( 1. ) THIS order shall govern disposal of the present petition as well as other connection writ petitions, i. e. , W. P. No. 7760/2003, Brij Raj Singh Chouhan v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 1803/2000, Smt. Nirupama Jain v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 86/2003, Narendra Singh Chouhan v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 155/2003, Pradeep Kumar Mudgal v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 266 of 2003, Ramraj Singh Tomar v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 903/2003, Ramkumar Gaud v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No.

819/2003 Mahesh Singh Kushwaha v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 912/2003, Vikram Singh Tomar v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 4534/2003, Suresh Chandra Mishra v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 4727/2003, Kuldeep Kumar and Anr. v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 7106/2003, Uday Vir Singh v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 7115/2003, Shiv Nath Singh Sikarwar v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 7304/2003, Manmohan Singh v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 7310/2003, Yadvendra Singh Choudhary v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 7342/2003, Arvind Singh v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 7548/2003, Archana Tiwari v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 8095/2003 Smt. Sarita Jadon v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 8096/2003, Udai Bhan Singh v. State of M. P. and Ors. and W. P. No. 8100/2003, Virendra Singh v. State of M. P. and Ors. . .

( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners in all these twenty writ petitions were employees of a school namely Shri Hazareshwar Higher Secondary School, Sheopur, which is a private school. This school is being run by a society namely Shri Hazareshwar Zila Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Sheopur. The school was recognised by the State Government for imparting education from Classes I to XII.

( 3. ) ACCORDING to the petitioners in the year 1995 there were 7248 students studying in the school in various classes. Annexure P-5 is the report of the Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Jagga Ka Pura, Sheopur in that regard. A proposal was sent for taking over of the said school by the Government. In that regard correspondence went on for a number of years and ultimately the school was taken over by the State Government on 29-6-1995 by order Annexure P-6. At the time of taking over of the school there were as many as 191 teachers in the school. Initially the Government created 131 posts of teachers vide Annexure P-7 and absorbed those 131 teachers in the Government service. However, remaining 60 employees were not absorbed in the Government service, hence present petitions have been filed.

( 4. ) THE contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioners is that as per the agreement and the policy, Annexure P-5, it was agreed that a Screening Committee will be constituted for absorbing the staff of the said school but in spite of the said decision the employees were arbitrarily absorbed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to Annexure P-11 which is an agreement entered into at the time of taking over of the school by the State Government. Copy of the policy for taking over the management is filed as Annexure R-5.

( 5. ) THE first contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioners is that the employees were absorbed without considering their seniority, merits and length of service. Counsel for the petitioners urged that in Annexure P-5 it was decided to constitute a committee consisting of Joint Director of the Division ; Principal of a Government School situated at the head quarter of the Education Division and Headmaster/principal of the school to be taken over. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is that the Screening Committee submitted its report after screening which is on record as Annexure R-2. Learned Counsel submits that though as per the policy a three members committee was to be constituted. The proceedings of the Screening Committee shows that as many as