IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1746 of 2007 a/w CWPs No._757 of 2008, 1, 970, 4139, 4607_of 2009, 5504, 5505, 6144, 6186, 6187, 6188, 6200, 6203, 6204, 6205, 6206, 6207, 6209, 6210, 6211, 6238, 6269, 6321, 6322, 6329, 6419, 6576 and 6582 of 2010. Decided on: 11.11.2010. __________________________________________________ 1. Daya Ram vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. Poonam Kumari vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. Rita Verma vs. State of H.P. & others. 4. Monika Rana vs. State of H.P. & others. 5. Pankaj Patial vs. State of H.P. & others. 6. Pratibha Bhaluni vs. State of H.P. & others. 7. Suresh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 8. Sunita Devi vs. State of H.P. & others. 9. Umika Kumari vs. State of H.P. & others. 10. Bam Dev Kaushal vs. State of H.P. & others. 11. Rajiv Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 12. Pankaj Sethi vs. State of H.P. & others. 13. Ami Chand vs. State of H.P. & others. 14. Ajit Kumar Sharma vs. State of H.P. & others. 15. Prem Singh vs. State of H.P. & others. 16. Pooja Kapoor vs. State of H.P. & others. 17. Sandeep Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 18. Leela Dhar vs. State of H.P. & others. 19. Om Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 20. Sonika Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. & others. 21. Alka Sen vs. State of H.P. & others. 22. Meena Kumari vs. State of H.P. & others. 23. Amit Sharma vs. State of H.P. & others. 24. Subh Kamna vs. State of H.P. & others. 25. Anju Sharma vs. State of H.P. & others. 26. Kamaljit Kaur vs. State of H.P. & others. 27. Vishal Chauhan vs. State of H.P. & others. 28. Rahul Singh Rana vs. State of H.P. & others. 29. Kumat Ram vs. State of H.P. & others. ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : M/s Neeraj K. Sharma, Lalit K. Sharma, Jyotsana Rewal Dua, K.B. Khajuria, Amit Singh Chandel, Shrawan Dogra, Vinod Thakur, Onkar Jairath, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G.for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________ 2 Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petitioners are working as teachers on PTA basis. They are aggrieved and have approached this court, when they have been sought to be replaced by the regular/contract teachers. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, PTA teachers do not have lien on the posts. It has been stated clearly in the Grant-in-aid Rules and also in the orders of their appointments that they will have to give room for the teachers appointed on regular/contract basis. But, a factual situation remains to be addressed by the State/Directorate. As far as regularly appointed teachers are concerned, be it on contract basis or otherwise, they can be appointed/accommodated in any of the schools, where there are open vacancies and where service of a PTA teacher is also not available. The PTA arrangement has been made only to meet the exigency in the absence of regular teachers. But, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there are several schools in and around, where the regularly appointed teachers can be accommodated. There is no case that services of teachers are not required in those places, where there are open vacancies. 2. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of as under:- An attempt shall be made by the Directorate to see as to whether the regularly appointed teachers, be it on contract basis or otherwise selected by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board, can be accommodated in any of the posts, which are lying vacant even without PTA teachers. After making such an attempt only the replacement of PTA teachers need to be made. It will be open to the petitioners also to point out such vacant posts, where services of the teachers are required, so as to enable the Directorate to pass appropriate orders, as above. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of 3 this judgment by the petitioners. The interim orders passed by this court will continue till such time. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the PTA teachers may claim permanent status. We do not find any basis for such apprehension. They are appointed under a particular Government policy. So long as the policy is kept in tact, they are bound by the orders of appointment/agreements executed in terms of the policy. Therefore, in tune with the progress in regular appointment, PTA appointees will have to be replaced in a phased manner, unless the policy is changed. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) November 11, 2010 Judge. (cr/pankaj)