IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.3804 OF 2007 1.MARY MURMU, D/O LATE JATLA MURMUR, R/O GIDNI PAHARI, P.S. DUMKA, DISTRICT DUMKA, JHARKHAND AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE RAJA POKHAR, P.S BOUNSI, DISTRICT BANKA. 2.NIRMALA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, HARIMORA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, NIRMALA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, R/O ST. MICHAEL’S CONVENT, GOKHLA, MIRZACHOUKI, P.S DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. …………………PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BANKA DISTRICT, BANKA. 5.BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, THROUGH THE SECRETARY BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.O. PATNA. 6.SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.O., PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. K.M. Joseph, Advocate For the State : Standing Counsel No.-XII For the Bihar Staff : Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Advocate Selection Commission P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORDER (23/08/2011) Mihir Kr. Jha, J. Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the challenge of the petitioners to the impugned order passed by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter 2 referred to as the Commission) rejecting the proposal of appointment of the petitioner no. 1 in Nirmala Girls High School, Harimora (hereinafter referred to as the School), is based on the interpretation of Section 18(3) (Kha) and (Ga)Bihar Arajakiya Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Prabandh or Niyantran Grahan), Adhiniyam, 1981, this Court has given liberty to both the respondent State as also the respondent Commission to spell out as to whether in recognized Minority Institution there would be requirement of also publishing the vacancy of the post of teaching and non- teaching staff in the newspaper and whether non-publication of vacancies in the newspaper by the Managing Committee and the consequential appointment made on the post of teaching and non-teaching employee of such Minority Institution will alone invalidate the appointment at least for the purposes of getting financial aid by way of salary from the funds of the State Government. The facts which are not in dispute and would be sufficient to 3 dispose of this writ application that the petitioner no. 1 being a trained graduate had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the School w.e.f. 01.03.1983 and it is claimed by the petitioner no. 2, the school that it had advertised the post by publishing it on the notice board of the school, local post office as also in the Office of the District Education Officer. Such appointment of the petitioner no. 1 made on 01.03.1983 is still continuing and in fact the petitioner has also received the payment of salary up till 1999, but then her salary was consequently stopped in view of the restrictions imposed in the circular of the Special Director of Secondary Education contained in its letter no. 992 dated 13.11.1998, on the ground that the services of the teacher of the Minority School have to be approved by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board in terms of Section 18 of 1981 Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is the further case of the petitioner that though the District Education Officer had sent all the 4 relevant papers with his recommendation in favour of the petitioner no. 1, for being granted approval by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board but the Vidyalaya Sewa Board till its existence i.e. April 2004 did not chose to finally decide the matter and kept of only making query one after other, and it was only when the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) became functional and was vested with the power and function of the Vidyalaya Sewa Board for granting approval of the services of the teacher of the Minority School, the impugned decision was taken on 18.01.2007 rejecting the proposal of approval of the services of the petitioner only on the ground that when her appointment was made in the year 1983 the post in question was not advertised in the newspaper. Mr. K. M Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that first of all, it is absolutely incorrect way of deciding the case of the petitioner no. 1., inasmuch as, in view of the fact that such an appointment was 5 made on 15.02.1983, when there was no such restriction laid down in any rule that for an appointment of a teacher in a Minority Institution, the posts were to be filled up by issuing an advertisement in newspaper. He has further submitted that the Sewa Shart Niyamawali dated 06.06.1983 for the nationalized taken over secondary Schools can also not be made ipso facto applicable to the Minority Schools, inasmuch as, Section-18 only lays down the restriction on the Managing Committee to make appointment on the post of teachers as per the prescribed qualification laid down for the post of teachers of the nationalized taken over secondary Schools. He has further submitted that in any event after the petitioner no. 1, has continued to serve the Minority School for a period of over 28 years as of now, and thus it will be wholly unreasonable to reject her claim for payment of salary by refusing to approve her services solely on the ground that the post in question had been not advertised in the newspaper. 