ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by nine persons projecting themselves to be working in private Vindhyajyoti Higher Secondary School Laxmanpur District Rewa, seeking relief that their services should be taken over by the State Government as the school has been taken over by the State Government. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the school in question was taken over by the State Government vide order Annexure P/1 dated 22.03.2002 along with 53 other schools i.e. total of 54 schools which were taken over by the State Government. The petitioners are stated to be working in the said school in the manner that the petitioner No. 1 (now deceased) is alleged to be working since the year 1995 and the other petitioners are alleged to be working since the year 2001 while the school was taken over by the State Government vide order dated 22.03.2002. 3. The present petition has been filed by 9 petitioners whose names are as under:- (i) Awadesh Pratap Singh (ii) Alpna Shukla (iii) Dinesh Prasad Choubey (iv) Aparna Tiwari (v) Vinod Kumar Gautam (vi) Sharda Prasad Pandey (vii) Pramod Kumar Gautam (viii) Kapil Dev Kushwah (ix) Pramod Kumar Mishra. 4. There have been four different scrutinies in the matter of taking over of the petitioners and the scrutiny reports are placed on record: (i) First scrutiny report is placed on record with reply of respondents which is document No. 4465/2022 and is annexed to the said reply as Annexure R/1. In the said scrutiny report against the name of petitioner no. 1, it is mentioned that the as per entry in staff register his services have been terminated in July 2000. So far as the other petitioners are concerned an identical comment is made in the enquiry report that they have failed to place on record any appointment order or service book or personal file or their entry in staff attendance register and therefore, there is no record available either in the institution or with the petitioners to show that they have worked. (ii) The second scrutiny report is on record which is dated 03.04.2021 in which also identical reasons are assigned as are assigned in the first report dated 03.12.2019. (ii) The second scrutiny report is on record which is dated 03.04.2021 in which also identical reasons are assigned as are assigned in the first report dated 03.12.2019. (iii) The third report is dated 27.03.2024 which is on record with document No. 17058/2024 and in this report also mentions identical reasons for rejecting the case of the petitioners. (iv) Thereafter, this Court passed a detailed order on 25.11.2024 directing personal presence of District Education Officer, Rewa and then again a detailed order was passed on 03.12.2024 and then again on 10.12.2024 wherein this Court took note of the stand of the respondents that a State Level Committee is being constituted to again scrutinize the matter and this Court directed the respondents to place the report of the committee on record. The said fourth report is on record as Annexure D/2 document No. 1302/2025. This report also contains identical reasons for rejecting the cases of the petitioners. 5. Therefore, there has been scrutiny of the case of the petitioners four times and in case of petitioner No. 1, it has been found that he was terminated from service in the year 2000 and for other petitioners it has been found that there are no records of the appointment or working, no service book is available or no other record of any manner whatsoever is available to indicate their working. It is also mentioned commonly in most of the scrutiny reports, that the petitioners when asked to produce documents available with them, they refused to do so stating that whatever documents are available, have already been placed on record before this Court and no other documents are available with them and therefore, the petitioners have refused to produce any documents before the respondents. 6. The sheet anchor of the case of the petitioners is based upon the documents Annexure P/7 and P/8 which are placed on record along with rejoinder. Document Annexure P/7 is a list of employees working in the school in question which has been prepared under joint signature of the Principal of the School and Block Education Officer and is dated 16.08.2012. The said list duly contains names of the petitioners and contains their qualification, dates of appointment and dates of birth and the posts. Document Annexure P/7 is a list of employees working in the school in question which has been prepared under joint signature of the Principal of the School and Block Education Officer and is dated 16.08.2012. The said list duly contains names of the petitioners and contains their qualification, dates of appointment and dates of birth and the posts. Consequent to this is the subsequent letter Annexure P/8 dated 21.08.2012 which is sent by Block Education Officer to the District Education Officer sending/forwarding the said report/ list Annexure P/7 to the District Education Officer. 7. The petitioners pray that the petition be allowed and they be directed to be absorbed in government service on the strength of list Annexure P/7 prepared under joint signature of Block Education Officer and Principal. Apart from the said list Annexure P/7 and covering letter Annexure P/8, there is no material available with the petitioners or with the respondents to indicate that the petitioners were indeed appointed on the dates indicated in the list Annexure P/7 or that they have the qualification as mentioned in the list Annexure P/7. During the course of hearing of this case the learned senior counsel for petitioner were asked to indicate from the documents available in possession of the petitioners to show that the petitioners have education qualifications as mentioned in list Annexure P/7 or petitioners have any documents to show that they were appointed or they have either worked in the institution. To that, the learned senior counselreplied that whatever documents are available with the petitioners are already filed on record with the petition. 8. