IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12575 of 2001 1. SHASHI BHUSHAN SINGH, S/O LATE RAM LAKHAN SINGH. 2. MAHENDRA SINGH, S/O LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH. 3. NAND KISHORE CHOUDHARY, S/O LATE RAM KHELAWAN CHOUDHARY. ALL ASSISTANT TEACHERS OF HASANPUR HIGH SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT OF LAKHISARAI. ……………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMNET OF BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, LAKHISARAI. 4. I/C HEADMASTER RAJKIYA HIGH SCHOOL HASANPUR, LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. 5. VIDYALAYA SEVA BOARD PATNA THOUGH ITS SECRETARY, BISCOMAUN TOWER, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 9 27.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners for payment of salary by regularizing/taking over their services consequent to the take over of the school namely, High School Hasanpur, Lakhisarai which was ultimately taken over by the respondents in terms of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management & Control) Act, 1981. It appears from the records that prior to the take over of the school, a Screening Committee inspected the school and submitted its report vide Annexure-3 dated 21.2.1983. In - 2 - respect of each and every petitioner, who were found working in the school, the Screening Committee showed their date of birth, the date of appointment, the qualification and their eligibility and gave its comments. In respect of petitioner no. 1, the Screening Committee made a comment that only the original training mark- sheet was produced meaning thereby that original certificate was not produced. In respect of petitioner no. 2 also the Screening Committee made a comment that the original certificate of training was not produced. In respect of petitioner no. 3 also comment was that he had produced mark-sheet only of Dip-in-Ed. It appears that, being aggrieved by non- consideration of their cases for take over, some teachers of the school moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 5575 of 1999 which was disposed of by order dated 8.7.2004, annexed as Annexure-17 to the writ application. Pursuant to the said order of this Court in the matter of take over of services of the remaining teachers of the school was re-considered at the Government level and finally an order was passed on 8.5.1997 vide Annexure-2. In the said order the claims of - 3 - petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were rejected on the ground that on the date of appointment they did not had the qualification and eligibility for appointment. So far petitioner no. 3 is concerned, it was observed that he was a physical trained teacher and no post of physical trained teacher was sanctioned in the school. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was authoritatively decided long back by Full Bench of this Court in respect of take over of services of taken over school that the eligibility and qualification of the incumbent whose services are to be taken over are to be tested as on the date of report by the Screening Committee/Special Board. In paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Naresh Prasad Nirala Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1987 PLJR 341, it has been observed that: “It must, therefore, be held in no uncertain terms that the crucial point of time and, indeed, the outer limit for such consideration is the date of the report of the Special Board the consideration of eligibility, qualification and suitability of teachers for absorption”. - 4 - He submits that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench the authorities have committed an error of law by rejecting the case of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that on the date of appointment they had no requisite qualification and eligibility. He also submits that as per the staffing pattern and as per the Government letters the post of physical teacher already stood created in the school which will be evident from State Government decision contained in letter no.2064 dated 4.10.1980. Learned counsel for the State Submits that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, this Court may direct the respondents to reconsider the cases of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and to consider the case of petitioner no. 3 in the light of the said Government letter relied upon by the petitioners. Considering the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court as pointed out above and considering the said Government letter relied upon by the petitioners, this Court feels it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary for consideration of - 5 - cases of the petitioners for their absorption in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the order as contained in Annexure-2 rejecting the cases of the petitioners for their absorption is set aside and the matter is remitted back for consideration by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department strictly in accordance with law. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary after due notice to the petitioners shall pass final orders in the matter within sixty days from the date of their appearance. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)