Kumud Kumari Srivastava v. State of Bihar — 1995 DIGILAW 261 (PAT)

Judgment Aftab Alam J. This batch is made up of a large number of cases relating to 'Project Schools'. The petitioners in most of the cases in this batch seek appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to recognise/regularise their services in the Government following the taken-over of the private schools where the petitioners had been working. In some of the cases the controversy has not reached the stage of recognition/regularisation of services of the individual teachers and the claim is for a hitherto private school to be taken over as a project school. The cases in this batch are based on similar facts and involve identical questions of law and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience this large group has been divided into subgroups and a number of cases have been dealt within smaller sub-groups. There are a few cases Which were heard along with the cases being disposed of by this judgment but it was found that they do not fall into any of the sub-groups taken up for consideration in this judgment and hence those cases are proposed to be re-listed for hearing and those would be disposed of separately. 2. 'Project Schools' are the name given to schools established by the Government under its scheme aimed at providing, in each block of the State, atleast four Secondary/High schools out of which one must be a girls school. These schools, as per the Government scheme, would be 'established', in most cases, by taking over a private school which had been 'granted permission for establishment' or was atleast a 'proposed school' in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act. 3. The idea appears to have been first mooted in circular no. 1115 dated 27-51981 issued by the Director (Secondary Education)-cum-Special Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar. This letter noted the fact that there were a number of blocks in the State where there were less than four high schools and in 435 blocks out of a total of 587 blocks in the State, there was not one recognised girls high school. The letter accordingly, declared the resolve of the Government to provide four high schools in each block, at least one of which would be a girls high school. The letter accordingly, declared the resolve of the Government to provide four high schools in each block, at least one of which would be a girls high school. The scheme was proposed to be accomplished during 1981-82 to 1984-85, the remaining four years of the 6th five year plan period. The letter gave the numbers of the schools to be established/taken over in each of these years from 1981-82 to 1984-85 and proposed to establish 650 schools during the period of four years. It was also stated in the letter that in 1981-82, the first year of the scheme, priority would be given to the regions of Santhal Parganas and Chotanagpur which were relatively more backward in the sphere of education. Hence, the letter asked the District Education Officers posted in the Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas regions to prepare a list of such blocks where there were two or less schools. It was also stipulated in the letter that for being taken over as a project school preference would be given to such schools which had been given 'permission for establishment' or were at least 'proposed schools' (within the meaning of the provisions of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act) and in case there were no such schools in existence from before, care should be taken that some schools were brought to a standard where they would fulfil the conditions for the grant of permission for establishment/proposed schools. The stipulation appears to be based on pragmatic considerations and the idea was that the Government may takeover such schools which had atleast their own land, building etc. and the limited resources of the Government may not be unduly stretched in providing amenities like land, building etc. for the schools. One is bound to appreciate the positive pragmatism on which the scheme was based. It is another matter that in course of implementation the scheme seems to have suffered a few distortions here and there. 4. It may be noted at the out-set that the project schools were not established and/or regulated under any Act or Rules of a statutory nature. The scheme itself was mooted in a circular letter issued by the Education Department of the Government and thereafter the scheme's implementation was sought to be controlled and regulated by issuing different circular letters from time to time. The scheme itself was mooted in a circular letter issued by the Education Department of the Government and thereafter the scheme's implementation was sought to be controlled and regulated by issuing different circular letters from time to time. The result is that no systematic scheme relating to the project schools is to be found at one place and one is obliged to wade through a number of circulars to gather the true intent of the Government and to find out the regulatory provisions regarding different aspects of the scheme. The various circulars have failed to maintain a high degree of consistency and it is possible, without much difficulty, to point out provisions in the different circulars which are not wholly consistent with each other. Encouraged by this nebulous state a large number of cases have come to this 'Court which tend to jeopardise the scheme itself and threat to convert an educational programme into a project not for providing education but employment. 5. The firm and clear stand of the Government in this batch of cases is that the project schools were established/taken over in three completely distinct and separable phases; In 1981-82 some school were taken over as project schools; these are commonly referred to as the 'first phase project schools'; In the second phase more project schools were taken over in 1984-85 and in the third phase still more schools were taken over as project schools in 1988-89 in this batch, cases relate to the project schools taken over in the second phase in the year 1984-85. It is further the firm stand of the Government that the provisions concerning the project schools, particularly those relating to the recognition/regularisation of services of the teachers of the schools taken over as project schools and the payment of their salary etc. are governed by different sets of circulars and the provisions contained in the circulars relating to the project schools of the first phase have no application to the project schools of the second phase and neither set of circulars has any application in the case of the project schools of the third phase. 