IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4725 of 2009 MD.MASUM ALI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 15/04/2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to delete private respondents-8 and 9. He is permitted to do so at his own risk. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the erstwhile Managing Committee of Project Girls High School at Thakurganj which came to be taken over as a project school in 1981-1982 phase. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner and that of others were terminated. The petitioner along with others came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.846/05 which was allowed along with analogous cases on 6.7.2005. L.P.A. No.17 of 2006 was preferred against the same by the State when the matter came to be referred to a three member committee. In pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 27.5.2008 terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed. It is submitted that the impugned order itself makes it apparent that the petitioner is an appointee of 1981-1982 taken over project schools. It is next submitted that the State itself preferred M.J.C. 2 No.2488/05 in context of C.W.J.C. No.846/05 and analogous cases disposed on 6.7.2005. This Court in C.W.J.C. No.13310/08 disposed on 23.3.2009 has noticed that the State itself filed M.J.C. No.2454/05 which, in context of the present petitioner, should be read as M.J.C. No.2488/05 in which the State itself contended that the judgement and order dated 6.7.2005 in C.W.J.C. No.846/05 and analogous cases led by C.W.J.C. No.12302/03 be confined in its operation to the project schools of 1981-1982. In effect, the L.P.A. remained confined to those project schools taken over after 1982. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the impugned order in its present form is clearly not sustainable inasmuch it does not deal with, discuss or consider the modification applications preferred by the State itself in context of the earlier judgement of this Court with regard to project schools of 1981-1982 scheme under which category the petitioner falls. The impugned order dated 27.5.2008 is accordingly set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The matter is remanded to the three men committee to re-examine the matter in light of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.846/05 and M.J.C. 3 No.2488/05 as also the order in C.W.J.C. No.13310/08 and analogous cases. The committee, if it proposes to hold that the petitioner is not covered by the modification application or the subsequent order of this Court, shall be required to furnish reasons and materials on which it so holds to the petitioner, grant him an opportunity to meet the same and then pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order thereupon. Until the same is done by virtue of the impugned order being set aside the petitioner stands reinstated with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the State suggests that the committee is no more in existence. What has to be done in that event is for the administrator to decide. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)