IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 733 of 2007 Date of Decision: 15.3.2011. Santosh Kumari …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent No.4.: Mr. R.S.Kanwar, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. This petition has to be rejected on the short ground that no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the Parents Teachers Association. 2. Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed by the Parents Teachers Association (PTA) and her services have also been terminated by the PTA. The petitioner was never in receipt of any salary pursuant to grant-in-aid by the State Government and therefore, she was an employee of the PTA. The PTA is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ would lie 2 against the PTA. Therefore, this petition is rejected on this ground only. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner can avail of any other remedy available to her. No costs. 15th March, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.