6. are governed by different sets of circulars and the provisions contained in the circulars relating to the project schools of the first phase have no application to the project schools of the second phase and neither set of circulars has any application in the case of the project schools of the third phase. 6. According to the Government the cases in this batch relate to the project schools of the second phase and, therefore, the question of recognition/regularisation of services of the petitioners in all these cases shall be governed by the provisions contained in circulars relating to the project schools of the second phase and the circulars of the first phase shall have no relevance for those cases. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand contended that it was false and incorrect to suggest that the project schools were established/taken over in a phased manner. It was submitted that the establishment/taking over of the schools as project schools has been a continuous process and the taking over of all the schools as project schools constitutes a single transaction. It was accordingly submitted that the same provisions which governed the recognition/regularisation of services of the teachers and the payment of their salaries in respect of the project schools of the so called first phase must also apply to the petitioners in the cases in hand. In the alternative, it was submitted that even assuming that the project schools were taken over in a phased manner, it would not be permissible for the Government to apply two sets of provisions for the recognition/regularisation of services and payment of salaries to the teachers of the schools taken over in the first and the second phases. According to the learned counsel such an action on the part of the Government would be unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, would be violative of the constitutional guarantees as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State took us through a number of Government circulars in support of their respective contentions. We were taken through quite a large number of circulars, such as (i) circular no. 1115 dated 25-7-1981, (ii) circular no. 30, dated 22-1-1982, (iii) circular no. 182 dated 25-3-1982, (iv) circular no. 109 dated 15-3-1982, (v) circular no. We were taken through quite a large number of circulars, such as (i) circular no. 1115 dated 25-7-1981, (ii) circular no. 30, dated 22-1-1982, (iii) circular no. 182 dated 25-3-1982, (iv) circular no. 109 dated 15-3-1982, (v) circular no. 705 dated 12-10-1982 (this laid clown the provisions for the recognition/regularisation of services of the teachers of the project schools of the first phase), (vi) circular no. 210 dated 15-3-1987, (vii) circular no. 24617-39 dated 3-9-1981, (viii) circular no. 142 dated 23-2-1985, (ix) circular no. 405 dated 19-7-1987, (x) two wireless messages dated 14-4-1987 issued by the Education Commissioner and Secretary to the Government on the subject of payment of salaries to the teachers of the project schools of the first phase, and (xi) circular no. 142 dated 4-2-1989 (laying clown the provisions for the recognition/regularisation of services of the teachers of the project schools of the second phase). 9. I do not propose to set out the provisions of each of the circulars separately and in extenso as that would serve no useful purpose. The relevant provision of the circular shall be referred to in this judgment as and when required. 10. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, two of the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners strenuously argued that the establishment/taking over of the project schools in the different blocks of the State was one continuous process and hence the teachers of all the school must be governed by the same set of provisions. They sought to controvert the stand of the State that the schools were taken over in three different and separable phases. In this regard Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh placed reliance on the first circular bearing no. 115 elated 25-7-1981. It is true that as the scheme was first proposed in circular no. 115, it envisaged the taking over of the project schools on a yearly basis from 1981-82 to 1984-85, the four remaining years of the 8th five year plan period. In this regard Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh placed reliance on the first circular bearing no. 115 elated 25-7-1981. It is true that as the scheme was first proposed in circular no. 115, it envisaged the taking over of the project schools on a yearly basis from 1981-82 to 1984-85, the four remaining years of the 8th five year plan period. But in course of materialisation some departures definitely appear to have been made from the scheme as it was originally envisaged and the indubitable position emerging from a consideration of all the circulars mentioned above and the pleading of the parties is that the project schools were taken over in three phases; 150 project schools were taken over in the first phase during the year 1981-82, 300 project schools were taken over in the second phase during the year, 1984-85 and finally 48 schools were taken over during the third phase in the year, 1988-89. It appears quite futile to deny that the schools were taken over in a phased manner. This position would be particularly evident from circular nos. 12 dated 5-3-1987, 405 dated 19-7-1986, 142 dated 12-2-1985 and 142 dated 4-2-1989. It may also be noted that Dr. M.P. Shukla, the author of the book 'One Decade of Secondary Education in Bihar (1980-1991) has also dealt with the project schools as having been taken over in three different phases; (see part 5 of the book relating to the project schools.) I have, therefore, not the slightest doubt that the stand of the State regarding the project schools having been taken over in three different phases is quite correct and must be accepted. 