IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3495 of 2009 1. NAGENDRA KUMAR, SON OF LATE BRAHMDEO SINGH 2. SAVITRI DEVI @ SAVITRI, WIFE OF LATE BITHAL SINGH BOTH ARE PEONS OF PROJECT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL RAJAULI, POLICE STATION – RAJAULI, DISTRICT – NAWADA. …. .. PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR TRHOUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, GAYA. 5. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 7. THE SECRETARY, ARTS, CULTURE AND YOUGH DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. THE RESONDENT NOS. 5 TO 7 ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE THREE MEN COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2006 PASSED IN L.P.A. NO. 1211 OF 2005 AND ITS ANALOGOUS CASES. …….. RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.3527 of 2009 SHAKUNTALA PRASAD, WIFE OF SRI BRIJNANDAN PRASAD SINHA, ASSISTANT TEACHER, PROJECT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, RAJAULI, POLICE STATION – RAJAULI, DISTRICT – NAWADA. ……. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, ARTS, CULTURE AND YOUTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), BUDH MARG, PATNA. - 2 - 6. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NAWADA. ….. RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.4954 of 2009 SMT.GAURI LAHARI, WIFE OF SHREE GAUTAM LAHARI, ASSISTANT TEACHER, PROJECT GIRSL HIGH SCHOOL, THAKURGANJ, POLICE STATION – THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT – KISHANGANJ. ….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR TRHOUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICER, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 5. THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY, ART, CULTURE AND YOUTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 7. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY-CUM- ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 8. SMT. SHANTI NAI, WIFE OF NAME NOT KNOWN, ASSISTANT TEACHER, PROJECT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, THAKURGANJ, POLICE STATION- THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT – KISHANGANJ. …….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 25.01.2010 Petitioners in all three writ applications have prayed for quashing of the order passed by Three Men Committee, in the light of order passed in L.P.A. No. 1308 of 2005. The order passed by three men committee dated 18.4.2008 has been communicated to the petitioners by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna vide different - 3 - memo numbers. In case of petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3495 of 2009 the order has been communicated through Memo Nos. 236P – 237P dated 27.5.2008, in case of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3527 of 2009 the order has been communicated through Memo No. 234P dated 27.5.2008 and in case of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4954 of 2009 the order has been communicated through Memo No. 228P dated 27.5.2008. By the impugned orders petitioners have been terminated from their service. Further prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the respondents to reinstate them on their respective posts. Petitioners Gauri Lahari and Shakuntala Prasad were working on the post of Assistant Teachers and petitioners Nagendra Kumar and Savitri Devi @ Savitri were working as non-teaching employees in their respective schools. Petitioners’ case is that they were appointed against the sanctioned posts in those schools, which were taken over as Project Schools in the first phase, in the financial year 1981 -1982. As per the State Government’s decision to establish Four High Schools, including one Girls High School in each Block, the scheme was notified vide - 4 - Government letter no. 1115 dated 27.5.1981. 150 Boys/Girls schools were either selected or established under the project scheme. The schools in question, where the petitioners were working, are also such schools, which were either selected or established, within those 150 Boys/Girls High Schools, adopted as Project schools in the first phase. Petitioners continued on their posts and received their salary. For the first time, they were terminated from their service vide order dated 18.10.2004. The termination order was issued alleging that appointments were made in irregular manner. The termination orders were challenged by filing several writ applications, which were heard analogous. The writ applications, which were allowed also included such Project Schools, either selected or established in the financial year 1984-85. The State Govt. preferred L.P.A. No. 1211 of 2005 and analogous appeals against the order passed in such cases, and also filed M.J.C. No. 2454 of 2005 for modification of order dated 6.7.2005, whereby writ applications had been allowed. Respondent State in its’ modification application contended that operation of order - 5 - dated 6.7.2005 should remain confined to teaching and non- teaching employees of such Schools, which were selected as project schools in the year, 1981-82 scheme only. In respect of teachers, non-teaching employees, who were appointed, selected in the project school of 1981-82, The stand of State Government became conclusive. The State accepted legality of their appointments. The State Government’s stand was made clear in a wireless message bearing Memo No. 208/C/EDN dated 14.4.1987 that all teachi8ng and non- teaching staff appointed by the Managing Committee/ District Education Officer in the Project Schools during the period 1981-1982 shall be entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale without any restriction. However, the modification order passed in M.J.C. No. 2454 of 2005, was not brought to the notice of Division Bench, and a general order was passed while disposing of all L.P.A., to constitute fresh committee for exercise of screening and preparation of list of persons entitled to continue in the Project Schools. This exercise should have been restricted to only such Project Schools, which were adopted under the scheme of 1984-85, but erroneously order was passed in respect of 1981-82 - 6 - Project Schools also. The impugned orders are off shoot of such erroneous exercise done by the committee. Counsel for the petitioners submits that three- member committee has conducted the screening in a most irregular manner. The Schools adopted under Project scheme in the year 1981-1982, legality of appointment of teaching and non-teaching employees of which already been accepted by the State Government and attained finality, were also reopened, and terminated as illegally appointed. There was no reason to question the same and to re-open the case of the petitioners. The petitioners’ cases were not similar to the cases of such teaching or non-teaching employees of the Project Schools, which were adopted under the scheme in the year, 1984-1985. It has been submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that similar matter has been decided by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13310 of 2008 and analogous cases. The termination order has been set aside on the ground that appointment of persons like petitioners have reached finality. Considering the submissions made by the parties as well as on perusal of the order passed by this Court in - 7 - C.W.J.C. No. 13310 of 2008 and analogous cases as well as finding that petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment, the termination order dated 27.5.2008 contained in Memo Nos. 236P, 237P, 228P and 234P are quashed. As a consequence, the petitioners will be deemed to have continued in their service and entitled for all consequential benefits, for the period they remained out of service on account of the impugned termination order. All three writ applications are, accordingly, allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)