IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 138 of 2009. Decided on: 16th August, 2011. Sanjay Singh Pathania. … Petitioner. Versus Shri Srikant Baldi & others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner complains that the order dated 28.2.2007 has been violated. The order reads as follows: “Heard. Notice returnable within 5 weeks with a direction to file reply. Shri Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Hence notices need not be issued to these respondents. However, reply may be filed by them in the meantime. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in sub para-B of para 10 status quo as of today qua the appointment/engagement of the applicant be maintained.” 2. The petitioner had approached the Erstwhile Tribunal for a direction to the Government to sanction Grant-in-aid so that the petitioner can be appointed and continued as PTA teacher. No doubt, there is an order to maintain status quo 2 qua the appointment to the petitioner. That appointment is only by the PTA. There is no dispute that the PTA appointment is only a stop gap arrangement rather an ad hoc arrangement made in the interest of the students till regular appointment is made. It is not in dispute that in this case the regular appointment has been made and only on account of that situation, the petitioner has been dis- engaged. According to the petitioner, in view of the order, as extracted above, the petitioner could not have been replaced by a regular appointee. We find it difficult to appreciate the submission. May be it would have been more appropriate for the respondents to have brought to the notice of this Court that regular appointment was being made. But the fact remains that in any case, there is no claim for the petitioner for continuance as PTA teacher for ever and he has to give way to regular appointee. In that view of the matter, we do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner regarding his claim for Grant-in-Aid etc. is to be worked out in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, without prejudice to such liberty, the COPC is dismissed and the rule is discharged. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 16th August, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (tr) Judge. 3