IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 569 of 2011. Decided on: 10th March, 2011. Kapil Mohan. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. … . Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved since he is not accommodated as a PTA teacher in place of the 3rd respondent. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner cannot be engaged as a PTA since he had already been removed by the competent forum. This is strongly refuted by the petitioner. In any event, the PTA cannot claim the appointment in place of regular appointee. However, in case the petitioner is in a position to point out any vacancy where the 3rd respondent is willing to work, the second respondent will take appropriate action and in case the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be engaged, he shall be reengaged in that vacancy as PTA teacher. 2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 10th March, 2011. (Justice Surinder Singh), (tr/vt) Judge.