11. I will now consider the second argument advanced for the petitioners that even though the schools were taken over in two different phases, the same set of provisions must apply to the petitioners, the teachers in the project schools of the second phase and the same treatment should be meted out to them as in the case of the teachers of the project schools of the first phase. At this stage, it may be noted that circular no. 705 dated 12-10-1982 in respect of the project schools of the first phase said down, inter alia, the number of classes and of teachers in those schools. At this stage, it may be noted that circular no. 705 dated 12-10-1982 in respect of the project schools of the first phase said down, inter alia, the number of classes and of teachers in those schools. It further laid down the manner of appointment and the requisite qualifications for the recognition/regularisation of services of the teachers of the schools taken over as project schools. It also laid down the different scales of pay for the trained and untrained teachers. Para 17 of this letter laid down the provisions relating to the maximum age. Further, circular no. 405, dated 19-7-1986 issued on the subject of payment of salaries to the teachers of the project schools of the first phase laid down the scales of pay for the teachers of the project schools of the first phase. It may incidentally be noted that para 6 of circular no. 405 specifically stated that the provisions of that circular would not apply in the case of the 300 project schools taken over during the year 1984-85. 12. However, paying no heed to the provisions of circular nos. 705 and 405, two wireless messages were issued on 14-4-1987. The two wireless messages ignoring all the conditions laid down in the aforesaid two circulars allowed the benefit of regular pay scales to all the teachers of the schools taken over as project schools in first phase. 13. The petitioners in these cases cite the action of the State Government in issuing the two wireless messages and in giving the benefit of regular pay scales to all the teachers, setting aside the terms and conditions laid down for recognition/regularisation of their services and advance the simple submission that what was good in case of the teachers of the first phase should also equally apply to the teachers of the second phase. 14. I am wholly unimpressed by this submission. It is true that I am unable to understand much less appreciate the action of the State Government in issuing the two wireless messages putting aside the material provisions framed by it earlier and the learned counsel for the State has not even tried to defend the action of the State Government in issuing the two wireless messages. However, any claim made on that basis would not be enforcible by a Writ Court. However, any claim made on that basis would not be enforcible by a Writ Court. I do not know the 'constraints' and the 'compulsions' under which the Government was obliged to issue the two wireless messages but on that score alone no writ or direction can be issued to the Government to once again disregard all the terms and conditions laid down in letter no. 142 dated 24-2-1989 in respect of the teachers of the project schools of the second phase. The Government like any other person is entitled to learn from its mistake and in case it chooses to adopt a more efficient and sensible mode of recruitment, I am unable to fine any fault with it. The submission of the petitioners based on the two wireless messages amounts to claiming that in the execution of a project, e.g., construction of a bridge or road the Government must be directed to adopt the same wasteful and expensive procedure as it had adopted in relation to similar projects on previous occasions. It is self evident that no such prayer can be acceded to. 15. On a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and on perusal of all the materials, circular letters and pleadings, I come to the following findings: (i) That the project schools were taken over in different and separable phases. In this batch, the cases relate to the project schools taken over during the second phase in the year 1984-85. (ii) The Government has issued different sets of circular letters governing the project schools taken over in different phases and the circulars issued in respect of the project schools of the first phase have no application in the case of the project schools of the second phase. (iii) The cases in hand are governed by circular letter nos. 142 dated 23-2-1985 and 142 dated 4-2-1989. The two broader and general submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners having failed, I now propose to take up the cases in smaller sub-groups and to dispose them of on the basis of the relevant provisions contained in circular no. 142 dated 23-2-1985 and circular letter no. 142 dated 4-2-1989. AGE : Overage and underage. 16. The cases in the first sub-group relate to the criterion of age. These are C.W.J.C. Nos. 10397 of 1992, 3848, 7239, 5103, 8720, 4427, 8498, 6293, 1764 of 1993 (argued by Mr. 142 dated 23-2-1985 and circular letter no. 142 dated 4-2-1989. AGE : Overage and underage. 16. The cases in the first sub-group relate to the criterion of age. These are C.W.J.C. Nos. 10397 of 1992, 3848, 7239, 5103, 8720, 4427, 8498, 6293, 1764 of 1993 (argued by Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh) and C.W.J.C. No. 1181 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Rajenclra Prasad Singh). In these cases, the authorities declined to recognise/regularise the services of the teachers/non-teaching staff on the ground that they were overage, that is to say, they were more than 31 years of age (in the case of general category) at the time of their appointment by the managing committees of their respective schools. 