JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to appoint him as D.P.E. in Government Senior Secondary School, Narkanda on PTA basis by transferring the regular incumbent to some other school. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in the month of June 2006, he alongwith others had appeared in the interview conducted for appointment on PTA basis to the post of D.P.E. in the Government Senior Secondary School, Narkanda, District Shimla, wherein one Jagdish Chand Rajta was appointed. However, petitioner had lodged a complaint against his appointment. 3. In the proceedings, initiated on the basis of complaint, filed by the petitioner, in furtherance to the direction passed by this Court in CWP No. 3616 of 2009 to conduct an inquiry, appointment of Jagdish Chand Rajta was terminated by the SDM, Rampur. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that aforesaid inquiry was conducted by the SDM only on filing of Writ Petition No. 5067 of 2014 by the petitioner, that too, when attempt of the petitioner to execute the order passed in CWP No. 3616 of 2009 did not yield anything even on filing of Execution Petition No. 473 of 2015. 5. It is case of the petitioner that as on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, appointment of Jagdish Chand Rajta was terminated, the petitioner has a right to be appointed against the same post as he had also appeared in the interview and was fully eligible for such appointment. 6. It is stand of the respondents that though services of Jagdish Chand Rajta were terminated on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, however, petitioner was not next in the merit in the select list. He was at serial No. 4 of the select list, and further during pendency of litigation between the petitioner and Jagdish Chand Rajta, regular hand was appointed against the post of D.P.E. in Government Senior Secondary School, Narkanda and, therefore, there was no post available for appointment of the petitioner or anybody else on PTA basis. 7. Though services of Jagdish Chand Rajta were terminated on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, however, it does not create right in his favour for his appointment against the same post because he is not next in merit. 7. Though services of Jagdish Chand Rajta were terminated on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, however, it does not create right in his favour for his appointment against the same post because he is not next in merit. No doubt, option was also available with the respondents to appoint the person, next in merit, against post, but as by passage of time, there was no post available for such appointment, that course was also not available with the respondents. 8. With the aforesaid observations, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner has no merit in his case. Accordingly, petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.