IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.888 of 2008 1. Mithilesh Kumar, son of Sri Kedar Nath Singh. 2. Siya Ram Sharma, son of Sri Brij Kishore Singh. 3. Smt. Shashi Prabha Sinha, wife of Sri Sudhir Prasad Singh. 4. Uday Shankar Prasad Singh, son of Sri Sudhir Prasad Singh. 5. Smt. Suman Lata Roy, wife of Sri Kedar Nath Roy. 6. Kumari Pushpa Kumari, dauther of Sri Akhauri Jagdishwar Prasad. All posted as Assistant Teachers in Bihar National Academy, Mahendru, P.S.-Sultanganj, District –Patna …………. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary-cum-Education Commissioner, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education-cum-Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Patna. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 6. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna. 7. The Treasury Officer, Patna Treasury within Collectorate Compound, Patna. ………. (Respondents Ist Set) 8. Krishnandan Singh, son of Sri Kedar Nath Singh, at present posted as Assistant Teacher, Bihar National Academy, Mahendru, P.S.-Alamganj, District-Patna. 9. Uday Krishna Narayan Tetarway, son of Late Sri Raghunandan Prasad. 10. Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh, son of Late Sri Bhola Nath Sharma. 11. Ram Nandan Singh, son of Sri Kedar Nath Singh. 12. Smt. Veena Kumari, wife of Sri Madan Gopal Prasad. 13. Anandi Prasad Singh, son of Sri Sohan Prasad Sing. 14. Ram Briksha Singh, son of Sri Chandeshwar Singh. All (Respondents no. 8 to 14) are posed as Assistant Teacher in Bihar National Academy, Mahendru, P.S.- Sultanganj, District-Patna. ….Respondents 2nd set. With LPA No.537 of 2009 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary-cum-Education Commissioner, Patna at present Secretary H.R.D. Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director (Primary Education)-cum-Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna. 2 4. District Education Officer, Patna. 5. District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 6. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna. 7. The Treasury Officer, Patna Treasury within Collectorate Compound, Patna. …………Respondents-Appellants. Versus 1. Krishnandan Singh, son of Sri Kedar Nath Singh, at present posted as Head Master, Bihar National Academy Mahendru, P.S.-Alamganj, District- Patna. 2. Uday Krishna Narayan Tetarway, Son of Late Raghunandan Prasad. 3. Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh, son of Late Bhola Nath Sharma. 4. Ram Nandan Singh, son of Sri Kedar Nath Singh. 5. Smt. Veena Kumari, w/o Sri Madan Gopal Prasad. 6. Anandi Prasad Singh, son of Sri Sohan Prasad Singh. 7. Ram Briksh Singh, son of Sri Chandeshwar Simngh. 8. Mithilesh Kumar, son of Sri Kedar Nath Singh. 9. Siya Ram Sharma, son of Sri Brij Kishore Singh. 10. Smt. Shashi Pracha Sinha, wife of Sri Sudhir Prasad Singh. 11. Uday Shankar Prasad Singh, son of Sri Shyamdeo Prasad Singh. 12. Smt. Suman Lata Roy, wife of Sri Kedar Nath Roy. 13. Kumari Pushpa Kumari, daughter of Sri Akhauri Jagdishwar Prasad. All are posted as Assistant Teachers in Bihar National Academy Mahendru, P.S.-Sultanganj, District-Patna. ………..Petitioners-Respondents. ----------- For the appellants: -Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Binay Kr. Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shanti Pratap, Advocate. For the State: - Mr. Sanjay Kumar II, Government Pleader No. 15. ………… 09/ 04.09.2009 Heard the parties in both these appeals. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 10th September, 2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1737 of 1995. The writ petition was filed by 13 persons who claimed to be posted as Assistant Teachers in Bihar National Academy, Mahendru in the 3 district of Patna. The order under challenge contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is dated 8.1.1990 passed by Director (Primary Education)-cum- Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Human Resources Development, whereby claim of the writ petitioners for take over of their services as the teachers in the school in question was rejected on the ground that they were not in service prior to 1982 and their services had been wrongly taken over by an order passed by the then District Superintendent of Education, Patna dated 5.10.1988 although he had no jurisdiction to order for take over of services of teachers and the power lay with the State Government only as per provisions in the Bihar Non- Government Elementary Schools (taking over of control), Act, 1976. On behalf of the State the claim of the writ petitioners was seriously contested both on account of the admitted fact that the writ petitioners were not Trained- Teachers and that they were not working in the school since Ist January, 1971. The Writ Court examined the impugned order and gave a finding on fact that writ petitioners Krishnandan Singh, Uday Krishna Narayan Tetarway, Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh, Ram Nandan Singh, Smt. Veena Singh are genuine teachers who were working in the school when the decision to take over the school was passed in the year 4 1988. The teachers named above are respondents in the L.P.A. No. 537 of 2009 preferred by the State of Bihar and its officials against the relief granted to those teachers. A list of respondents in the said L.P.A. in fact includes the name of all the 13 writ petitioners. The other L.P.A. has been preferred by the remaining writ petitioners, on whose behalf it has been claimed that according to the order passed by the then the District Superintendent Education, Patna, they were also similarly situated as the other teachers who have been accepted by the writ court as genuine teachers and hence they also deserve to be given similar treatment and relief. On behalf of State it has been submitted on the basis of provisions in the Act and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Ramdeo Yadav & ors. reported in 1996(2) P.L.J.R. (SC) 35 that the combind effect of Section 3 and Section 4 read with an order issued by the State Government dated 2.5.1980 under Section 8 of the Act removing difficulties, it is settled that if any untrained teacher has been appointed in the school in question after 1.1.1971, the service of such teacher will not be taken over and it would be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Managing Committee to terminate the services of such teachers prior to date of take over. 5 On facts there is no dispute that the writ petitioners are not trained teachers and they have been appointed in the school after 1.1.1971 only. On behalf of writ petitioners it has been submitted that cut off date 1.1.1971 has been prescribed only in relation to the schools covered by Section 3(1) of the Act and not to other category of the schools to which this school belongs. We have examined this submission carefully and we find that the proposition of law settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramdeo Yadav (supra) has taken note of all the different categories of schools covered by Section 3 of the Act and on a detailed consideration made in paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held that State Government would be justified in refusing to take over the services of any untrained teachers existing prior to the take over. The validity of the Government order under Section 8 of the Act dated 2.5.1980 has never been questioned and so long as that policy is in existence, it would not be possible for writ Court to issue any direction to the State Government to disobey the law as held in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ramdeo Yadav. It may be useful to mention here that on behalf of State reliance was placed upon some other Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Kumari Vidyawati Kushwaha & Anr. Vs. The state of Bihar & Ors., 2001 (1) 6 P.L.J.R. 791 and in the case of Kalyani Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2003 (3) P.L.J.R. 690, wherein this Court followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramdeo Yadav (supra) and dismissed the claim of the similarly situated teachers for take over of their services. As would appear from the aforesaid discussions, the writ Court committed an error of law in granting relief to some of the writ petitioners by ignoring the law settled by the Apex Court. Hence the Letters Patent Appeal No 537 of 2009 is allowed and the order of the writ Court is set aside. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion and finding, L.P.A. No. 888 of 2008 filed by some of the writ petitioners has to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. S.Sb/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)