17. There are some cases which are the converse of the above in the sense that the recognition/regularisation of services have been refused on the ground that the concerned teacher/non-teaching staff was 'under age' on the elate of appointment by the managing committee. These are C.W.J.C. Nos. 1772 and 5585 of 1993 (argued by Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh) and C.W.J.C. No. 2752 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Shivendra Kishore). These three cases have also been included in the category relating to age but they will be considered later on. 18. Coming back to the cases where recognition/regularisation of services have been refused on the ground of being overage, it may be noted that the relevant provision in this regard is to be found in para VI of circular letter no. 142 dated 4-2-1989, a rough English translation of which would read as follows: “The maximum age limit for appointment shall be 31 years for general trained candidates. The maximum age limit for candidates having M. Ed. qualification shall be 32 years. The maximum age limit for appointment of untrained female (candidates) shall be 30 years. In the matter of appointment of Harijan (scheduled castes) and scheduled tribes candidates, a relaxation (in age) of five years shall be given. The calculation of age shall be made on the date, on which the appointment is made by the managing committee.” Mr. Rajendra Pd. The maximum age limit for appointment of untrained female (candidates) shall be 30 years. In the matter of appointment of Harijan (scheduled castes) and scheduled tribes candidates, a relaxation (in age) of five years shall be given. The calculation of age shall be made on the date, on which the appointment is made by the managing committee.” Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in some of the cases submitted that the aforequoted provision was unreasonable and arbitrary and tended to operate retrospectively inasmuch as it sought to fix the age limit even in case of those teachers who might have been appointed prior to 4-2-1989, the date of its issuance. This submission, in my view, is to be recorded simply to be rejected. It would be' patently erroneous to attribute any retrospective operation to the provisions of the circular and the question of retrospectively of the circular dated 4-2-1989 simply does not arise in this case. The circular in question does no more than laying down the maximum age limit and other criteria for the purpose of recognition/regularisation of service of teachers/non-teaching staff of schools taken over as project schools. The screening of the staff for the purpose of recognition/regularisation of service would be undertaken only after the issuance of circular no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 and in course of screening the conditions stipulated in the circular would be taken into account. It is thus obvious that the circular has a prospective application. 19. It was then submitted both by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh that the aforequoted provision of para VI of circular no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 must be held to be void, non-est and inoperative in view of clause 6 (iii) of Notification no. 129, dated 30-11-1981 containing the rules relating to recognition and taking over of management and control of schools in terms of Section 3 (3) of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1980. 142, dated 4-2-1989 must be held to be void, non-est and inoperative in view of clause 6 (iii) of Notification no. 129, dated 30-11-1981 containing the rules relating to recognition and taking over of management and control of schools in terms of Section 3 (3) of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1980. The provision contained in clause 6 (iii) of the aforesaid notification dated 3-11-1981 can be roughly translated into English as follows : "Relaxation of age may be possible by the Government or by an authority appointed by it in case of teachers and the non-teaching staff upto 35 years of age and in case of headmaster upto 45 years of age who might have been appointed and are working in a school which has obtained the permission for establishment. The age of the headmaster/teacher and the non-teaching staff, as on the elate on which the management and control of the school was taken over, shall be taken into reckoning." From the aforequoted provision, two things are apparent; first is that clause 6 (iii) did not fix the maximum age for regularisation of service but it was in the nature of an enabling provision for relaxation of age and in that regard the outer limit of 35 years and 45 years (in the case of teachers/non-teaching staff and headmasters respectively) was fixed. In other words, with the help of the aforequoted rule the Government while considering the question of regularisation of service, could in an appropriate case, give the benefit of relaxation of age to a person upto the age of 35 years in the case of a teacher and non-teaching staff and 45 years in the case of a headmaster. Secondly, the provisions related to private schools taken over by the State in terms of Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act', hereinafter). It needs no elaborate arguments to realise that the material facts and circumstances leading to the nationalisation of the private secondary schools and the facts and circumstances forming the background in which the scheme of the project schools has been conceived and is being sought 10 be implemented are vastly different and the provision made for the nationalised schools can per se have no application in the case of project schools. The background facts, object and purpose of the 1981 rules have been discussed in detail in a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Ballabh Pd. Singh v. State of Bihar und others, 1986 P.L.J.R. 373. In para 20 of this judgment, it has been noted that Sections 15 and 16 of the Nationalisation Act, 1981 conferred powers to frame rules and to remove difficulties. It was further noted that the provisions contained in Section 3 (3) of the Act "left huge unfilled gaps both for the purpose of taking over of the unrecognised schools as also with regard to the appointment of incumbent staff thereof to Government service. The plain language of Section 3 (3) would indicate that the widest discretion was left to the Government for prescribing the terms and conditions as it may deem proper for taking over the management and control of the unrecognised schools". The decision noted that the Act left to the discretion of the Government a number of vital considerations which would be necessary for selecting the schools to be taken over and for further selecting the teachers of the taken over schools to be retained in service and in this regard observed as follows : "All these were matters which were left