IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11870 OF 2007 SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH @ SURENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KARIYANA, P.S. SILAO AND DISTRICT- NALANDA. ………………..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RECOURSES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NAWADA. ……………RESPONDENTS. WITH CWJC NO.11913 OF 2007 RAM SARAN PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE DASO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-ORAINA, P.S. MUFASSIL (AKUNA), DISTRICT-NAWADA. …….PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RECOURSES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NAWADA. ………RESPONDENTS. WITH CWJC NO.12556 OF 2007 MANOJ KUMAR SON OF LATE RAM KHELAWAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-ORAINA, P.S. NAWADA MUFASSIL AND DISTRICT-NAWADA. ………….PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RECOURSES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NAWADA. ………..RESPONDENTS. WITH CWJC NO.12606 OF 2007 BABY KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SRI MANOJ KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-ORAINA, P.S. MUFASSIL (AKUNA), DISTRICT-NAWADA. ……………PETITIONER. 2 VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RECOURSES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NAWADA. ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH CWJC NO.12642 OF 2007 VIJAY SINGH SON OF SRI BHAIRO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GAJRA, P.S. HASUA AND DISTRICT-NAWADA ……..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RECOURSES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NAWADA. …………….RESPONDENTS. WITH CWJC NO.11841 OF 2007 1. RAMASHRAY SINGH SON OF LATE SRI RAMADHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GAFURI CHAK, P.S.-BEDAALI, DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. PURUSHATAM SINGH, SON OF LATE NARESH CHANDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RATAN TOLA, P.O.+P.S. MANER, DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. RAGHWENDRA KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAMESH CHANDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RATAN TOLA, P.O. +P.S.-MANER, DISTRICT-PATNA. 4. KRISHNA SINGH, SON OF SRI RAMASHRAY SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GAFURICHAK, P.S.-BHAWAN GANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA. 5. VINAY PRASAD, SON OF SRI RAMESHWAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAGWAN, P.S.-PALI, DISTRICT-PATNA. 6. SUBODH KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAM ISHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SARFUDINPUR, P.S. DULHIN BAZAR, DISTRICT-PATNA. 7. VARUN KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAMPRIT PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SUKHATHAYAN, P.S.- MASAURHI, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………..PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 3 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RECOURSES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. WITH CWJC NO.11885 OF 2007 1. SHYAM NARAYAN SHARMA, SON OF LATE JUGESHWAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+P.O.-DHURICHAK, P.S.-BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE FAUJDAAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PANDEPUR, P.S. BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. NARENDRA SINGH, SON OF SHRI PARMANAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+P.O. PEINAL, P.S.BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 4. KAMLESH KUMAR, SON OF SHRI SATYA DEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+P.O.-GORKHANDI, P.S.- BIKRAM, DISTRICT-PATNA. 5. ARVIND KUMAR, SON OF SHRI KRISHNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PANDEPUR, P.S.-BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 6. SHYAM BIHARI SON OF LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+ P,.O.-MAHINAWAN, P.S.-MANER, DISTRICT-PATNA. 7. ANIL KUMAR, SON OF SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PANDEPUR, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 8. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI SHYAM NARAYAN SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHURICHAK, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 9. BRIJ KISHOR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SADAWAH, P.S.-DULHIN BAZAR, DISTRICT-PATNA. 10. MRITUNJAY KUMAR, SON OF SHRI SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHURICHAK, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 11. INDRADEO THAKUR, SON OF LATE RAMU THAKUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SADISOPUR, P.S.-BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………….PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RECOURSES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. WITH CWJC NO.11942 OF 2007 1. SUBHASH CHANDRA BASU SON OF SHRI BANSHAGHARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAHUARI, P.O.+P.S.+DISTRICT-ARWAL. 2. KAMLESH KUMAR, SON OF SHRI BAIJ NATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAHBALIPUR, P.O.-DEHULI, P.S.VIKRAM, DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. SARITA SINHA, WIFE OF SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JINPURA, P.O.-BHADASI, P.S.+ DISTRICT- ARWAL. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RECOURSES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. WITH CWJC NO.12007 OF 2007 1. VYAS DEO OJHA , SON OF LATE VIRJU OJHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DUJARA, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, PATNA, G.P.O. DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. SANJU KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SHRI PANCH DEO SINHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MANER DEVI STHAN, P.S. MANER, DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. LAW KISHORE SINGH, SON OF SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RATAN TOLA, P.O.+P.S.-MANER, DISTRICT-PATNA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RECOURSES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. ……..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 09.11.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In all these writ applications not only 5 the period regarding the payment of salary of the petitioners are same but in fact all of them also belong to the same School which in their opinion is Government School already taken over in terms of Section-3(4) of Elementary Schools Take Over Act 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Counsel for the petitioners, however, fairly submits that there is no specific order by which the School in question of the petitioners was taken over by the State Government and by way of inference either based on a cabinet decision or some other intra departmental communication that the petitioners can claim to be teachers of the taken over Government Schools. On the other hand, counsel for the State by referring to the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C No. 11870 of 2007 as also in C.W.J.C No. 12642 of 2007 have asserted that the school in question namely, Madhya Vidyalaya, Oraina in the district of Nawada was never taken over by the State Government in terms of Section-3(4). This Court while examining the similar claim of teachers of other primary Schools in a batch of writ petitions being C.W.J.C No. 11841 6 of 2007, C.W.J.C No. 11885 of 2007, C.W.J.C No.11942 of 2007 and C.W.J.C No.12007 of 2007 by an order dated 03.11.2011 had dismissed them by recording as follows:- The petitioners in these writ applications have claimed payment of arrears of salary both arrear and current on a premise that they were the teachers of recognized elementary school, which had been taken over by the State Government in terms of Section 3(4) of the Bihar Non- Governmental Primary Schools taking over of Control Act, 1976. The fact, however, remains that there is no Government order specifically in the name of the schools of the petitioners as with regard to the concluded decision of taking-over of such schools nor the Government has issued any order approving the services of the petitioners in such taken-over schools. Mr. Mishra, however, relies on certain Cabinet decision but, would fairly submits that other writ applications for the same relief by other teachers of similarly situated schools and/or their units have failed both before the learned single Judge and the Division Bench in the resultant Letters Patent Appeal and the matter is now pending before the Apex Court. Once this aspect would becomes clear that the school of the petitioners was never taken over by the State Government, there cannot be any question of deemed take-over by an inference. The Cabinet decision even if it was in favour of the petitioner’s school had to be translated into a specific Government order but as that was never done, the petitioners cannot get any relief---------“. As the present cases also are of exactly 7 similar nature, there would be no difficulty in holding that the petitioners would also not be entitled for payment of their salary, inasmuch as, they are teachers of Primary Schools in which the Government has got no commitment for payment of their salary. Counsel for the State in fact seems to be correct in also pointing out that at least the petitioner of C.W.J.C No.11870 of 2007 is aware of this fact that he was not a teacher of the taken over School, inasmuch as, he himself had filed earlier writ application being C.W.J.C No. 2938 of 2004 seeking the following reliefs:- “A. For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to take over the School forthwith. B. For further directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner and other teaching and non teaching staffs of the school after nationalization of the School.” Admittedly, after the year 2004, no order has been issued by the State Government for taking over the School in question nor this Court had directed for taking over the School in question in the earlier writ application of the petitioner, Surendra Prasad, and as such it has to be held that the petitioners are also 8 aware of the fact that their School is a Private School and the claim of their payment of salary cannot be allowed unless the Government takes over the School in question by also conferring the benefit of their payment of salary. As a matter of fact when the whole issue has also been conclusively decided by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Chandradip Rai and others reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 2071 and has been also followed by full bench of this Court in the case of Sidheshwar Prasad and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1999(3) PLJR 490, there would be no option but to hold that the petitioners being teachers of private primary schools which were never taken over by the State Government would not be entitled for payment of their salary from the funds of State Government. That being so, all these writ applications are wholly misconceived and are, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)