IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6940 of 2010 Decided on 15.12.2010 Pradeep Kumar ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petitioner is working as Lecturer (Public Administration) in school cadre. He was lastly posted at Govt. Senior Secondary School, Nagrota Surian, Distt. Kangra, from where he was transferred to Govt. Senior Secondary School, Garli, Distt. Kangra, vice private respondent No.5, who is also a Lecturer in Public Administration appointed by the Parents Teachers Association (PTA). Being aggrieved, private respondent No.5 filed writ petition before this Court being CWP No. 3783 of 2010, titled Anita Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 02.08.2010, operative part whereof reads as under:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 2 “There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to look into the matter in the light of Annexure P-3 and take appropriate action within two weeks from the production of copy of this judgment In case the petitioner has not been paid the salary for the period she had worked, the eligible salary may also be disbursed to her within two months.” 2. Consequently, order dated nil of October, 2010, Annexure P-1, came to be passed by the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby private respondent No.5 was allowed to continue at Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Garli and as a consequence the petitioner was ordered to be transferred back to Govt. Sr. Secondary School Nagrota Surian, but without affording an opportunity of being heard. 3. Against the above backdrop, being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition on the following prayer inter alia amongst others:- “That the impugned order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 is illegal arbitrary and amounts to denial of the law of natural justice to the petitioner. Hence the impugned order dated 26.5.2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 4. The respondents except private respondent No.5 , who has denied that she is guilty of suppression of facts, are yet to file replies. However, in 3 view of agreement between the parties, the case is taken up for final hearing. 5. It is by now settled by a catena of authoritative pronouncements made by this Court that a regular teacher cannot be replaced by a teacher appointed by PTA. Reference may be made to one such judgment dated 6.5.2009, in CWP No. 413 of 2009, titled Hardev Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, text whereof is as under:- ”The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the impugned orders whereby his appointment as PTA teacher in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bajaura, as DPE has been set aside. Mr. Chauhan has urged that no complaint was ever made within a reasonable time against the appointment of the petitioner and that the Committee has applied the criteria laid down in the year 2008 to the appointment of the petitioner, which was made much earlier. He submits that these new conditions could not have been given retrospective effect. We are not going into the merits of this contention because the State in its reply has stated that a regular hand has been appointed as DPE in the Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bajaura. There can be no manner of doubt that the appointment of a PTA is only a temporary arrangement which must give way to a regular hand. It is in the interest of the students that regularly appointed teachers teach them. The PTA teachers are appointed from the vicinity of the school without much publicity. Regular hands are appointed as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules after following a well thought out procedure for selection. Since a regular hand has been appointed, the petitioner can no longer have any claim to the 4 post of DPE. In view of this subsequent development, the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. CMP No. 745 of 2009: In view of the orders passed in the main petition, the stay order dated 18.2.2009 stands vacated and the application also stands disposed of.” 6. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 and 2/competent authority that subject to the petitioner submitting a representation within a week from today the said respondents/competent authority shall finally decide the same within next fortnight in accordance with law and justice, particularly the judgment dated 6.5.2009, in CWP No. 413 of 2009, titled Hardev Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and private respondent No.5. 3. The petition, so also the pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 15th December, 2010. Lsp*