to the widest and even unguided discretion of the State Government by Section 3 (3). No statutory rules having been framed, the State Government very rightly canalised these powers by the issuance of statutory instructions to govern all these matters. These are contained in notification no. 129 dated the 30th November, 1981 (at pp. 644-74 of the Compendium to Important Orders and Circulars)." Para 20 of the Full Bench decision leaves no room for doubt that the provisions contained in notification no. 129, dated 30-11-1981 were framed specifically in relation to the private schools that were to be taken over in terms of Section 3 (3) of the Nationalisation Act. 20. Now clause 6 (iii) of the notification no. 129, which, as has been seen above was in the nature of an enabling provision in the case of the teachers of the private schools to be taken over in terms of Nationalisation Act is being sought to be pressed as a provision giving some subst3ntive right to the teachers/non-teaching staff of schools taken over as project schools in the second phase in 1984-85. An observation from the Full Bench decision to the effect that the provisions of the notification no. 129 were statutory in nature is picked up in support of the submission that being statutory in nature the provisions of notification no. 129 would have overriding effect and the provision contained in circular no. 142 elated 4-2-1989 must yield to the statutory provision contained in notification no. 129. As regards the question of applicability of the provisions of notification no. 129 to project schools, a very tenuous link is sought to be discovered in para I of circular letter no. 705, dated 12-10-1982 which provides as follows: "From the point of view of management, these Schools (the project schools of 1981-82) will be treated to be in the category of nationalised schools." It is on the basis of this fragile connection that it is submitted that the authorities erred in not recognising/regularising the services of teachers who were not beyond 35 years in age on the date of their appointment by the managing committee. 21. It is apparent to me that the submission is quite misconceived and tends to misinterpret and gloss over the details of the provisions involved My reasons are as follows : "(a) It has been held earlier that circular letter no. 705, dated 12-10-1982 contained provisions in respect of the project schools taken over in the first phase in 1981-82. The project schools taken over in the second phase in 1984-85 with which I am concerned in this batch of cases arc not governed by the provisions of letter no. 705, dated 12-10-1982. The provisions relating to the project school taken over in the second phase in 1984-85 are to be found in the circular letter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 and in that letter (no. 142) there is no provision putting them in the category of the nationalised schools even for the limited purpose of management of those schools and hence in case of the project schools which are the subject of this judgment even that tenuous and thin link connecting them with the nationalised schools is absent. (b) Even in case of the project schools of the first phase taken over in 1981-82 it was merely said that from the point of view of management, they would be treated like the nationalised schools. (b) Even in case of the project schools of the first phase taken over in 1981-82 it was merely said that from the point of view of management, they would be treated like the nationalised schools. This is not to say that the project schools were the same as or identical with the nationalised schools and the criteria relating to the selection of teachers for recognition/regularisation of their services in case of both the schools should be the some. More so, in view of the fact that in the case of the project schools a criterion relating to age had been specifically spelled out. (c) Clause 6 (iii) of notification no 129 was only an enabling provision empowering the Government to allow in appropriate case relaxation of age upto the maximum of 35 years in respect of teachers/non-teaching staff and 45 years in respect of headmasters. It would be quite misconceived to read this provision as conferring any substantive right. (d) If one examines the two provisions, (Para VI) of circular letter no. 142 and clause 6 (iii) of notification no 129) carefully, it would be noted that in clause 6(iii) of notification no. 129 the extended age of 35 years and 45 years respectively is with reference to the date the management and control of the school was taken over; while in para VI of letter no. 142, the age of 31 years is fixed with reference to the date of appointment by the managing committee. It appears to me that the difference in the point on which the age (31 years in case of para VI of letter no. 142 and 35 and 45 years in clause 6 (iii) of notification no. 129) is to be reckoned is not without significance. Section 3(3) of the Nationalisation Act provided for a period of three years during which the schools were required to fulfil the conditions prescribed by the State Government in respect of land, building, Upkaran, Upaskar and number of students. Taking into account this period of three years and further taking into consideration the number of schools taken over, the time taken in the screening of each of those schools, the Government might have considered a period of four years as reasonable relaxation and it accordingly fixed the age of 35 years on the date the management and control of the school was taken over. Those considerations manifestly do not apply in the case of the project schools. It is to be noted in this regard that in most of the project schools taken over in the second phase in 1984-85 the screening is yet to be completed after about ten years and at the moment it remains suspended due to a stay order passed by this Court and hence considerations would be entirely different and the period of relaxation fixed in the case of nationalised schools would just not apply in the case of these project schools. Thus, there is no question of application of clause 6 (iii) of notification no. 129 in the present case. