner can continue. Necessary orders in that regard shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation alongwith a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that such continuance of the petitioner, if required and in the event of any vacancy available, shall be permitted only in case the petitioner fulfills the required qualification. 5. The Writ Petition as also the pending applications stand disposed of Copy dasti. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ) Chief Justice. ( Justice Surjit Singh ) May 19, 2010(sd) Judge.