IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1989 of 2010 1.State Of Bihar . 2..Sewcretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3.The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Intermediate Council Building, Budh Marg, Patna. 4.Regional Dy. Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger. 5.District Education Officer, Sheikhpura. 6.In-charge Headmaster, High School, Barbigha P.S. Barbigha District Sheikhpura .. Appellants. Versus 1. Mostt. Shyam Pyari Devi widow of Late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh. 2.Jaya Devi daughter (married) of late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh 3.Ruma Devi daughter (married) of late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh. 4.Sunita Devi daughter (married) of late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh 5. Prabha Shankar son of late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh 6.Binod Kumar son of late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh 7. Ravi Kumar Ranjan son of late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh 8.Manjula Devi daughter of late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh All c/o Mostt. Shya Pyari Devi, village Tara, P.S.Sarmera, District Nalanda at present Hatiya More, Barbigha, P.S.Barbigha District Sheikhpura. 9.Accountant General,Bihar. 10. Sr. Accounts Office r, Office of A.G., Bihar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 5. 09.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Accountant General and the learned counsel for the private respondents. Considering the explanation for delay, furnished in I.A.No. 10365 of 2010, the delay of 214 days in preferring this appeal is condoned. The I.A. is, accordingly, 2 allowed. On merits, the learned counsel for the appellants very fairly submitted that the view taken by the writ court is in accordance with the views taken by several Division Bench judgments of this Court. However, he tried to rely upon Rule 21 of the Rules of 1983 to submit that the writ court should not have placed any reliance upon the earlier circulars of 1975 and 1977 because Rule-21 makes a categorical provision for supersation of all the earlier Rules and Orders framed by the State Government from the date of coming into force of 1983 Rules covering the nationalized High Schools in respect of service condition. The submission does not have merits because Rule 21 supersedes only the Rules or Circulars on the subject covered by those Rules. The issue decided by 1975 and 1977 circulars relates to recognition of service of teachers and employees of the High Schools before they had been taken over. For that purpose the date of grant of permission for establishment and date of recognition have been indicated which is relevant in the said circulars. This issue is not covered by the 1983 Rules and hence, it cannot be said that the circulars could not have been referred to and relied 3 upon. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance upon Section 9 of the 1981 Act providing for taking over of Management and Control of certain categories of Secondary Schools. That Section reserves a power in the State Government to determine the service condition of Head Master, teachers and non-teaching staff of taken over Secondary Schools. Such power has no relevance so far as the issue of length of service of teachers and the employees is concerned. In our considered view, there is no reason to take a different view in the matter when the issue involved stands decided by the earlier Division Bench judgments. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)