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner do not have any record of appointment order or any record of their working in the institution which any person would having if he has worked in the institution from the year 2001 at least till the year 2012 which is the date of Annexure P/7. A person if he works for such a long period, if he would not have the appointment letter then he would have at least some record of salary. Even if the salary was being received in cash, then its entry would be in the cash book and ledger of the institution. Even if the employee does have any other record at least he should be having the record of signing the report card of the students, results of the students, etc. Even if the salary was being received in cash, then its entry would be in the cash book and ledger of the institution. Even if the employee does have any other record at least he should be having the record of signing the report card of the students, results of the students, etc. which are the duties every teacher in the educational institution discharges. However, the petitioners are not in possession of that record, and there is no document except Annexure P/7. The learned senior counsel vehemently argued that it is the duty of the respondents, to seize and collect the record from the school and in absence of the duly diligence shown by the respondents authorities the petitioners cannot be expected to have any record with them. 9. The aforesaid assertion of the learned senior counsel for petitioner is utterly misconceived for the simple reason that if an employee has worked in an organization for 10 to 11 years then he should be having any record of working in the institution and when the employee has no record at all of having worked in the institution then it only give rise to well-founded suspicion. 10. Faced with the situation, learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that if the petitioners had not worked, then there was no need for the respondents to have carried out as many as four scrutinies of the petitioners and since the respondents have carried out as many as four scrutinies in respect of the petitioners then, there must be some record available with the respondents to indicate that the petitioners have worked in the institution, and the respondents are suppressing that record. 11. The respondents have produced the original record for perusal of this court during the course of hearing and on perusal of the original record, it is seen that the school was taken over vide order dated 22.03.2002 and the first scrutiny took place as early as on 15.11.2002 which is available in the original record. In the initial scrutiny list of 15.11.2002, a number of teachers and employees working in the school are mentioned but the names of none of the petitioners are mentioned in the said list. In the initial scrutiny list of 15.11.2002, a number of teachers and employees working in the school are mentioned but the names of none of the petitioners are mentioned in the said list. The subsequent scrutiny carried out between 2019 to 2025 seems to be based on the list Annexure P/7 which came out of nowhere in the year 2012, and signed jointly by the Principal and the Block Education Officer and then the entire proceedings in the matter of absorption of the petitioners started. Prior to the list Annexure P/7 issued in the year 2012, there is not a single documents to show that at any point of time the case of the petitioners was considered or scrutinized for absorption and the entire disputes have arisen from the list Annexure P/7. 12. In the scrutiny committee proceedings dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure D/2), it has been mentioned that the then Principal has counter signed the list Annexure P/7 under pressure of the then Block Education Officer namely Anand Prakash Tiwari. The said contents are duly available on record in the proceedings Annexure D/2 filed with document No.1302/2025. 13. The said scrutiny committee proceedings also mentions that 8 of the disputed employees are close relatives of the then Block Education Officer, Anand Prakash Tiwari. The relation of some of the petitioners with Anand Prakash Tiwari is mentioned in the said proceedings is as under:- (i) Alpana Shukla D/o Devendra Tiwari, brother of Anand Prakash Tiwari. (ii) Aparna Gautam W/o Sandeep Tiwari who is son of Anand Prakash Tiwari. (iii) Vinod Kumar Gautam Son-in-law of Devendra Tiwari who is brother of Anand Prakash Tiwari. (iv) Pramod Kumar Gautam Brother of Vinod Kumar of Tiwari who is son in law of Devendra Singh Tiwari who is in turn of brother of Anand Prakash Tiwari. (iv) Pramod Kumar Mishra brother-in-law of Pramod Kumar Gautam. 14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner then argued that a family tree of Devendra Kumar Tiwari has been filed to indicate that Devendra Singh Tiwari and Anand Prakash Tiwari (the then BEO) are notreal brothers. This was countered by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that the two persons are not real brothers but cousin brothers and the petitioners have willfully not filed the entire pedigree to indicate the sons of uncles of Devendra Singh Tiwari. 15. This was countered by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that the two persons are not real brothers but cousin brothers and the petitioners have willfully not filed the entire pedigree to indicate the sons of uncles of Devendra Singh Tiwari. 15. Be that as it may be, this court does not comment on the relationship of the then BEO Anand Prakash Tiwari with present petitioners. However, once it is duly established from record that the petitioners have no document in their possession of ever having been appointed or worked in the institution in question and their entire case is only based on one letter jointly signed by the than Principal and BEO Anand Prakash Tiwari, and nothing else. 16. As already noted above by this Court, only on the basis of this list Annexure P/7, this court cannot hold that the petitioners have worked in the institution and that they are entitled to be absorbed in the services of the State as the school has been taken over by the State Government. The petitioners have no documents of education qualification, have no document of appointment, have no document of working in the institution and have refused to submit the said documents before the scrutiny committee repeatedly and therefore, this Court is unable to hold that the petitioners have worked in the institution in question and were working as on the date of take-over by the State government. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the scrutiny committee did not commit any wrong in rejecting the cases of the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to establish foundational facts in their favour and the submissions being put forth by the petitioners are fanciful, only based on one list signed by the Block Education Officer. On basis of that list only, this Court cannot hold that the petitioners were working in the institution in question as on the date of take over. 18. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.