IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7380 of 2010. and CWP No. 7363 of 2010 Decided on: 26.11.2010. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. CWP No. 7380 of 2010. Balvir Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …..Respondents. 2. CWP No. 7363 of 2010 Promil Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, In CWP No. 7380 of 2010 and Mr. Javed Khan in CWP No. 7363 of 2010 For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3 in CWP No. 7380 of 2010 and for respondents No. 1 and 2 in CWP No. 7363 of 2010. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). It is submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 6240 of 2010, titled Nitasha vs. State of H.P. and others. The text of the judgment reads as follows:- The petitioner approached this Court when he was sought to be replaced by a regular/contract teacher. On 4th October, 2010, this Court passed the interim order, which reads as follows: “In case the 5th respondent can be accommodated in any of the schools namely, GSSS, Lanod, Baijnath, GSSS Paragpur, Dehra and GSSS Tambar, Jaisinghpur, where according to the 2 petitioner vacancies still exist, the petitioner shall not be disturbed.” The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order making it clear that in case the petitioner points out any other vacancy also, the second respondent will make an attempt to see whether private respondent can be accommodated in that School so that the petitioner can be continued in the present School. However, we make it clear that this is not to be taken that the petitioner has a lien to continue in the post and PTA appointment is only an ad hoc arrangement and that PTA appointment is not to be for an indefinite period since in any case, when regular hands are to be accommodated, PTA appointed teachers will have to give way. We make it clear that so long as the petitioner is continuing as PTA teacher, the due and admissible salary will be paid. In case the regularly appointed teacher is disturbed in terms of the orders in this writ petition, an opportunity of being heard to that teacher shall also be granted. 2. In case the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioner referred to in the judgment as above, similar treatment shall also be extended to the petitioners as extended to the petitioner in CWP No. 6240 of 2010, titled Nitasha vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma), Judge. November 26, 2010. (cr/virender) 3