2026:HHC:20451 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.505 of 2019 Decided on: 27 th May, 2026 ____________________________________________________________ Hoshiar Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ ______ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive relief:- “(a) Direct the respondent No.1 to consider the case of petitioners for appointment as Lab Attendant, Chowkidar, Peon & PTI on contract/daily wages basis against the vacant post in anywhere in Himachal Pradesh.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that petitioners No.1 to 4 were appointed in respondent No.5-School w.e.f. 16.04.2001 to 24.08.2004 as Lab Attendant, Chowkidar, Peon and PTI, respectively. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:20451 3. The grievance of the petitioners as highlighted in the petition is that respondent No.5 was running the private school parallel to the Government Middle School, Ropri Kaleharu and the State Government had upgraded the Government Middle School to Government High School and for that purpose had taken over three constructed rooms, building, ground and other assets like Laboratory and instruments from respondent No.5. However, their services were not taken over. 4. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioners have no cause of action to file the petition and further the petitioners were engaged by the management of the privately managed institution known as Sh. Aurbindo High School Ropri Kalehru, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, as per the terms and conditions of their appointment orders. The respondents-State have not taken over the privately managed school, but upgraded its own Govt. Middle School to Government High School, Ropari Kalehru, District Mandi. The petitioners cannot claim that their services should be taken over by the Government. 3 2026:HHC:20451 Further, the State Government had upgraded its institution in the year 2007 and the petitioners have approached in the year, 2015 for taking over their services after a lapse of more than 8 years. Therefore, the present petition cannot be entertained by this Court at this belated stage. The plea taken by the petitioners that since three constructed rooms, building, grounds and other assets were taken from respondent No.5 by the State Government is concerned, it has been averred that there was no decision ever taken by the respondents-State to take over the privately managed institution and its staff, because of the fact that the Government had upgraded its own school and posted teachers to be appointed by the Government in accordance with the R & P Rules. 5. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made therein. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 7. The petitioners have not placed on record any document, which can suggests that the school/institution 4 2026:HHC:20451 where they were working was upgraded. Once, the State Government had only upgraded the Government Middle School to Government High School, there was no question of taking over the services of the petitioners, who were not serving in the school, which was upgraded. 8. So far as the contention raised by the petitioners that the rooms were taken over, is concerned, if it was so, the management of respondent No.5 School could have come forward to contend that since it was their property, it could not have been taken over by the State Government while upgrading the Govt. Middle School to Govt. High School. Since the Management has not raked up the issue and further the school was upgraded in the year 2007 and the petition was instituted in the year 2015, the petitioners cannot stake any claim for taking over their services, especially when they were engaged in the school which was not upgraded by the State Government. If such claims are accepted, it will create chaos and every person who is serving in a private school nearby, will claim the taking over of his services whenever any Govt. School is upgraded by the State 5 2026:HHC:20451 Government. 9. Once there was no relationship of the petitioners with the State Government, the relief claimed cannot be granted and the prayer made is rejected. 10. No doubt there is no limitation prescribed to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the same has to be entertained within a reasonable period. In the present case, admittedly, Govt. Middle School was upgraded to the Govt. High School in the year 2007 and the petitioners were aware about this fact, but they have filed the present petition in the year 2015. There is no explanation in the entire petition that why did they not approach the Court earlier, therefore, on this ground also, the petition is dismissed. 11. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27 th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge