IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.8453 of 2008 Date of decision : May 5, 2011 Hem Raj …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitender Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner was appointed as TGT (Arts), in a private School, known as Rani Ratna Memorial High School, Gharwasra, in the year 1987. School was taken over by the Government, in the year 1989, vide Order Annexure P-8. Services of the petitioner were not taken over, as the Government found him ineligible for the post of TGT(Arts). Petitioner approached the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application, being OA No.1111 of 1992. That Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 17th September, 1992, with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as TGT (Arts), if he was found eligible for such appointment, within a period of two months. Petitioner was appointed vide order dated 28th October, 1994. Ever since he has been serving. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. In 2002, petitioner filed another Original Application, seeking a direction to the respondents that he be treated as continuing in service as TGT (Arts) since the date of the taking over of the School by the Government, in the year 1989. On the abolition of the Tribunal that Original Application has come to this Court. It is that Original Application, which has now been re-registered as the present writ petition, in this Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General. 4. Petitioner’s services were not taken over by the respondents, when the School was taken over, in the year 1989. Reasons stated by the respondents were that he was not eligible for the post of TGT (Arts). He filed an Original Application in the year 1992. Order was passed in that Original Application that he be appointed as TGT (Arts), if found eligible. The order did not say anything about the taking over of his services alongwith the taking over of the School or that he was to be appointed, in continuation of his appointment in the private school, which had been taken over. That means the direction was for his fresh appointment. Appointment was made, pursuant to that order, which the petitioner accepted and also joined the service. After eight years he filed Original Application, seeking a direction that he be treated as having been appointed from the date of the taking over of the School. This relief having not been granted to him, in the earlier …3… Original Application, and also on account of his having accepted fresh appointment, pursuant to the aforesaid order, passed by the Tribunal, in Original Application No.1111 of 1992, he cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter again to seek a direction to the respondents that he be treated as continuing in service since the taking over of the School, in the year 1989 For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. May 5, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J