` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4563 of 2006 1. MADARSA ARSHADUL OLUM KAMALPUR KHAGOTA, P.O. Babhani (Purnea) through its Secretary, Md. Zamilur Rahman son of late Nasiruddin, resident of village Kamalpur Khagota, Police Station and P.P. Babhani, District – Purnea. 2. Md. Kalimuddin son of Md. Khalil, working as Head Maulvi of Madarsa Arshadul Olum Kamalapur Khagota, Police Station Babhani, District Purnea ______ Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Secondary Primary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Special Director (Secondary Education), Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna. 6. The Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Government of Bihar, Patna. ----------- 06. 9.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This is a third visit by the petitioner before this Court for the same kind of relief which was earlier rejected by this Court way back in the year 2002 vide CWJC No. 6553 of 2002. Repeated attempts before the respondent authorities or before the Court do not make out a case in favour of the petitioners. Admitted position is that petitioners’ school or Madarsa figured at 2986 Madarsa which was recognized in the year 1990. The recognition was without any financial commitment or burden upon the State. The obligation of the State was limited to such institutions which were recognized prior to 8.12.1982. Admittedly since the petitioners’ institution was recognized in the year 1990. Such a 2 circular has no application to the case of the petitioners. The reason or rationale given by the respondent in Annexure-5 therefore is in consonance with the policy of the government. The plea of the petitioners that there is discrimination because similar kind of institutions came to be granted this benefit cannot be entertained in absence of the pleadings and circumstances including the order by virtue of which such a benefit was given. Merely because wrong benefit has accrued to an institution it does not become the touchstone or a referral point for the benefit being claimed by the petitioner. Annexure-5 seems to be in order and rationale. It does not require to be interfered with. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)