ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: - (i) That memorandum dated 31.08.2206 (Annexure P-3) and 12.10.2006 (Annexure P-7) may kindly be quashed and set side and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to work as PET on PTA basis in Government Middle School, Manal Douchi. (ii) That the appointment of respondent No. 7 dated 09.11.2006 may be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the order dated 02.06.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by Deputy Commissioner Sirmour may be quashed and set aside. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that on 02.08.2006, petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) by Parents Teacher Association (PTA) in Government Middle School, Manal Douchi, on temporary basis, for the academic session 2006-07. On 31.03.2006, PTA passed the resolution and terminated the services of the petitioner, on the ground that petitioner belonged to another Panchayat and as per resolution of the PTA, the appointment was to be made of teacher from the local Panchayat. Subsequently respondent No.7 was appointed as PET by PTA in Government Middle School, Manal Douchi. 3. Petitioner assailed his termination before erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A No. 3149 of 2006. The original application of the petitioner was dismissed on 06.08.2007 with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum. Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No. 1502 of 2007 before this Court. On 21.04.2008, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order and disposed of the CWP No. 1502 of 2007:- “In light of the notification dated 19th April, 2008, whereby certain committees have been constituted, all the writ petitions having become infructuous are dismissed accordingly, so also all other pending applications. All the petitioners or any other aggrieved teacher who have not ever approached the court would be at liberty to make representation before the authority concerned who will consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law by a speaking order respectively. The representations shall be filed within one month from today and the same shall be decided by the authority concerned within three months thereafter.” 4. In pursuance to order dated 21.04.2008 passed by this Court, petitioner approached the Committee constituted by Government of H.P., vide notification dated 19.04.2008. Petitioner also assailed before the Committee the appointment of respondent No.7. The representations shall be filed within one month from today and the same shall be decided by the authority concerned within three months thereafter.” 4. In pursuance to order dated 21.04.2008 passed by this Court, petitioner approached the Committee constituted by Government of H.P., vide notification dated 19.04.2008. Petitioner also assailed before the Committee the appointment of respondent No.7. The Committee headed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nahan, vide order dated 13.10.2008, set aside the appointment of respondent No. 7. However, nothing was held in respect of termination of the petitioner. Respondent No.7 filed an appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, H.P. which was decided on 02.06.2010. Vide his order dated 02.06.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, while upholding the termination of petitioner, set aside the order passed by the Committee and the appointment of respondent No. 7 was upheld. 5. Aggrieved against his termination dated 31.10.2006 and order dated 02.06.2010, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, petitioner has filed instant petition for the reliefs, as noted above. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no provision in PTA scheme prescribing the selection of teachers only from the local Panchayat in which the School concerned, was situate. 7. In reply, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, though, the factual position has not been denied, it has been submitted that appointment of the petitioner as PET was purely on temporary basis through PTA for session 2006-07 only. Petitioner was to be paid honorarium by PTA at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month and not under grant-in-aid Rules, 2006. Respondent No. 7 also filed separate reply. Besides adopting the averments made in reply of respondents No. 1 to 4, it has been additionally submitted that respondent No. 7 was appointed as PET on 04.11.2006. The order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour was perfectly lawful. It was further submitted that there was no relation between the termination of petitioner and appointment of respondent No. 7 as both were independent of each other. Petitioner was not entitled to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 7 as he had not participated in the selection process. Since, respondent No. 7 was working w.e.f. 04.11.2006, it was submitted that she had acquired legal vested rights. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. Petitioner was not entitled to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 7 as he had not participated in the selection process. Since, respondent No. 7 was working w.e.f. 04.11.2006, it was submitted that she had acquired legal vested rights. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. The appointment letter dated 02.08.2006 of the petitioner is Annexure P-2. Its perusal reveal that PTA had appointed petitioner as PET purely on temporary basis with the condition that he would not claim any sort of regular job, on the basis of his appointment by PTA. The PTA was to pay monthly honorarium of Rs. 800/-. The appointment of petitioner was for academic session 2006-07. Petitioner remained as PET in Government Middle School, Manal Douchi for less than one month. His services were terminated on 31.08.2006. 