IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8898 of 2000 SRI BHAGWAN SINGHn S/O Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Singh R/O Vill- Fatehpur Buzurg, P.S-Deshri, Distt-Vaishali……………petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Headmaster, Maharani Kunwar Uchch Vidyalaya,Bajitpur Dumri,P.S- Deshari, P.O.Nayaganj, Distt- Vaishali. 3. The District Education Officer, Vaishali. 4. The Director(Secondary Education) Human Resources & Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Budh Marg, Patna……………Respondents. ----------- For petitioner:- Mr. Sanat Kumat Mishra, Adv. For State:- SC-15, JC to SC-15. ------------ 05/ 27-Nov-08 Heard the parties. The petitioner’s case has a chequered history. He earlier came to this Hon’ble Court through CWJC. No.3263/1983 whereby he challenged termination of his service by the Headmaster of the concerned High School through letter dated 19.7.1983. That writ petition was decided in favour of the petitioner by order dated 28.1.1992 (Annexure-12). That order shows that this Court could not get any answer as to why petitioner’s name was not included in the order dated 22.4.1978 while granting approval to the recognition of the school and further the order of termination of service was quashed on the ground that Headmaster has no authority to terminate service of a teacher. 2 However, the petitioner was advised to file a representation before Respondent No.4, the Director, Bihar Secondary Education which was to be disposed of in accordance with law and observations made in the order. That order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar dated 31.8.1992 contained in Annexure-12 is under challenge. By that order the Director has noticed relevant dates and Circulars of the State Government and has given reasons as to why petitioner’s name was not included in the approval order dated 22.4.1978 and why his service cannot be given any validity. There is no dispute on facts. Petitioner has claimed that he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Assistant Teacher in Maharani Kunwar High School,Bajitpur, Dumri, Vaishali on 17.01.1972. At that time, his qualification was Intermediate without any training. He claims that he attended training course for the session 1976-78 but no examination could be held. The school in question was given recognition on 22.4.1978. On behalf of petitioner reliance was placed upon letter No.756 dated 21.2.1975. That letter issued by the Special Secretary of Government to the Secretary of Bihar, Secondary Education Board, Patna was in respect of High Schools who had already received recognition 3 and in context of such schools it was communicated in the letter that untrained teachers appointed in recognized High Schools till 28.9.1973 may be considered for approval and payment of salary if it is found that their appointment was in accordance with prescribed procedure and the posts had received sanction from the Board. The Director in the impugned order has placed reliance upon letter of the Government bearing No.3213 dated 22.7.1976. That letter relates to the criteria for granting approval to the service of untrained teachers working in Non- Government High Schools and fixation of their salary. Since the school in question received recommendation on 22.4.1978 hence at the relevant time untrained teachers of the school like the petitioner were covered by the said letter dated 22.7.1976. According to that letter only the service of those working untrained teachers may be regularized where the school in question had been granted permission of establishment prior to 28.9.1973 and the school had received approval prior to 20.5.1974. On going through the impugned order contained in Annexure-12 this Court finds that the Director has considered the relevant facts as well 4 as the Government guidelines and the order does not suffer from any illegality so as to warrant interference. In paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit the respondents have taken the stand that as far back as in 1972 service condition rules the minimum requisite qualification for Assistant Teacher of a Non-Government recognized Secondary School was fixed as trained graduate. In the writ petition petitioner has admitted that he passed graduation in the year 1985 and training examination in 1988. In paragraph-13 it is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that later the Government adopted a sympathetic attitude and granted certain relaxations in the year 1980 but petitioner’s case is not covered even by that Government order bearing no.757 dated 2.4.1980 because petitioner was not a graduate till 15.10.1977. In view of aforesaid facts and observations this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)