JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral)-Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English on adhoc basis in D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Daulatpur Chowk, Tehsil Amb, District Una on 03.01.2000. The notification was issued by the State Government for taking over the School on 14.09.2006. The D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Daulatpur Chowk, Tehsil Amb, District Una was receiving the grant-in-aid from the State Government. The salary of the petitioner was initially Rs.1500/- per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.2500/-. Petitioner’s services were not taken over by the State Government, on the ground that she was not appointed on regular basis. 2. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner’s services were liable to be taken over by the State Government as per the notification dated 25th August, 1994. His further submission is that the adhoc teachers who were duly qualified, their services were liable to be taken over by the State Government. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the appointment of petitioner was not in accordance with law and the norms prescribed, her services could not be taken over. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on a consolidated salary. There is a detailed procedure, the manner in which the appointments of teachers are made in privately managed Schools. The posts are required to be advertised in both English and Vernacular daily newspapers. The recommendations are to be made by a sub-committee consisting of five members of managing committee and a representative/nominee of the Education Department. In the present case, petitioner has not placed any material on record to substantiate that this procedure was followed. A bare perusal of appointment letter reveals that she has been appointed on the basis of personal application as Lecturer on adhoc basis. Clause-8 of the notification dated 25th August, 1994 will not come to the rescue of petitioner, even though she may be assumed to be qualified since her initial appointment is not in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.