IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 2875 of 2010. Decided on: 02.06.2010. Yashma Kumari. ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner. : Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate. For the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): C.M.P. No. 4194 of 2010. Allowed. The application is disposed of. C.W.P. No. 2875 of 2010. The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:- “(a) That the action whereby the petitioner was relieved may kindly be declared as null and void, thereby a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to take back the service of the petitioner in service on P.T.A. basis in the same place and same school, i.e., Government Senior Secondary School, Sadar, District Mandi as Lecturer Hindi with all consequential benefits of salary and seniority alongwith pay for the period of absence and arrears etc.” 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 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 fifth respondent need not be appointed in place of the petitioner and in case the fifth respondent is accommodated, the petitioner will have to go out and there is no other place where she can be accommodated since she 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 is disposed of, so also the pending application. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. June 02, 2010. (Justice Rajiv Sharma ), (bhupender)