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard relied upon two Division Bench decisions delivered in CWJC No. 1824/1992 (date of disposal 15-7-1992) and CWJC No 1333/1993 (date of disposal 131-1994). It is true that in the order passel in CWJC No. 1824 of 1992, this contention was accepted observing as follows: "Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has missed a short question in support of his contention The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the notification bearing no. 129 dated 30th November, 1981, wherein maximum age of teachers has been fixed as thirty five years. The aforementioned notification being no. 129 has been held to have this force of law by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Ballabh Singh v. State of Bihar (1986 Patna Law Journal Reports 373). In this view of the matter, in our opinion if the assertions of the writ petitioner are correct, that is, if her services had not been taken over only on the ground of age that appears to be non-est." In C.W.J.C. No. 1333 of 1993 a similar order was passed relying upon the decision in CWJC No. 1824 of 1992. 23. With utmost respect to the learned Judges who passed the orders in the aforesaid two cases, I find myself unable to follow those decisions. Under this circumstance the normal course for me would have been to refer the point for decision by a larger Bench. However, I feel compelled to depart from that course for the reason that it would further delay the matter indefinitely. Under this circumstance the normal course for me would have been to refer the point for decision by a larger Bench. However, I feel compelled to depart from that course for the reason that it would further delay the matter indefinitely. As noted above even after a lapse of ten years only a relatively small number of schools (taken over in the second phase) have been subjected to screening and in the case of a majority of these schools the process of screening is yet to be undertaken. This has led to a state of uncertainty and has given rise to many unnecessary and avoidable litigations. Any further delay in the final disposal of these cases would only aggravate this unsettled situation and would tend to frustrate the very object and purpose of the scheme. This to my mind is wholly undesirable. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of these cases recording my reasons for not following the two earlier decisions. It may be noted that in those two cases the Court was hearing individual cases and not a batch of more than 80 Cases. The Bench deciding CWJC No. 1824 of 1992 did not have the advantage and benefit as we had in this batch of cases of having before us the provisions relating to project schools in a comprehensive manner. This would explain the difference in perspective and the different view taken by me. Further, the reasons assigned by me for not accepting the contention advanced by the petitioners were not considered in those decisions. As shown above, the first decision simply proceeded on the basis that the provision of notification no. 129 was statutory and on that score alone allowed the claim. The second decision merely followed the first. None of the two decisions considered that the notification no. 129 made in relation to the nationalised schools was not applicable in case of the project schools. 24. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the provisions contained in para VI of letter no. 142 dated 4-2-1989 alone contains the Government policy decision regarding the maximum age of the teachers of project schools taken over in the second phase in 1984-85. 24. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the provisions contained in para VI of letter no. 142 dated 4-2-1989 alone contains the Government policy decision regarding the maximum age of the teachers of project schools taken over in the second phase in 1984-85. The provision in question is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court and the authorities did not act either arbitrarily or unreasonably in not recognising/regularising the services of those teachers who were overage in terms of para VI of letter no. 142 dated 4-2-1989. Underage: 25. Now corning to the three writ petitions, the petitioners of which have been refused regularisation of services on the ground of being underage, it is to be noted that para VI of letter no. 142 dated 4-2-1989 prescribes the upper age limit but does not prescribe any lower limit of age. No other provisions in any Act, Rule or Regulation was brought to our notice fixing the minimum age limit for appointment in the Government or in a Government school. This Bench had the occasion to deal with a similar question in the case of Mokhtar Ahmad v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, 1995 (1) PLJR 183 wherein it was observed as follows: “It is self evident that unless the basic premises that no person could gain employment before attaining the age of 18 years was legally justified, the impugned order must fall to the ground. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Corporation, we are actually faced with this position. No statutory provision either in the Bihar Service Code or any other statutory rule or regulation was brought to our notice to justify the assumption that no one could get employment before attaining the age of 18 years. Rule 54 of the Bihar Service Code fixes the upper age limit for admission into pensionable Government service.” For the reasons stated above, it appear to me that being below 18 years of age per se may not be a ground for refusing to recognise/regularise the services of a person. I would, however, like to make one qualification to this statement; para IV of letter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 provides that the minimum qualification for recognition of teachers should be Trained Graduate. I would, however, like to make one qualification to this statement; para IV of letter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 provides that the minimum qualification for recognition of teachers should be Trained Graduate. From that point of view the authorities may look at the age of a teacher to consider whether he was too young to obtain the required qualifications in the normal course and hence there might be some doubt either about his age or his qualifications. However, in case of non-teaching staff in respect of whom no minimum qualification is fixed, in my opinion, there should be no difficulty if the candidate is a few months or even a year or two below the age of 18 years at the time of his appointment. Qualification: Training acquired after appointment. 