IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.938 of 2011 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8481 of 2010 WITH Interlocutory Application No. 4239 of 2011 IN Letters Patent Appeal No.938 of 2011 ====================================================== Kumari Shabnam, W/o Sri Ramanuj Roy resident of village and P.S.+P.O.- Dahiya, District-Begusarai. .... .... Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 2. Director Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Budh Marg, Patna. 3. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger. 4. District Education Officer, Begusarai. 5. Treasury Officer, Begusarai. 6. Accountant General, Bihar, Beer Chand Patel Path, Patna. .... .... Respondents-Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Mithileshwar Prasad Shukla, Advocate For the Respondent State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, GA-5 For the Accountant General: Mr. K.N. Choubey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA Patna High Court LPA No.938 of 2011 (2) dt.29-06-2011 2 / 4 2 ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 29-06-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 4239 of 2011: This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 76 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.938 of 2011: This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 2nd February 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 8481 of 2010. The appellant-writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction that the appellant be treated as a trained graduate and her services as a teacher in the Project School be accordingly regularised. The appellant relied upon order dated 24th June 2008 made by the Director, Secondary Education. By the said order made pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6626-6675 of 2001 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6676-6681 of 2001 the appointment of teaching and non-teaching employees made by the School Managing Committee in Shruti Vidya Project Girls School, Badalpura, Matihani, Begusarai is recognized on conditions mentioned in the said order. The petitioner’s name is included in the list of such employees. She has been shown to be an untrained graduate. The relevant condition provides that untrained teachers Patna High Court LPA No.938 of 2011 (2) dt.29-06-2011 3 / 4 3 will have to get the training at their own expenses within three years from the order. Indisputably, the petitioner did not acquire the training as mentioned in the above referred order. Instead she filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 8481 of 2010 after a lapse of two years to claim that she was a trained graduate. The appellant apprehends that on expiry of three years in this month her service will be terminated. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. It is observed that aforesaid order is made pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the petitioner has failed to establish that the training allegedly acquired by her is recognized by the State of Bihar. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. M.P.Shukla has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant has rendered services as a teacher for more than 20 years, her service now cannot be terminated on the ground that she is not a trained teacher. He has also submitted that the training imparted by private institutions is now recognized by the State of Bihar. The appellant, therefore, should be treated as a trained teacher. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Shukla. Once there is a direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government is duty bound to follow the same. It is not the case of the appellant that the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not correctly implemented. In absence of any material on record to suggest that the appellant has acquired required training from a recognized institution. She cannot be held to be trained teacher. Further it is apparent that the above plea is an Patna High Court LPA No.938 of 2011 (2) dt.29-06-2011 4 / 4 4 afterthought as the petitioner failed to acquire the training within specified period. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)