IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9714 of 2008 1. KUMKUM KUMARI, W/O MANOJ KUMAR RAI, ASSISTANT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, BARMASHIA, BLOCK-AMARPUR, DISTRICT-BANKA. 2. MANITA KUMARI, W/O ANUPLAL YADAV, ASSISTANT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, SURAHAR, BLOCK-AMARPUR, DISTRICT-BANKA. 3. PREMLATA BHARTI, W/O AJIT DAS, ASSISTANT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, RAMNAGAR, BLOCK-AMARPUR, DISTRICT-BANKA. 4. GITA KUMARI, W/O NARESH MOHAN KAPARI, ASSISTANT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, VANBERSHA, BLOCK-AMARPUR, DISTRICT-BANKA. 5. VINA DEVI @ VINA KUMARI, W/O RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA, ASSISTANT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, BELA, BLOCK-AMARPUR, DISTRICT- BANKA. …………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT COMMITTEE, BELTRON BHAWAN, SHASTRINAGAR, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BANKA. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 27.09.2011 Petitioners have filed this writ application challenging an order of the District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Coordinator, Banka dated 18.12.2007, as contained in Annexure-1, by which the representations of the petitioners, filed pursuant to orders passed by this Court in MJC No. 1138 of 2006 dated 18.09.2007 (for release of their salary/stipend), has been rejected. Further prayer has been made not to disturb the petitioners from working in the 2 respective schools and to pay their stipend from 2001 till date. The impugned order of the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Banka shows that he has found that the petitioners are not working in the school since 2001 as regular teachers had been appointed on fixed stipend by way of only temporary arrangement till regular teachers are appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are still continuing in the school. In support of such claim he refers to some certificates of the Headmaster of the concerned schools and attendance registers. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the inquiry was held and it was found that the Headmasters were illegally continuing the petitioners in the school for which proceeding has been initiated against the Headmasters and they have been punished. He submits that, if the petitioners had continued in the school, even after appointment of regular teachers, that was only with connivance of the Headmasters 3 of the concerned school, for which the Headmasters alone are responsible. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioners have actually continued in the school they are at least entitled for their stipend on which they were appointed. Since there is no material on record to show that even after 2001 petitioners have continued in the school on valid orders of any competent authority, this Court does not consider it appropriate to issue any directions to any authority for release of due salary/stipend of the petitioners of any subsequent period. It is for the petitioners to establish the same before any authority of the Government, to his satisfaction, that they have validly and legally continued in the school. If they are able to establish the same, then the concerned authority shall be at liberty to pass any appropriate orders in accordance with law as he may deem proper. The writ application is disposed of. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)