26. In the next sub-group are the cases in which the petitioners have been ref used recognition/regularisation of their services on the ground that they did not possess the minimum required qualifications on the date of their appointment by the managing committee of their respective schools These are: CWJC Nos. 8492, 6164, 2394, 11924, 2870 of 1993 and CWJC No. 2725 of 1994, (argued by Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh); CWJC Nos. 1709, 1430, 2077, 1604, 1654, 3064, 1705, 1184, 1182 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh); CWJC No. 2752 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Shivendra Kishore) and CWJC No. 2676 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey). 27. It is to be noted that the provision relating to the requisite qualifications is contained in para IV of circular letter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989. A rough English translation of para IV of letter no. 142 would read as follows : "The minimum qualification for recognition of teachers shall be trained graduate and one of the subjects at the graduation level should be necessarily such as has been stated in the standard strength of teachers mentioned above. In case trained candidates are not found in women scheduled castes, scheduled tribes categories the recognition of services of untrained women scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (candidates) also shall be made on the pay scale/stipend of untrained graduates. They shall have to be trained at there own cost within throe years of (their) appointment and the State Govt. shall make arrangement for the training. They shall have to be trained at there own cost within throe years of (their) appointment and the State Govt. shall make arrangement for the training. In case of non-availability of qualified female Candidates trained graduate male teachers could be given recognition and when female (teachers) are available they shall be adjusted elsewhere." From the aforequoted provision it is apparent that a teacher of the general category must be a “trained graduate” for the recognition/regularisation of his services. Unlike the criterion relating to age, however, the provision laying clown the minimum qualification does not fix any elate on which the candidate is required to possess this qualification. It, thus follows that the refusal to recognize/regularize the services of the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the qualification of “trained graduate” on the elate on which the appointment was made by the managing committee is not supported by the Government policy decision as stated in the circular letter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 and it can only be described as the decision of the official purporting to supplement the Government policy decision. The question which arises for consideration, therefore, is that in the absence of any policy decision by the Government whether the decision by an official to take the date of appointment as the cut-off date for the purpose of possessing the minimum qualification can be said to be just, fair and reasonable. 28. Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Government policy decision (vide circular no. 142, dated 4-2-1989) being silent in this regard, a cut-off point could be fixed on the basis of any of the several possible dates, such as (i) the date of appointment of the concerned teacher, (ii) 12-2-1985, the date on which the blocks and the schools were identified vide letter no. 108 dated 12-2-1985, (iii) 23-2-89, the date on which the three men committee was constituted for selecting the schools/sites of the schools vide letter no. 142, elated 23-2-1985, (iv) 4-2-1989, when the minimum qualifications were spelled out vide latter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 and (v) the elate of screening. 108 dated 12-2-1985, (iii) 23-2-89, the date on which the three men committee was constituted for selecting the schools/sites of the schools vide letter no. 142, elated 23-2-1985, (iv) 4-2-1989, when the minimum qualifications were spelled out vide latter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 and (v) the elate of screening. According to her the elate of screening may not be an appropriate cut-off point as screening of different schools would be made on different dates and as a consequence different periods of time would be allowed to the teachers of different schools to fulfil the eligibility criteria. She further submitted that under the circumstance the safest and the most reasonable course was to take the date of appointment of the concerned person as the date on which he must possess the minimum qualifications. 29. I am not impressed by this submission. From the opening sentence of para IV of letter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989, it is clear that the minimum qualification was being laid down "for the recognition (of services) of teachers". It appeals to reason therefore that the candidate must be required to possess the minimum qualifications when his case was being examined for recognition that is the date of screening. 30. I am further of the opinion that fixing the date of appointment of each of the teachers as the cut-off date tends to discourage one from obtaining further qualifications after entering into service. I fail to see the reasonableness of such a course and in my view one should be given full encouragement not to stop growing and developing and to further improve oneself and acquire better and higher qualifications even after entering into service. In this view also, it appears reasonable that the date of screening should be taken as the relevant date for possessing the minimum qualifications. A similar view was taken in a Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C, No. 1882 of 1993 (Shafik Pandey v. State of Bihar and others; date of disposal 31-10-1994.) 31. This view further derives support from a Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Ram Naresh Prasad Nirala v. State of Bihar, 1987 P.L.J.R. 341. A similar view was taken in a Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C, No. 1882 of 1993 (Shafik Pandey v. State of Bihar and others; date of disposal 31-10-1994.) 