IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6679 of 2011. Decided on: 17th August, 2011. Neeru Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Ms. Surender Thakur, vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) That the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ of direction may kindly be issued quashing the Office Order dated 23.11.2010 passed by Respondent No.1 only to the extent whereby the directions have been issued to Respondent No.2 to terminate the services of the PTA Teachers. ii) That the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ of direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue on the post of Language Teacher in their respective schools with further direction the Respondent to continue the Grant-in-Aid.” 2. It is seen that issue concerned has been decided by this Court vide annexure P-9 in CWP No. 8619 of 2010 decided on 31st December, 2010, wherein, it has been held as follows:- i) In the event of the individual petitioner filing a representation before the Government making it clear that they are not claiming regularization as Language Teacher on the basis of the 2 qualification of Diploma in Language Teacher, issued by the Hindi Sahitaya Sammelan, Allahabad based on which they have been appointed under the PTA Policy, unless otherwise offered by the Government and that their present request is only to permit them to continue until they are replaced as per PTA Policy itself by teachers who are recruited under the regular recruitment process. ii) The matter will be considered by the government for continuation till they are replaced otherwise by the teachers who are recruited on the regular recruitment process. The decision as above may be taken before the commencement of the next academic session, and if not, the petitioners will be allowed to continue as per present arrangement of appointment till the decision as above is taken.” 3. The writ petition is hence disposed of in terms of the said judgment making it clear that in case the petitioner is also similarly situated, the similar treatment shall be extended to the petitioner herein also within a period of three weeks from the date of production of copy of this judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition and copy of judgment referred to above before the second respondent/competent authority. 4. The writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 17th August, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (kck) Judge. 3