Letters Patent Appeal No.1079 OF 1995 - - - - - Against the order dated 3rd August 2995 passed in C.W.J.C.No.1774 of 1993. - - - - - MADAN MOHAN SINGH--------------------Appellant. Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------Respondents. For the appellant : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr.Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.16. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA MONAN PRASAD. Barin Ghosh & C.M.Prasad,JJ In early 1980s the State of Bihar decided to ensure that each Block has at least four High Schools/Secondary Schools of which, one is a Girls’ School. In the Blocks, at the time when the decision was taken, there were existing schools. Some of them were Government Schools and the others were under private management. The schools under private management which fulfilled the criteria fixed by the Government were taken over by the Government at the first round. Despite take over of those Schools, the desire of the Government that each Block shall have four such Schools was still a distant reality. The Government in the circumstances started encouraging people to establish such Schools and also the Managing Committees of the established Schools to achieve the standard. The Government required that the Schools, which would be competing for take over by the Government in fulfillment of its desire, should obtain permission to establish the Schools from the appropriate authority of the Government. The schools, which were established with such - 2 - permission, or the schools which were already established and thereupon applied for such permission, were not necessarily chosen for take over. The Government, however, choose some of theme. The Government laid down that while permission shall be accorded to establish such schools, the schools shall be entitled, in accordance with staffing pattern prescribed by the Government by its letter dated 4th October 1980, to engage such teaching employees but the number thereof should not be more than nine teachers. The appellant and others filed three writ petitions registered as C.W.J.C.Nos. 1774 of 1993, 2115 of 1993 and 6067 of 1994. In the said writ petitions, they contended that the schools in which they were appointed have been taken over by the Government but despite such take over, though they were appointed well within the maximum number of nine teachers, their services have not been taken over. The State Government did not dispute that the appellant and other petitioners were engaged as teachers by such taken over Project Schools, but contended that in terms of the decision of the Government dated 4th April 1989, whereby and under the Government decided to convert teachers of such taken over schools as Government teachers, only those teachers of such taken over schools,who had been appointed before permissions to establish them were accorded or before the schools were selected for being taken over, could only be converted and since the appellant and other petitioners were appointed by the Schools in question subsequent to grant of permission for their establishment or subsequent to choosing them as - 3 - Schools to be taken over, in terms of the said policy of the Government, the Government cannot convert the appellant and other writ petitioners as government teachers. This contention succeeded before the learned single judge who dealt with the writ petition and, accordingly by the judgment and order impugned in this appeal, the writ petitions (C.W.J.C.Nos.1774 and 2115 of 1993) were dismissed. Before us, it could not be established that apart from the decision of the government dated 4th April 1989, there is any other decision of the Government in terms whereof teachers of the taken over schools can be converted into government teachers and that being the situation and Clause -3 of the said decision being specific that only those teachers would be taken over who were appointed prior to the date of grant of permission to the Schools to establish them or prior to choosing the schools as Project School to be taken over by the Government and no one else, the conclusion would be that there is no scope of interference with the judgment and order under appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Patna High Court, Dated 27th Aug.2008 N.A.F.R. Jay/ (Barin Ghosh,J) (C.M.Prasad,J)