IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5069 of 2010 DHARAM KANT JHA S/O SRI MADHWANAND JHA R/O VILLAGE - RAMPURA (SINGHWARA), P.S - SINGHWARA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY & ADULT EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 5. HEAD MASTER PROJECT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL , HIRNI, DARBHANGA. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Baidya Nath Thakur and Shankar Kumar Thakur. For the State : M/S. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, SC 13 and Anil Kumar Tiwari, AC to SC 13. ------- 02. 04.01.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State this writ application can be disposed of in light of the order passed by Division Bench in a batch of appeals, which came to be decided on 6.4.2010. It is evident from perusal of the order which has been impugned by the learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the persons who came to be removed from the post by a common order dated 15.1.2004, contained in Annexure-3, were petitioners before this court and were also respondents in appeal before the Division Bench. After taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and the law on this issue the Court concluded as such in para 30 of the said decision, which reads as follows: “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 2 within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if 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.” Let similar exercise with regard to the present petitioner be carried out and if the petitioner’s case falls within the ambit then he will be reinstated or else no relief would be extended to him in light of the Division Bench decision and the direction issued therein. The said direction is further reproduced for ready reference as recorded in para 31 and 32 of the said decision : “31. 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 fulfil all the aforesaid three conditions as indicated above. Though the respondent writ petitioners from their date of reinstatement in terms of the present 3 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. 32. Such of the respondent writ petitioner, whose appointment was against unsanctioned posts and/or who did not possess the requisite qualification and/or whose appointment was neither made by the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education nor by the concerned District Education Officer, would not be entitled for reinstatement in service much less for payment of any back wages as directed by the learned single Judge.” The writ application is disposed of with above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)