Manju Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner, who is a P.T.A. teacher, is aggrieved since she has been replaced by a regular teacher, the 5th Respondent. There is no dispute that P.T.A. is only an adhoc arrangement and when the regular teacher is appointed, the P.T.A. teacher has to give way to the regular teacher. However, the contention of the Petitioner is that the P.T.A. teacher cannot be accommodated in any other school since the P.T.A teacher is for the particular school, whereas the regular teacher can be accommodated in any of the available vacancies.

The Petitioner may point out any available vacancy for the regular teacher to be accommodated at Hamirpur before the 2nd Respondent, in which case the 2nd Respondent will take appropriate action and accommodate the 5th Respondent in the said vacancy, so that the Petitioner will be in a position to continue as P.T.A. teacher until that vacancy is also regularly filled up. Needless also to say that by such adhoc appointment, there is no lien for such appointee in the post. The needful, as above, shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of the judgment alongwith the copy of the appropriate representation before the 2nd Respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications.