IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4808 of 2009 DIPA SAHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 16.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee of the erstwhile private school on 16.1.1981. In pursuance of the formulation of the scheme of project school, the school where the petitioner was working was taken over also on 15.3.1982 as a project school. His services were then terminated on 7.12.2004. He came to this Court in CWJC No. 846 of 2005 disposed on 6.7.2005 along with analogous cases. The order of termination was set aside. MJC No. 2488 of 2005 was then filed by the State on 16.9.2005 in CWJC No. 846 of 2005. It stated that the order of the Court dated 6.7.2005 be clarified to relate to and be effective with regard to those appointed prior to 13.2.1985 in the project schools under the 1981-82 schemes. The prayer therefore was that the order be modified and be made applicable only to the project schools of 1981-82 phase. The Court on 26.9.2005 dismissed the modification application observing as follows: ‘As far as above mentioned writ petition is concerned it is accepted position by the Counsel for the parties that schools in question were taken over under the 1981-82 schemes. That being so the present modification, so far the schools in question are concerned, is not required to be considered.’ 2 Since CWJC No. 846 of 2005 related to project school of 1981-82 the Court did not find any occasion to modify its order. While the State contended that the judgment dated 6.7.2005 was acceptable to it with regard to project schools of 1981-82, filed a modification application, yet it proceeded to file LPA No. 17 of 2006 on 4.1.2006 against the judgment on the writ petition challenging the very same order which it stated in the modification application to be acceptable to it. In the LPA it contended that the appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio. This Court refrains from any observations on the conduct of the respondents and generating frivolous litigations burdening the Court. Based on such a irresponsible Letters Patent Appeal it obtained a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner by a committee contrary to its own stand in the modification application. On such re-consideration has followed the impugned order dated 27.5.2008. This Court has considered a similar matter in CWJC No. 13310 of 2008 disposed on 23.3.2009 of another petitioner in CWJC No. 846 of 2005 as also the subject matter of modification in MJC No. 2488/2005 appointed under the project school scheme in 1981-82, terminated in like manner as the petitioners in CWJC no. 4725 of 2009 disposed on 15.4.2009. For the reasons discussed in the aforesaid order, the petitioners being similarly situated, the impugned order dated 27.5.2008 is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. 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. 3 No.846/05 and M.J.C. 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 in CWJC No. 13310 of 2008, 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 who has already superannuated on 30.4.2006 shall be deemed to have retired from service 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. The termination of the petitioner not being sustainable in light of the stand of the respondents themselves in MJC No. 2488/2005 accepting the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 846 of 2005, the order dated 27.5.2008 is therefore set aside. The writ application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)