IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.880 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development (Secondary, Primary and Adult Education) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Special Secretary-cum-Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Director of Education, (Primary Education), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnea, Division, Purnia. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Purnea. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Purnea Block, Purnea. 9. The District Magistrate ……….Respondents 1 to 9 ……………Appellants Versus 1. MISS JAYOTI GUHA D/O Sri Haridas Guha, resident of Vivekanand Colony, Rajnichak, District-Purnea. Writ petitioner…….Ist Set. 2. The Headmistress, Mahila Samiti School, Durgabari, Bhatta, Purnea. ……..Respondent 2nd Set. 4. 22.01.2010 Heard Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath, learned Additional Advocate General-4 for the appellants and Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Shanti Pratap and Mr. A.K. Verma, Advocates for the respondents. 2. By order under appeal dated 6.3.2009 the writ petition preferred by the respondent, Miss Jayoti Guha bearing CWJC. No. 13831 of 2007 has been allowed. The writ Court after considering that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1981 in a school - 2 - run by a linguistic minority institution and the approval of her appointment w.e.f. 16.8.1989 by the competent authority in the year 1994, found that the cancellation of such approval after several years by impugned order dated 21.7.2006 and 28.8.2007 by the concerned authorities of the Education Department was illegal and arbitrary. 3. On hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the writ Court has come to a proper conclusion that there existed no good reasons for interfering with the approval of appointment of the writ petitioner after she had put in 25 years of service and after 12 years of approval granted by the competent authority. Hence, we find no merits in this letters patent appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. perwez (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)