IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10954 of 2008 SHASHI KUMAR SHARMA son of Shri Rama Kant Sharma, resident of village Pagahia Raiti, Police Station Kathaian, District Muzaffarpur … …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Three-Man Committee through its Chairman-cum- Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Bihar, Patna, 3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, 4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, 5. The Regional Deputy Diorector of Education, Tirnhut Division, Muzaffarpur, 6. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur, 7. The Principal, Nationalised High School, Hardi, Motipur, Muzaffarpur, … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. A.K. Keshri, AAG XI Mr.Ujjwal Kumar Singh,AC to AAG XI ----------- 3 01.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.04.2008, contained in memo no. 144(P) dated 27.05.2008 passed by the Three-Man Committee and communicated to the petitioner under the signature of the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Peon in the concerned school has been declared as illegal, therefore, his claim for cancellation of his termination order has been rejected. The petitioner claims that he was appointed on the 2 post of Orderly/peon (Class IV post) in the third phase of appoint in Project School on 17.04.1989 vide Annexure 4. However, it is common ground that the petitioner’s case would be covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1492 of 2009 and batch of cases. The direction contained in relevant paragraph nos. 29 and 30 thereof are quoted as under: “29. As with regard to appointment of non-teaching employees second phase and third phase of the project school we would adopt the same recourse which was followed by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh Vs. State & Ors. reported in 2000(1)PLJR 287, whereby and whereunder, number of writ petitions of the teaching staff of the similar project school were disposed of with a direction to the examine the claim of the petitioners for recognition/absorption of their services in the respective schools within a period of four months. 30. It is, however, made clear that each and every respondent writ petitioners and alike similarly situated persons appointed on Class-III & Class-IV posts in Project School of 2nd and 3rd phase would be reinstated within a period of four months from the date 3 of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if it is found :- (i) Such appointment of the respondent writ petitioners was against a vacant sanctioned post in a project school (ii) The respondent writ petitioners on the date of their appointment had possessed the requisite qualification for such Class-III & Class-IV post. (iii) Their order of appointment was made by either Regional Deputy Director of Education or the District Education Officer even without following the Circular of Personnel and Administrative Department in its two letters no. 16440 and 16441 dated 3.12.1980.” In above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of in the terms and directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases. Learned counsel for the State points out that a decision in view of the aforesaid order might have been taken by the authorities. However, if such decision has not been taken as per the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court with respect to the petitioner then the aforesaid exercise must be completed within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the competent 4 authority shall reinstate the petitioner if he fulfils all the conditions pointed out in the order of the Division Bench as quoted above.. It is also made clear that the petitioner though would be entitled for salary from the date of his reinstatement, he would not be entitled for payment of salary or any financial benefit for the period he has remained out of service save and except the continuity in service for the purpose of retrial benefits, as has been laid down by the Division Bench. It is further made clear that if the petitioner is found appointed against unsanctioned post and/or did not possess the requisite qualification and/or his appointment was neither made by the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education or by the District Education Officer, then he would not be entitled for reinstatement in service muchless for payment of any back wages. Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1492 of 2009 and other analogous cases. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)