IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2021 of 2004 Pradip Kumar Bhatt, son of late Balram Bhatt, resident of Mohalla Sisauria Chaura, Krishna Dwarika, Gaya, P.O. Chand Chaura, Gaya, P.S. Civil Line, Gaya, District Gaya … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya 4. The District Education Officer, Gaya … Respondents ---------------------------------- 5. 13.12.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that the petitioner claims to have been appointed in a Project School in the third phase in the year 1990 by the order of the District Education Officer, who had been vested with no such power, this Court would find nothing wrong in his eventual termination from service which to say the least was a rank illegal appointment. The petitioner was appointed without following the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, would deserve no sympathy from this Court merely because he could continue in service for a period of little more than 12 years. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that the persons having similar service history alike the petitioner have still been continuing in service. Mr. Singh has however not been able to point out any specific instance but then he would rely on an order of this Court dated 4.1.2006 in C.W.J.C.No. 529/2004 (Pradeep Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). In the case cited by Mr. Singh of Pradeep Kumar Sinha (supra) it has been held that the 2 District Education Officer had the power to make appointment in the Project School. The scheme of appointment in the Project School being divided into three parts no District Education Officer was ever authorized to make appointment in the project School in the year 1990. In that view of the matter, this Court would find it difficult to follow the ratio laid down by this Court in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.1.2006 in Pradeep Kumar Sinha (supra). Having held so this Court must give liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director, Secondary Education, by filing his a representation for examining his case in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 06.04.2010 in L.P.A.No. 1492/2009 (The State of Bihar and others Vs. Dinesh Thakur) and its analogous cases, wherein the dispute relating to appointment on Class III and Class IV post in Project School was sought to be resolved by making following observations and directions:- " As with regard to appointment of non- teaching employees second phase and third phase of the project school we would adopt the same recourse which was followed by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh Vs. State & Ors. reported in 2000(1)PLJR 287, whereby and whereunder, number of writ petitions of the teaching staff of the similar project school were disposed of with a direction to the examine the claim of the petitioners for recognition/absorption of their services in the respective schools within a period of four months. 30. It is, however, made clear that each and every respondent writ petitioners and alike similarly situated persons appointed on Class-III & Class-IV posts in Project School of 2nd and 3rd phase would be reinstated within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if 3 it is found :- (i) Such appointment of the respondent writ petitioners was against a vacant sanctioned post in a project school (ii) The respondent writ petitioners on the date of their appointment had possessed the requisite qualification for such Class-III & Class-IV post. (iii) Their order of appointment was made by either Regional Deputy Director of Education or the District Education Officer even without following the Circular of Personnel and Administrative Department in its two letters no. 16440 and 16441 dated 3.12.1980. Upon completion of this exercise which must be completed positively within a period of four months of receipt/production of this order, the competent authority shall reinstate the concerned respondent writ petitioners who would fulfill all the aforesaid three conditions as indicated above. Though the respondent writ petitioners from their date of reinstatement in terms of the present order would be entitled for payment of salary but no payment of salary would be made for the period they have remained out of service. Such reinstated Respondent writ petitioner would however be given continuity in service only for the purposes of their post retirement benefits. In other words, they would not be entitled for any other financial benefits for the period they have remained out of service save and except the continuity in service." That being so, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file his representation before the Director, Secondary Education, who may thereafter pass an appropriate order considering the aforesaid observations and directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in Dinesh Thakur (supra) within a period of six months from the date of filing of representation by petitioner enclosing a copy of this order. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/