10. Petitioner has challenged his termination on the ground that he had acquired a right by such appointment and his termination without any inquiry and especially on such nonexistent ground was bad in law. Petitioner, however, cannot be held to be justified in his claim. Nothing has been placed on record in respect of the mode of appointment of the petitioner. There is no whisper that petitioner was appointed after adoption of any selection process. It has also not been brought on record as to under which rules, the petitioner was appointed. In view of the contents of appointment letter of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner had acquired any right of permanence on the post of PET in Government Middle School, Manal Douchi. In absence of establishment of any right in favour of the petitioner, his claim has no basis. 11. Petitioner otherwise also cannot be held entitled for relief, as prayed in the instant petition, for the reason that he had not laid any challenge to the order dated 13.10.2008, passed by Committee headed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nahan. There was no adjudication in the said order in respect of legality or otherwise of the termination of the petitioner. However, impliedly the same was rejected and petitioner did not assail said order. The appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour was filed by respondent No. 7. The observations made in the said appeal cannot afford the cause of action to the petitioner to file instant petition challenging his termination. 12. However, impliedly the same was rejected and petitioner did not assail said order. The appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour was filed by respondent No. 7. The observations made in the said appeal cannot afford the cause of action to the petitioner to file instant petition challenging his termination. 12. Viewed from another angle, CWP No. 1502 of 2007 of the petitioner was decided on 21.04.2008 in light of notification dated 19.04.2008. The said notification reads as under:- “Government of Himachal Pradesh” "Department of Education" EDN-A (Kha) 7-3/2206 Dated Shimla-02, the 19.04.2008 NOTIFICATION In view of a large number of complaints regarding irregularities in the appointment of teachers by Parents Teacher Associations in schools/collages, the Government had asked Shri Deepak Sanan, Pr. Secretary (Health & Family Welfare) to the Govt of Himachal Pradesh to enquire into PTA recruitments since the notification of Grant-in-Aid to PTAs Rules, 2006 on 29.6.2006 The Government has carefully considered the Report of Inquiry into appointment by PTAs submitted by Shri. Deepak Sanan, the Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules-2006 including its amendment, Instructions issued by the Government, Directorate of Higher Education & Directorate of Elementary Education, complaints received by the Government, decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of HP. In CWP No.1341 of 2007 titled Shallja Sood Vs. State of HP & Ors. 2. Now, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to constitute the following Committees to enquire into the cases of irregularly appointed teachers by the Parents Teachers Associations in the Pradesh: 1. College level: (i) DC/ADC/ADM Chairman (ii) Principal (iii) Subject Specialist 2. Sr. Secondary School/High School (i) ADC/ADM/SDM Chairman (ii) Principal (iii) Subject Specialist 3. Middle School Chairman (i) SDM (ii) Headmaster/Senior teacher of the school (iii) Subject Specialist 3. The affected parties/complainants will be heard by the aforesaid committees which after going through the records and guidelines to be framed by the Department will make suitable recommendations to the PTA. 4. The Grant-in-aid-system for the existing posts of PTA teachers will continue. By Order P.C.Dhiman Secretary (Higher Education) 'to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Endst No: As above Dated Shimla-2, the 19.04.2008 Copy for information and necessary action to: 1. All Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to the Govt of Himachal Pradesh. 2. All the Divisional Commissioners in Himachal Pradesh. 3. The Director of Higher Education, H.P. Shimla-1. 4. The Director of Elementary Education, H.P. Shimla-1 5. All the Deputy Commissioners in Himachal Pradesh. 6. Endst No: As above Dated Shimla-2, the 19.04.2008 Copy for information and necessary action to: 1. All Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to the Govt of Himachal Pradesh. 2. All the Divisional Commissioners in Himachal Pradesh. 3. The Director of Higher Education, H.P. Shimla-1. 4. The Director of Elementary Education, H.P. Shimla-1 5. All the Deputy Commissioners in Himachal Pradesh. 6. All the ADCS/ADMs in Himachal Pradesh 7. All the SDOs(Civil) In Himachal Pradesh. Addl. Secretary (HE) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh” 13. The contents of the aforesaid notification clearly reveal that Committees were constituted to inquire into the cases of irregularly appointed teachers by PTAs in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The grievance of the petitioner was against his termination, whereas the Committees were to inquire into the cases of irregularly appointed teachers. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner would not have been covered by notification dated 19.04.2008. The acceptance of order dated 21.04.2008 passed by Division Bench of this Court was at his own peril. The said order dated 21.04.2008 otherwise, reveals that by such order more than one petitions were disposed of having become infructuous. It was for the petitioner to have assessed the merits of his petition at that stage viz-a-viz the contents of notification dated 19.04.2008. In view of this matter also the petitioner is now estopped from challenging his termination by way of instant petition. 14. There is another angle which disentitled petitioner from grant of relief. Sixteen years have elapsed since termination of the petitioner. Petitioner had worked only for 28 days. On equity also, petitioner cannot be held entitled to the relief claimed vis a vis respondent No.7, who is stated to be working on the post since 4.11.2006. He cannot also get the monetary relief as he has not worked since 01.09.2006. 15. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.