6 Though the Commission has filed its counter affidavit but the respondents 1 to 3 have not chosen to file any affidavit despite pendency of this writ application for a period of nearly four and a half years and also a specific indulgence given in the order dated 16.08.2011. Mr. S.S Sundaram, learned counsel for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission has submitted that the Minority Institution receiving aid and grant for payment of salary of the teaching and non teaching employees will have to also follow the regulatory norms fixed by the State Government, inasmuch as, it is the part of condition of such grant of status to the Minority Institution and, if, therefore Section-18 of the Act had talked of not only possessing the requisite qualification as laid down for the nationalized taken over secondary Schools but also observance of the procedure for appointment of teachers in such nationalized taken over secondary Schools, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that there was no requirement of 7 publication of the vacancy in the newspaper. Explaining this aspect, he would further submit that even if the Managing Committee could have advertised the post of teacher for such appointment, all eligible persons including those amongst from minority community could have availed an opportunity of competing with the petitioner no. 1 which was possible only when the petitioner no. 2, the school had got an advertisement published in newspaper. Learned counsel for the State in absence of any counter affidavit has safely adopted the submission made by learned counsel for the Commission and he too has placed strong reliance on the provision of Section-18 of the Act and the requirement of publication of vacancy in the newspaper for observance of the sanguine object of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. The first and foremost issue, therefore, would be as to what is the requirement laid down under Section-18 of the Act and whether the prescribed 8 procedure of appointment on the post of teacher in a nationalized taken over secondary School has to be also followed by the Minority Institution in order to get approval of service in terms of Section-18 of the Act? Section-18, under Chapter V of the Act deals with the Minority Institutions and while sub- section-1 thereof validates the earlier Minority Institutions, sub-section-2 gives power to the State Government to recognize Minority Institutions in future. Section-18(3) though being relevant for the purposes of this application, this court would find it necessary to extract the whole of Section 18 of the Act which reads as follows:- ^^18- vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa dh ekU;rk&¼1½ fcgkj ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼fcgkj vf/kfu;e 25] 1976½ ,oa fcgkj ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ ¼f}rh; la'kks/ku½ v/;kns'k] 1980 ¼fcgkj v/;kns'k 82] 1980½ ds micU/kksa ds v/khu ?kksf"kr vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky; bl vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ekU;rkizkIr vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky; ekus tk;saxsA ¼2½ jkT; ljdkj vf/klwpuk }kjk ,sls ek/;fed fo|ky;] ftldh LFkkiuk /keZ vFkok Hkk"kk ij vk/kkfjr vYila[;d oxZ }kjk vius oxZ dh 'kS{kf.kd vko';drkvksa dh iwfrZ ,oa laLd`fr dh j{kk ds fy, dh xbZ gks vksj tks ekU;rk dh fofgr 'krsZa iwjh djrk gks] dks vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds :Ik esa ekU;rk ns ldsxhA ¼3½ mi;qZDr mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ,oa ¼2½ ds v/khu ekU;rkizkIr vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky; fuEukafdr micU/kksa ds v/khu lapkfyr ,oa fu;fU=r gksaxs& ¼d½ izR;sd vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky; ds fy, ,d izcU/k lfefr gksxh] tks lkslk;Vht jftLVzs'ku 9 ,sDV] 1860 ds v/khu ,d fucfU/kr laLFkk gksxh rFkk ftlds xBu ,oa lapkyu dk ,d fyf[kr fo/kku gksxkA ¼[k½ vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky; dh izcU/k lfefr fo|ky; ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r la[;k ds Hkhrj jkT; ljdkj }kjk jktdh;d`r ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa ds fy, fofgr vgZrk ds f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr bl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu xfBr fo|ky; lsok cksMZ ds vuqeksnu ls dj ldsxh% ijUrq bl mi&/kkjk ds v/khu fdlh f'k[kd dks fu;qfDr esa lgefr nsrs le; cksMZ dsoy bl ckr dh tkap djsxh fd izLrkfor fu;qfDr jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ,oa bl iz;kstukFkZ cuk;h x;h fu;ekoyh esa fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds vuq:Ik gS ;k ugha