Judgment :- Arij it Pasayat C.J. In this appeal, appellants have assailed correctness of judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 3224 of 1988 dated 5.1.1993. Present appellants, along with respondent No. 3, had filed the Original Petition. They are teachers/ HS A of Raja's High School, Kottakkal. Institution in question was a private school run by a trust. By notification No. 35040/Nl/73/G.Edn. dated 7.8.1973, management of the school was taken over by Government in public interest for a period of five years from 20.9.1973 in exercise of powers conferred under S.14(1) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (in short, the act). Said period was to expire on 19.9.1978. In purported exercise of power conferred under S.14(8) of the Act, by notification dated 20.9.1978, school was taken over in public interest. According to appellants, there was no specific modality as regards absorption of staff serving in the institution. Director of Public Instructions (in short, DPI) was requested by Government to send detailed proposals regarding principles under which staff can be absorbed in Government services. By letter dated 12.10.1978 addressed by Special Secretary to Government in General Education Department to DPI, details were called for. As nothing happened for a long time, first appellant submitted a memorandum to Government for expeditious action. Government, with reference to letter of DPI, ordered in G.O. (R t) No. 4458/83/G.Edn. dated 22.12.1983 that staff serving in the institution were treated to be absorbed into Government service with effect from 20.9.1978 following principles of absorption of staff of surrendered school which were earlier prescribed in G.O. (Ms) No. 479/707 G.Edn. dated 18.11.1970. DPI was to take steps accordingly. Said Government Order dated 22.12.1983 was challenged before this Court in O.P. No. 1546 of 1984. Same was disposed of with the observation that Government may incorporate appropriate provisions in the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (in short, the rules ) for safeguarding interest of teachers in the schools taken over under S.14(8) of the Act. Direction was also given to take a decision on the memorandum dated 25.6.1982 submitted by first appellant. By Order - G.O. (R t) No. 2941/87/G.Edn. - dated 7.10.1987, request for fixation of seniority taking into account the period of service in aided institution was rejected. Said order was challenged in the Original Petition and by impugned order, same was rejected. 2. By Order - G.O. (R t) No. 2941/87/G.Edn. - dated 7.10.1987, request for fixation of seniority taking into account the period of service in aided institution was rejected. Said order was challenged in the Original Petition and by impugned order, same was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that true import of judgment of Apex Court in State ofOrissa v. N.N. Swamv (AIR 1977 SC 11T was note of. Exclusion of the period served in institutions prior to its take over is against principles laid down in Swamy's case (supra). Reliance was placed by appellants in Swamy's case (supra) as well as /. Kumar v. Union of India (1982 (2) SCC 116) and K. Madhavan v. Union of India (1987 (4) SCC 566). Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, in support of judgment, stated that decision in Swamy's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. 3. It is to be noted that in Swamy's case (supra) eligibility of certain persons for appointment as readers was under consideration. Question was whether services rendered by them in a private institution, which had been taken over by State, could be taken into account in computing period of eligibility. In that context, it was observed by Apex Court that teaching experience is not completely effaced to the extent that they will not be even eligible. In other two cases, question related to Government Servants' transfer from one department to another. Basic consideration, which weighed with apex Court, was that there was no qualitative difference between services rendered earlier and after transfer. 4. As has been observed by learned Single Judge rightly, whether petitioners could be given preference in appointment to higher posts in the same school was not dealt with in the impugned order of Government. What was observed was that they are not entitled to count their service in a private institution for the purpose of their seniority in Government service. As has been rightly contended by respondents 1 and 2, there is no denial of monetary benefit on absorption. Teachers, who were serving in the taken over institution, do not come to the lowest scale of pay in the entire cadre. They continue to get pay and allowances that they drew at the time of absorption. Subsequent annual increments and benefits of pay revision were also granted to them. Teachers, who were serving in the taken over institution, do not come to the lowest scale of pay in the entire cadre. They continue to get pay and allowances that they drew at the time of absorption. Subsequent annual increments and benefits of pay revision were also granted to them. Though for appointment to departmental school, one has to appear at the competitive examination conducted by Kerala Public Service Commission (in short, Commission), there was no such requirement for appointment to aided or private institutions. It may be noted here that question whether employees of a taken over school can be treated as fresh entrants was considered by Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Harnam Singh & Ors. (1997 (3) SCC 32 =1998 (1) SLJ 224). It was held that the condition made it clear that such employees were to be treated as fresh entrants and it was intended to protect interest of existing teachers, and cannot be faulted. A reference was also made to State of Punjab v. Dev Dutt Kaushal (1995 Supp. 4 SCC 748), wherein a similar view was taken. 5. It has to be borne in mind that decision of the Government impugned is a policy decision. In that context, scope of judicial review of such decisions has to be considered. It is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. Extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (a) Illegality: this means, decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it; (b) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness; and (b) Procedural impropriety. applying the principles as delineated above, we find no scope for interfering with judgment of learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal is dismissed.