IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5959 of 2008. Judgment reserved on:11.8.2010. Date of Decision: 23.8.2010. Anand Kumar and others …Petitioners. Versus. State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Ms.Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The petitioners, by means of this petition, have prayed for the grant of following amongst other reliefs: “a).That in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that the respondent Department may be directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for date of appointment in government service as 31.3.1995 with all consequential benefits. b)That the impugned order Annexure A-6 and A-7 may be quashed and set-aside and respondents may be directed to fix seniority of the applicants in their respective cadre with effect from 31.3.1995 with all consequential benefits.” All the petitioners were employed in different capacities in a privately managed High School at Mahunag, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner No.1 joined the said school in the year 2 1983-84, petitioner No.2 in the year 1989 and petitioners No.3&4 in the year 1993. The State of Himachal Pradesh took a policy decision to take-over the Mahunag School. Thereafter, on 2nd May, 1996 the District Education Officer passed an order taking over the school and the services of petitioner No.1. Similar orders were passed in favour of other petitioners also. The grievance of the petitioners is that whereas their school was taken over on 31.3.1995 they have been granted appointment only in the year 1996. The petitioner No.3 made a representation in this behalf and claimed that he be deemed to be appointed in Government School on 31.3.1995 which representation was rejected on 22.1.1998. Consequently, the appointment of petitioner No.3 has been shown from 22.6.1996 and seniority has been given to him from the said date. I have heard Ms.Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. The only ground raised by the petitioners is that since the school was taken over on 31.3.1995 and they were working in the school as such they should have been treated to be in Government service from the said date. The matter is not so simple. On 31.3.1995, the Government issued a notification that it had taken a decision to take 3 over the school in question. It was also decided that the staff should also be taken over after completion of all codal formalities. Services of private employees working in private schools which are taken over have to be taken over only after verification of various facts. After verifying all these facts the appointment orders of the petitioners were issued in the year 1996. It would be pertinent to mention that the petitioners have been taken into Government service even without appearing in any interview etc. but only because they were appointed by a Committee managing the private school. They have never faced the competition they would have faced in the open market. The Government has issued them the appointment orders in the year 1996 after completing all codal formalities. These orders cannot relate back to the year 1995. The claim of seniority of the petitioners also cannot be given to them behind the back of those persons who now rank senior to the petitioners and are not parties to this petition and would be adversely affected by any order which may be passed granting retrospective seniority to the petitioners from 31.3.1995. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. August 23, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.