IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.4196/2008 Decided on:27.9.2010 _____________________________________________ Mrs. Manjusha. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General for respondent No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3 _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as volunteer Teacher in respondent No.3-School on 12.6.1993. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that respondent-State has taken over Janta Primary School, Bhajolu, Tehsil Arki District Solan. 2. Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva has strenuously argued that since respondent No.3-school has been taken over by the State Government, services of the petitioner also ought to have been taken over by respondent-State. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the State Government has never taken over respondent No.3- school, however, new Government Primary School, Bhajolu, Block Dhundan, District Solan was opened vide notification dated 31.3.1995. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. A bare perusal of Annexure D-1 dated 31.3.1995 makes it abundantly clear that the State Government has opened its own Government Primary School, Bhajolu. Respondent No.3-school was never taken over by the State Government. It was being run by the private Managing Committee, who had appointed the petitioner as volunteer Teacher on 12.6.1993. Since the Government has not taken over respondent No.3-school, services of the petitioner could not be taken over. When a Government school is upgraded or new school is opened, there is no occasion for the State to take over the services of the Teachers working in a private school. 6. Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-8. However, Annexure A-8 cannot be looked into in view of specific notification dated 31.3.1995 (Annexure D-1). 3 7. Accordingly, in view of above observation, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 27.9.2010 *awasthi*