IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.8689 of 2008. Decided on: 13.12.2010. Mr. Narveen Kumar Sharma. ……….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner. : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though the private school i.e. G.A.V., Saliana was taken over by the respondent-State, however, the services of the petitioner have not been taken over. 2. Case of the respondent/State, precisely, is that the petitioner’s case is not covered under 95% Grant-in-aid. In view of this, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his grievance, within a period of three weeks from today. Thereafter, the competent authority shall consider the same within a further period of six weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if the services of the similar situate 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. persons have been taken over, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered in accordance with law. 3. With these observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 13, 2010. (krt)