IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.908 of 2009 01. The State Of Bihar through Director, Primary Education- Cum-Special Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 02. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 03. The Regional Education Officer, Mairwa, P.S. Mairwa, District- Siwan 04. The Inspector of School, Siwan 05. The Deputy Inspector of School, Siwan 06. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Siwan ……… Respondents/Appellants Versus 01. Dharamraj Singh S/o Late Sheo Shankar Singh, resident of village Done, P.S.-Darauli, District-Siwan ……… Petitioner/Respondent Ist Set 02. Shri Gorakh Nath Bhakla Son of name not known to the appellant, Head Master of Town Madhya Vidyalaya, Mairwa District-Siwan, resident of village Done, P.S.- Darauli, District-Siwan 03. Kumari Vidyawati, D/o Sri Sugiwa Singh resident of village Done, P.S.-Darauli, District-Siwan ……… Respondents / Respondents 2nd Set For the Appellant-State:- Mrs. Namrata Mishra, GP-17 For the Respondent No.1:- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, Advocate For the Respondent nos. 2 & 3:- Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate ----------- 07. 28.07.2011 The present L.P.A has been filed by the State against the order dated 22.12.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 740 of 1997. In the writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 740 of 1997 filed by respondent herein claim of the respondents seems to be with regard to rejection of the representation vide Annexure-1 dated 21st August, 1996 which was the out come of order passed by this 2 Court in C.W.J.C. No. 455 of 1984 dated 10th February, 1996 i.e, the earlier writ petition filed by the respondents herein. Claim of the respondents is that their services were taken over by the State Government by virtue of enactment of the Act in the year 1976 which came into force from 1.1.1971. In the earlier writ petition filed by the respondents i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 455 of 1984, a direction was given to the authorities to consider his representation. Accordingly the representation was rejected. Even though many disputed facts have arisen for consideration before the learned Single Judge, but the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that a direction can be issued to the State to consider the services of the respondents as untrained teacher with effect from 31.5.1983 and make admissible payments towards the salary and allowances with effect from the date other similarly situated teachers were paid on the untrained scale of pay within a period of three months. Aggrieved by such direction the State has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently contended that the services of the respondents were never recommended for taken over 3 as he was untrained teacher appointed by the management of the concerned school and in all the documents which are produced by the respondents were forged one. The said statement has also been made in the counter affidavit filed before learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The above statement has been repeated before the learned Single Judge and also before us by producing a Register of the school and also the recommendation of the then Managing Committee of the school recommending the name of the respondents. It is also stated in the impugned order at Annexure-1 that even though opportunity was given to respondents to produce the documents in support of their claim that they were working in the school since 1.1.1971 onwards but they failed to produce such documents. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that even though the respondents has submitted their documents in support of their claim but the authorities have never looked into such documents. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Managing Committee has also disputed the factum of their appointment under the management of the private school. 4 In view of lot of dispute arisen in this particular case, we are of the opinion that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the Director, Primary Education-Cum-Special Secretary to look into the matter afresh after verifying all the documents in support of the claim of the respondents and also by affording an opportunity of hearing to them. Liberty is also granted to both the respondents and Management of the school to produce their documents in support of their claim before the Director, Primary Education- Cum-Special Secretary and it is also made clear that the Director shall look into the documents and pass an appropriate order. The entire exercise should be competed within a period of six months after giving opportunity to all concerned and also by issuing an advance notice to all the parties. With the above direction the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the L.P.A. is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)