vkSj fdlh vU; ckr esa iM+us vFkok izLrko ds vkSfpR; ij mudks fopkj djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxkA ¼x½ vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa ,oa f'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh uSlfxZd U;k; ,oa izpfyr dkuwu ij vk/kkfjr ,d lsok 'krZ fu;ekoyh gksxh ftlesa vU; ckrksa ds vykok O;fFkr f'k{kd vFkok f'k{kdsRRj deZpkjh }kjk izcU/k lfefr ds fu.kZ; ds fo:n~/k vihu djus rFkk mlds ekeys ij iqufoZyksdu djus dk izko/kku gh jgsxk ftldh izfr jkT; ljdkj dks Hksth tk;sxhA ¼?k½ fo|ky; lsok cksMZ ds vuqeksnu ls izcU/k lfefr fo|ky; ds f'k{kdksa dks gVk ldsxh] midh lsok lekIr dj ldsxh] mUgsa c[kkZLr dj ldsxh vFkok mUgsa inP;wr dj ldsxh ijUrq izcU/k lfefr }kjk fdlh f'k{kd ds fo:n~/k dh x;h vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ dk vuqeksnu djrs le; cksMZ dsoy bl ckr dh tkap dj ldsxk fd naM dh ek=k fu/kkZfjr djus ds iwoZ mDr iz;kstukFkZ cukbZ x;h fu;ekoyh vkSj izfdz;k dk lE;d~ :Ik ls ikyu gqvk gS ;k ugha] vksj cksMZ ;FkkfLFkfr bl lEcU/k esa fdlh vU; ckr esa ugha iM+sxkA ¼M-½ 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls v{ke O;fDr dh fu;qfDr f'k{kd ;k f'k{kdsRrj deZpkjh ds :i esa ugha dh tk;sxhA ¼p½ 58 o"kZ ls vf/kd vk;q okys fdlh f'k{kd ;k f'k{kdsRrj deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr djus vFkok mls fo|ky; dh lsok esa cuk;s j[kus dh fLFkfr esa ,sls f'k{kd ;k f'k{kdsRrj deZpkjh ds osru vkfn ds Hkqxrku ds fy, dksbZ vuqnku ns; ughas gksxkA ¼N½ vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa }kjk Nk=ksa ls os gh 'kqYd fy, tk;saxs tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk fofgr gSA fofgr 'kqYd ls vf/kd jkf'k ysus ds fy, jkT; ljdkj dk iwokZuqeksnu vko';d gksxkA ¼t½ fo|ky; f'k{kk foHkkx ds izkf/kd`r fujh{kh inkf/kdkfj;ksa] vlSfud inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds izkf/kd`r inkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fujh{k.k ds 10 fy, fdlh Hkh dk;Z ds fnu [kqyk jgsxkA ¼>½ Nk=ksa dk ukekadu ,oa LFkkukUrj.k] vuq'kklu ,oa naM] vfHkys[kksa ,oa ys[kkikyu] 'kS{kf.kd ,oa lg&'kS{kf.kd dk;ksZa] LokLF; ,oa lQkbZ vkfn ds lEcU/k esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk cuk, x, fu;eksa vFkok fn;s x;s vkns'kksa dk ikyu djuk mudk dRrZO; gksxkA ¼¥½ vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds lqlapkyu ,oa f'k{kk ds LrjksUu;u ds fy, jkT; ljdkj ,slk dksbZ funs'k ns ldsxh tks lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 29 ,oa 30 ds micU/kksa ds izfrdqy u gks vkSj ,sls funs'kksa dk vuqikyu djuk ekU;rk izkIr vYil[;d fo|ky;ksa dk nkf;Ro gksxkA ¼V½ vf/kfu;e ds bl /kkjk ds micU/kksa vkSj blds v/khu cuk;s x;s fu;eksa rFkk fuxZr funs'kksa ds mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa fo|ky; dh ekU;rk okil ysus vFkok fo|ky; dks feyus okys vuqnku dks jksd j[kus vFkok lekIr djus ls O;fFkr izcU/k lfefr vkns'k dh rkjh[k ls 60 fnuksa ds Hkhrj jkT; ljdkj }kjk izkf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh ds le{k lquokbZ ds fy, vkosnu ns ldsxh vksj izkf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh ekeys dh lquokbZ dj viuk fu.kZ; nsxk vkSj og fu.kZ; cU/kudkjh gksxkA** From bare reading of Section- 18(3)(kha), it would be clear that every Minority Institution will have the power to make appointment on the post of teacher subject to the approval of Vidyalaya Sewa Board. There are only two restrictions, therein, namely the appointment of such teachers must be made within the prescribed number of sanctioned posts and that the persons who are appointed, must possess the prescribed requisite qualification for the post of teacher in the nationalized taken over secondary School. The proviso 11 to Section-18 (3)(kha)as underlined for emphasis in fact by using expression:- ^^¼[k½ vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky; dh izcU/k lfefr fo|ky; ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r la[;k ds Hkhrj jkT; ljdkj }kjk jktdh;d`r ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa ds fy, fofgr vgZrk ds f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr bl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu xfBr fo|ky; lsok cksMZ ds vuqeksnu ls dj ldsxh% ijUrq bl mi&/kkjk ds v/khu fdlh f'k{kd dks fu;qfDr esa lgefr nsrs le; cksMZ dsoy bl ckr dh tkap djsxh fd izLrkfor fu;qfDr jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ,oa bl iz;kstukFkZ cuk;h x;h fu;ekoyh esa fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds vuq:i gS ;k ugha vkSj fdlh vU; ckr esa iM+us vFkok izLrko ds vkSfpR; ij mudks fopkj djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxkA** will leave nothing for speculation that the Board or the Commission in giving such approval of the appointment made by the Managing Committee of the Minority School, has a very restricted role, inasmuch as, it can only look into the qualification of the concerned teachers and whether such appointment was made as per the procedure prescribed for this purpose. It is not in doubt that service conditions for the employees of minority institutions which would also include mode and manner of appointment on the post