20.4.2009 Present: Mr. Gulzar Singh Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, for the respondents. CWP(T) No.2970/2008 (OA No.66/96) The petitioners were appointed as T.G.T., Shastri, Clerk, Peon etc. in the privately managed Janta High School, Kuthar, Tehsil Theog, Distt. Shimla, by the Management of the said school. The State of Himachal Pradesh took a policy decision of upgrading certain schools and in terms of Government Notification dated 1.5.1995 Govt. Middle School, Kuthar was upgraded as Govt. High School. The Government Notification categorically stated that the schools would become functional only if suitable accommodation as per norms of the Education Department was handed over to the Government free of cost by local people of the area. Importantly in terms of the Notification the State has neither taken the Management of the school nor its employees. The petitioners in terms of the present petition are seeking a direction that their services be directed to be taken over by the Government and all consequential benefits be paid to them. The Government has filed a reply clarifying that the privately managed Janta High School, Kuthar had not been taken over by the State but, however, the Govt. Middle School had been upgraded from Middle to High School. The services of the employees have not been taken over. Vide Government order dated 5.8.1994 (Annexure A-15/A), it was ordered that the Managing Committee may only appoint such qualified teachers who fall in the Session of Departmental District Education Officer appointed teachers and who are also registered in the employment office. It was clarified that in the event of the same being violated, the services of the teachers of private schools would not be taken over at the time of taking over of the schools of the Government. The petitioners have thus contended that their services ought to have been taken over. I am afraid, the contention needs to be rejected on two counts:- i) in terms of Notification dated 1.5.1995 (Annexure A- 17), the school stands upgraded and not taken over; ii) the petitioners’ appointments are much prior to the aforesaid office order. It is not their case that pursuant to the same, fresh appointment orders were issued to them. Doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in the present case as the petitioners have not acted on the representation made by the respondents and materially altered their position. The aforesaid office order does not confer any legal enforceable rule in favour of the petitioners which can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In similar circumstances the Apex Court in Civil Appeals No. 6211- 12 of 1997, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others versus Harvinder Singh & others, in terms of order dated 10th September, 1997, has rejected the contentions of the petitioners therein and dismissed the claim of the private teachers. I see no reason to interfere in the present Writ Petition as no legally enforceable right of the petitioners is shown to have been violated. The present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 20, 2009 (rana)