Kusum Lata vs State of H.P.

V.K. Sharma, Judge

Steps for issuance of notice after admission to respondent No. 4 have not been taken by the petitioner. However, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 30.09.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8654 of 2001, Ishwar Dutt Verma Vs. State of H.P., and Ors. and the connected matters, text whereof is as under:- The petitioners in these petitions are aggrieved since they have been replaced by the private respondents. The petitioners are PTA appointees and the private respondents are regular appointees. According to the petitioners, they can work only in the school (s) where they were appointed, whereas the private respondents, being regular appointees, can work in any open vacancies. In case the petitioners can point out any suitable vacancies, where the private respondents are willing to be accommodated, the petitioners may point out the same before the second respondent along with willingness letter(s), in which case, the second respondent will take appropriate action within another one month. In case the petitioners are otherwise eligible, they may be continued in the resultant vacancies till they are otherwise replaced by regular appointees.

In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid judgment dated 30.09.2011 in CWP No. 8654 of 2011 and the connected matters and the petitioner is similarly situate, she shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to her within one month from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioner before the respondents/competent authority after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent No. 4, if so desired. The writ petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.