of teacher have to be framed by the Minority Institution itself as would be apparent from the reading of Section- 18(3)(ga) which lays down as follows:- ^^¼x½ vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa ,oa f'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh uSlfxZd U;k; ,oa izpfyr dkuwu ij vk/kkfjr ,d lsok 'krZ fu;ekoyh gksxh ftlesa vU; ckrksa ds 12 vykok O;fFkr f'k{kd vFkok f'k{kdsRrj deZpkjh }kjk izcU/k lfefr ds fu.kZ; ds fo:n~/k vihy djus rFkk mlds ekeys ij iqufoZyksdu djus dk izko/kku gh jgsxk ftldh izfr jkT; ljdkj dks Hksth tk;sxhA** It is thus clear that the reference made to the Rules for appointment of teachers in minority schools in sub-section (3)(kha) of Section-18 as with regard to the prescribed procedure is to no other Rules, but to the Rules framed by the Managing Committee under Section 18(3) (ga) of the Act. This also becomes clear from Section 18(3) (jha) wherein such minority Institution, the Government Rule or circular or order has to be followed only for the purposes of taking admission of the students or their transfer or any allied matter has specifically been mentioned therein reading as follows:- ^^¼>½ Nk=ksa dk ukekadu ,oa LFkkukUrj.k] vuq'kklu ,oa naM vfHkys[kksa ,oa ys[kkikyu] 'kS{kf.kd ,oa lg&'kS{kf.kd dk;ksZa] LokLF; ,oa lQkbZ vkfn ds lEcU/k esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk cuk, x, fu;eksa vFkok fn;s x;s vkns'kksa dk ikyu djuk mudk dRrZO; gksxkA** Thus on a reading of the complete provisions of Section-18, it becomes manifest that there is no restriction on the Managing Committee of such minority Institution to abide by the rules framed 13 by the State Government for appointment of teachers in government high schools including taken over high school or to advertise the post of teacher in the newspaper unless the Managing Committee itself has framed the service conditions by making a provision for appointment of teachers only after advertising such vacancy for the post of teacher in the newspaper. It however must be clarified that when such minority institutions have been given power and authority to make their own rules by way of laying down service conditions for its teaching and non-teaching employees, the same has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice and rules in force for appointment of teachers in government schools. In absence of such service conditions framed by the minority institutions the State Government can also take a decision to denude or deprieve or discontinue the status of minority school but in no view of the matter the government rules or service condition for the teachers of government school can be made ipso facto 14 applicable to the teachers of minority schools. Thus the submission of Mr. S.S Sundaram that the service conditions mentioned in Section 18 (2)(kha) and (ga) of the Act will mean that the service conditions framed for the teachers of the government and/or nationalized taken over government secondary Schools and that has to be strictly followed by Minority school can also not be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, that would be in contravention of the rights guaranteed in the Minority Institution under Article 30 of the constitution, where it has been categorically provided that all the Minority Institutions shall have the right to establish and administer educational Institution of their choice. The expression "establish and administer" has also no longer remain res integra and in the case of T.M.A Pai Foundation vs The State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2003 SC 355, it has been held by the Apex Court that the State can have a regulatory control 15 only for the purposes of observance of constitutional safeguard, but it cannot in the name of administering the affairs of the Minority Institution encroach upon their rights guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitutino of India. Based on that analogy this Court would find it difficult to hold that the Rules prescribed by the State Government for appointment on the post of teachers in the nationalized taken over secondary Schools was to be followed for appointment of teachers in the Minority Institutions/schools. Secondly the clear provisions of Section 18(3) (kha) read with Section 18(3)(ga) also do not contemplate observance of service conditions of the teachers of government schools for the teachers of minority school. Finally the autonomy vested in such minority school in making such appointment and the restricted power of enquiry to the Board (now Commission) under Section 18(3) (kha) cannot be expanded in an indirect manner which would nullify the sanguine object under Section 18(3) (ga) vesting full 16 power to the minority institutions to frame its own service conditions for its teaching and non-teaching employee on the basis of principles of natural justice and prevalent law. Even if, for the sake of argument, such submission of Mr. Sundaram is accepted, the specific and peculiar facts of the case of the petitioner no. 1 would itself go to