IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7590 OF 2007 GAYATRI DEVI,D/O DUKHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE LAKHNOUR, P.S LAKHNOUR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT,PATNA. 2.THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT,PATNA. 3.THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MADHUBANI. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 05/ 22.09.2011 The petitioner in this writ application has assailed the order dated 14.01.2004 passed by the District Education Officer, Madhubani seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect on the ground that her name along with 19 other persons were not contained in the letter of the department bearing no. 76 dated 04.08.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner, in the project Girls High School, Lakhnour, Madhubani which was a project School of the second phase, by the Regional Deputy Director of Education is not in doubt. he has further submitted that 2 there is no controversy as with regard to the lack of sanctioned post and the petitioner infact also possesses the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of peon in the project Girls High School, Lakhnour, Madhubani. He would accordingly submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the directions contained in the order of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of The State of Bihar vs Dinesh Thakur, L.P.A. No. 1492/2009 and its analogous cases disposed of on 06.04.2010. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand with the help of the counter affidavit would submit that since, the petitioner was not appointed on the post of peon by following the prescribed procedure, her services in the project Girls High School, Lakhnour, Madhubani cannot be absorbed and that the impugned order passed by the District Education Officer, Madhubani is correct, wherein, not only the petitioner but 19 others have been removed. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the fact with regard to the 3 petitioner being part and parcel of the Project School in question is admitted, the respondents would be liable to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Thakur (supra), wherein, as with regard to the employees of the second and third phase, this Court had held as follows:- 29. As with regard to appointment of non-teaching employees second phase and third phase of the project school we would adopt the same recourse which was followed by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh Vs. State & Ors. reported in 2000(1)PLJR 287, whereby and whereunder, number of writ petitions of the teaching staff of the similar project school were disposed of with a direction to the examine the claim of the petitioners for recognition/absorption of their services in the respective schools within a period of four months. 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 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 4 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. In view of the fact that the counsel for the State has also taken a stand that the petitioner’s case also could not be considered because she had not appeared before the Director Secondary Education and that the stand of the petitioner is that her writ application had already been allowed earlier and when she was not allowed to join the post, this Court in order to shorten the dispute would direct the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the Director Secondary Education who thereafter would take appropriate decision in the light of 5 the aforesaid observations and directions given in the case of Dinesh Thakur(supra). Such exercise by Director of Secondary Education must be completed within a period of four months from the date of filing of the representation of the petitioner along with a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)