CWP (T) No. 2098 of 2008 26.2.2009 Present: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed in a private school as T.G.T. (Arts). The case of the petitioner was sent to the District Education Officer by the Manager of the private school. The private school was taken over by the Government and the services of the petitioner were also taken over in the year 1992 as T.G.T. (Arts). However, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice. It was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the appointment/absorption of the petitioner in Government service was in violation of the policy/instructions issued by the Government in the years 1979 and 1985. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner approached the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1563 of 1992. The notice issued to the petitioner was stayed by the learned Tribunal. In other words, the petitioner is continuing in service since 1992 till date. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 12 of the 1985 scheme. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General during the course of hearing sought time to seek instructions from the Education Department to ascertain whether the petitioner could be appointed batch-wise in the State Government since he had qualified the B.Ed. examination in the year 1984. He after obtaining the instructions apprised the Court that the State Government has made recruitment batch-wise upto 1987. In other words, the petitioner could also get Government job since he belongs to 1984 batch. It is not disputed by the State that the petitioner was qualified as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed by the State Government for filling up the posts of T.G.T. (Arts). The petitioner’s services were taken over in the year 1992. He has neither misled nor misrepresented the authorities at the time of absorption in the State Government. The instructions issued by the State Government in the years 1979 and 1985 were within the knowledge of the State Government at the time of taking over the services of the petitioner as T.G.T. (Arts). It would be harsh and inequitable to disturb the appointment of the petitioner after more than 16 years. He is also eligible and qualified to be considered batch-wise in the Government service. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 29.9.1992 is quashed and set aside. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. February 26, 2009. (cr)