show that the Government Rules by way of "Sewa Sart Niyamawali" framed in exercise of Section-9 and 15 of the Act for the teaching and non teaching employees of the nationalized taken over government secondary Schools were framed only on 09.06.1983, whereas the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 had already been made on 15.02.1983. There being no other statutory provision as on 15.02.1983 for advertising the post of teachers even in respect of the nationalized taken over government secondary Schools, the appointment of petitioner no. 1 could not have been held to be bad after 24 years of her service by the Commission as has been 17 done under the impugned order on the ground that the post of teacher was not advertised by the minority school in the newspaper while appointing the petitonir no. 1 in the school, petitioner no. 2. There being at least nothing on record to show that publication of advertisement in newspaper was compulsory for appointment of the teachers of the taken over national schools as on 15.02.1983, the petitioner no. 1 even otherwise could not have been subjected to rejection of approval of her appointment under the impugned order which virtually takes away the very essence of her continuation in service by way of eclipsing her right of receiving the payment of salary from the funds of the State Government. This Court in that context has looked into the pleadings on record and from them also it is more than clear that not only the Managing Committee of the School had brought to the notice of the Commission, the copy of the advertisement which was pasted on the notice board in the School as also in 18 the local post-office and in the Office of the District Education Officer and to that extent the letter of the District Education Officer, Banka in his letter dated 19.05.2004 as contained in Annexure-15 had also clearly recorded that:- ^^budh fu;qfDr dk foKkiu fofHkUu mPp fo|ky;ksa] lkoZtfud LFkkuksa ,oa ifCyd dk;kZy;ksa ds lwpuk ij izdkf”kr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlds vkyksd esa izkIr vkosnu i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij lk{kkRdkj ysdj fo|ky; izca/k lfefr }kjk fu;qfDr dh dkjZokbZ lEiUu dh xbZA tSlk fd iz/kkuk/;kfidk fueZyk ck0 mPp fo|ky;] gfjeksgjk us vius i=kad 15@04 fn0 06-5-04 ds }kjk tkudkjh miyC/k djkbZ gSA** This part of the statement made by the petitioner in the writ application and supported by document in form of Annexure-15 has not been controverted by the respondents by filing supplementary counter affidavit and in fact the District Education Officer, Banka in his earlier counter affidavit has also not denied such recommendation to have been made by him for approving the services of the petitioner no. 1. Thus it would be clear that while the post of teacher may not have been advertised by the school petitioner no. 2 in the month of January/February 1983 in the newspaper, steps were definitely 19 taken by the Managing Committee of the school by giving it wide circulation by issuing the advertisement not only on the notice board of the School but also pasting it in other public offices and places. As noted above by that time, the Government Rules by way of Sewa Shart Niyamawali 1983 had also not come into force and therefore, the petitioner no. 1, who had the benefit of continuing in service with full payment of salary in next 16 years (from 1983 to 1999) could not have been denied the benefit of approval of her service by the Commission only on the ground of lack of advertisement published in the newspaper for her appointment in Minority School. It has to be kept in mind that there is no dispute that the petitioner no. 1 has been possessing the requisite qualification laid down for the post of teacher and that her appointment has been made within the prescribed number of sanctioned posts for the school petitioner no. 2. Considering all these aspects and particularly the fact that the 20 petitioner no. 1 has been continuing in service in the school for more than 28 years, this Court would allow this writ application by quashing the impugned order contained in Annexure-17, so far it relates to petitioner no. 1. The matter is now remitted back to the Bihar Staff Selection Commission to issue the formal order of approval of the service of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The payment of salary of the petitioner no. 1 withheld from 1999 onwards will also be made by the District Education Officer, Banka directly in the bank account of the petitioner no. 1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission. Before parting with this court must clarify that it will be open for the State Government to ensure strict compliance of Section 18(3)(ga) by each and every minority institution including the school petitioner no. 2 and if such 21 service conditions is not framed by any minority institution including petitioner no. 2 receiving aid and grant for payment of salary of its teaching and non teaching employees within a fixed time frame it would be also open for the