IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 4975 of 2010 Decided on: 1st September, 2010 Shanta Kumari Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Petitioner: Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr.Additional Advocate General __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) On 8th July, 2010, this court passed an order, which reads as follows: “Notice dasti to the 3rd respondent. There will be a direction to the second respondent to file an affidavit as to whether the 3rd respondent can be accommodated in one of the schools where there are posts lying vacant and as referred to in para 9 of the writ petition. The affidavit, as above, shall be filed within two weeks.” 2. There is no affidavit despite granting two chances and making it clear in our order dated 11th August, 2010 that matter is posted today and time is given as last chance for reply. The Director has now furnished instruction, dated 31st August, 2010 and the instruction reads as follows:- “I have the honour to refer the above mentioned CWP which is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. and the same was fixed for hearing on 11.08.2010 when Hon’ble Court has directed the respondent State to file reply to the CWP before said date. Now the case will be listed on 01.09.2010. In this regard, it is submitted that in compliance to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2775/2010 the representation of the petitioner has been decided on the ground that since the services of the petitioner were terminated on the joining of regular lecturer appointed by the department in accordance with the provision of Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Once the services of the PTA provided teacher has been terminated on the joining of regular teacher in that event the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue as there is no vacancy.” 3. We are afraid, the Director has not applied his mind as to availability of vacancies in the places indicated by the writ petitioner. Those places also require teachers. If regularly appointed teachers are accommodated in those schools, where there is also need for teachers, the petitioner who was appointed under the grant-in-aid scheme of PTA can continue and the State will only benefit since the salary against the petitioner is comparatively less. 4. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to accommodate the 3rd respondent in any of the vacancies pointed out at prayer clause (b) of the writ petition The needful order, as above, shall be passed within a period of two weeks and the writ petitioner shall be permitted to continue to work as PTA in the school concerned. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), September 1, 2010(K) Judge