IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8339 of 1997 Taluk Raj Rai, Son of Shri Tagu Rai, Resident of village Pipra, police station Kargahar, P.O. Pipra, District Rohtas (Sasaram). --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Rohtas, at Bhojpur. -------- Respondents ----------- 6 22.07.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this application reads as follows:- “1. That the present application is for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.7.97 passed by the Respondent no.2 by which the grievance of the petitioners for correction in the date of appointment in the school has not been done which is a void one as the order to this effect by the concerned authorities has been passed earlier also and further a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to be treated as first appointed as Assistant Teacher on 4.8.67 and all the benefits be given accordingly and/or pass such other order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and 2 proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.” From perusal of the impugned order reading as follows:- ^^fcgkj ek/;fed f'k{kk dk;kZy;] iVuk&1 vkns'k 11&7&97 Jh rqyqdjkt jk;] lgk;d f'k{kd] vkn'kZ mPp fon~;ky;] legqrk] jksgrkl dh lsok iqfLr esa fu;qfDr frfFk ds la'kks/ku ds iz'u ij vkosnd dh lquokbZ dh xbZA bl lEcU/k esa oLrqfLFkfr ;g gS fd rqyqd jkt jk;] lgk;d f'k{kd dh fu;qfDr loZizFke 4-8-67 dks dh xbZ ,slk vkosnd }kjk crk;k x;k vkSj bl fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu rRdkyhu voj ize.My f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lklkjke ds i=kad 1595] fnukad 17-12-69 }kjk iznku dh xbZ ijUrq ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] jksgrkl }kjk bl vuqeksnu dks jn~n dj fn;k x;kA tc lEcfU/kr lgk;d f'k{kd us viuk i{k ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] jksgrkl ds le{k j[kk rks mUgksaus vius i=kad 3122 fnukad 14-8-73 }kjk iqu% fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu iznku dj fn;k vkSj iqu% ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] jksgrkl us vius i=kad 819 fnukad 1-3-74 }kjk buds fu;qfDr ds vuqeksnu dks jn~n dj fn;kA blds fo:) vkosnd us lfpo] ek/;fed f'k{kk i"kZn ds le{k vihy nk;j dh vkSj bl vihy esa ek/;fed f'k{kk i"kZn }kjk fu.kZ; Kkikad 37448&50] fnukad 23-12-74 }kjk fn;k x;kA bl vkns'k esa ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk fy;s x;s fu.kZ; tks kkikad 3122] fnukad 14-8-73 }kjk lalwfpr fd;k x;k Fkk] dks dk;kZfUor djkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lklkjke ds i=kad 3122] fnukad 14-8-73 esa ;g Li"V :i ls vafdr gS fd Jh ryqd jkt jk; dks fon~;ky; izcU/kdksa }kjk iqu%lsok esa ys fy;k tk;A bl vkns'k esa dgha Hkh bl vk'k; dk mYys[k ugha gS fd Jh ryqd jkt jk; dh iwoZ lsok dks cjdjkj j[kk tk; vFkok mldh fujUrjrk iznku dh tk;sxhA fcgkj ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ esa fd;s x;s vihy ds vk/kkj ij tks ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh dk vkns'k gS mlds vuqikyu esa budh fu;qfDr dh frfFk buds lsok iqLr esa 11-1-75 vafdr dh xbZ gS vkSj ml svc lsok fuo`fr ds mijkUr vkosnd la'kks/kr djkuk pkgrs gSa ftldk vkSfpR; ugha gSA pwWfd bUgs iqu% lsok esa fy;k x;k gS] vr% budh fu;qfDr frfFk 11-1-75 ds LFkku ij dksbZ vU; 3 frfFk ekuus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA rnuqlkj vkosnd dk nkok vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA g0@& ¼jkeuUnu izlkn½ funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½ fcgkjA** it is clear that the petitioner’s initial appointment on 4.8.1967 did not stand scrutiny of the authorities, Secondary Education Board and as such, it was cancelled on 1.3.1974. The petitioner’s appeal, however, was allowed and he was directed to be reappointed in service in terms of the order of the District Education Officer dated 14.8.1973. On the basis of such order of the Secondary Education Board, the petitioner was given his reappointment with effect from 11.1.1975 and the same was duly entered into service book also bearing the signature of the petitioner. The petitioner happily continued in service and retired on the basis of such entry and only thereafter raised the dispute that the earlier service for the period 4.8.1967 to 10.1.1975 should also be counted towards the qualifying service for the purposes of payment of retirement benefit etc. Such belated claim of the petitioner was rejected by the aforesaid impugned order. This Court, infact, does not find 4 any infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner having accepted the terms of reappointment in 1975 after his retirement on 28.2.1997 could not have claimed benefit of reinstatement in service. The two expressions reinstatement and reappointment have got different meaning and consequences altogether in service jurisprudence and they cannot be mutually interchangeable to bestow benefit of continuation of service for its being counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension in Government service. As a matter of fact, the S.D.E.O. of Educational Department had never been vested power to give approval of appointment and service of a teacher in a private school and it is only in the case of recognized non-government school that a teacher’s service could be approved by the District Education Officer for the purpose of grant-in-aid. The petitioner, however, has conveniently not produced any authentic documents including the orders of S.D.E.O. dated 17.12.1969 and that of D.E.O. dated 14.8.1973 and 1.3.1974 and thus his statement claiming reinstatement in service by virtue 5 of order of Director, Secondary Education dated 23.12.1974 cannot be accepted specially when a finding of fact has been recorded that the D.E.O. in his order dated 14.8.1973 had directed for reappointment of the petitioner. Moreover, the continued silence of the petitioner from 1975 to 1997 by itself would be fatal for the petitioner specially when he had accepted such reappointment without any demur or protest by also putting his signature on the service book recording 11.1.1975 to be his date of appointment. That being so, this Court must hold that there is no merit in this application and the same must be and is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)