31. This view further derives support from a Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Ram Naresh Prasad Nirala v. State of Bihar, 1987 P.L.J.R. 341. In that case the Court was called upon to determine the stage by which a teacher of a nationalised school was required to possess the requisite qualifications for regularisation of his service in terms of Section 3 (3) of the Nationalisation Act. It is to be noted that like para IV of letter no. 142, dated 4-2-89, the provisions of Section 3 (3) of the Nationalisation Act also did not prescribe any cut -off date for possessing the qualifications. It was contended in the case that in absence of any cut-off elate having been fixed in the Act, the material date should be the date of the notification taking over the school and not earlier. This contention was negatived and the cut-off date was drawn earlier, than the one contended to the date on which the school was examined by the Screening Committee. It was held as follows : "It must, therefore, be held in no uncertain terms that the crucial point of time and, indeed, the outer limit for such consideration is the elate of the report of the Special Board, the consideration of eligibility, qualification and suitability of teachers for absorption." At this stage, I would like to clarify so as not to create any doubts that the reference to the Full Bench decision here is not to suggest that the provisions of the Nationalisation Act or the decisions rendered by this Court in controversies and disputes relating to the absorption of teachers in the nationalised schools would per se apply in case of project schools. The Full Bench decision in Nirala's' case (supra) has been cited merely as an analogy inasmuch as in Section 3 (3) of the Nationalisation Act also there was no cut-off date prescribed as to when the teacher was required to possess the minimum qualifications and under that circumstance it was held that the cut-off date should be the date on which the Special Board inspected the school and submitted its report. The same analogy, in my opinion, would also apply in the case of project schools. 32. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to hold that the cut-off elate for possessing tile minimum qualifications must be the date on which the school in question is examined by the screening committee to consider the cases of its teachers for recognition/regularisation of their services. No requisite training qualification: 33. In the next sub-group of cases, the petitioners do not possess the requisite training qualification. These cases are CWJC Nos. 6777 and 5586 of 1993 (argued by Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh) and CWJC Nos. 1704 and 1224 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh). In CWJC Nos. 6777 of 1993 and CWJC Nos. 1704 and 1224 of 1994 the petitioners do not possess the B. Ed. qualification but only have B.T. certificates Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, learned counsel sought to argue that para IV of letter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 stipulated that the minimum qualification would be 'Asnatak Parshichit' (that is, trained graduate). It did not specify any certificate or degree in that regard and hence any graduate with B.T. certificate equally fulfilled the requirement inasmuch as he was a graduate and had also undergone some training and was, therefore, a trained graduate'. I am wholly unimpressed by this submission. It may be noted that B.T. is the abbreviated form of Basic Trained. After passing the matriculation examination a person can appear in the B.T. examination conducted by the Secondary School Examination Board and on passing the examination would receive the B.T. certificate by the Secondary School Examination Board. B. Ed. (abbreviated form of Bachelor of Education) is a Bachelor's degree conferred by an University. Although the expression training' is widely used and has gained coinage not only in Government circulars but also in the orders and decisions of this Court, it must not be lost sight of that Education is a subject and a course of study in the Universities of this State and what is meant by training' is a degree in the subject of Education. The expression trained graduate is very well understood to mean a person having a Bachelor's degree in the subject of Education in addition to a Bachelor's degree in anyone of the Arts or Science subjects. It is, thus, apparent that a B.T. certificate does not come upto the criterion of 'trained graduate. The expression trained graduate is very well understood to mean a person having a Bachelor's degree in the subject of Education in addition to a Bachelor's degree in anyone of the Arts or Science subjects. It is, thus, apparent that a B.T. certificate does not come upto the criterion of 'trained graduate. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the authorities' decision not to recognise/regularise the services of those of the petitioners in this group of cases who did not have a B.Ed. degree. 34. In C.W.J.C. No. 5586 of 1993, the petitioner has a certificate/degree in physical training and on that basis tries to present himself as possessing the minimum qualification of 'trained graduate'. The contention is wholly untenable. In the light of what has been stated above, Education is an altogether different subject than physical training and what is required by way of minimum qualification is a degree of Bachelor of Education and not any certificate or degree in physical training. Hence anyone possessing any certificate or degree in physical training cannot claim to fulfil the minimum qualifications. No Bachelors' degree: 35. In the next sub-group are cases in which the petitioners do not possess a graduation degree from an University but possessed various other degrees such as 'Siksha Shastri', 'Acharya' etc. In CWJC No. 8499 of 1993, the petitioner possesses the degree of 'Shiksha Shastri', in CWJC No. 1223 of 1994, the petitioner claims to be an 'Acharya' at the time of his appointment and in CWJC No. 1551 of 1994 the petitioner c1Clims to have obtained a degree of 'Acharya' after his appointment. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners stressed that 'Shiksha Shastri' was equivalent to a B. Ed. degree and 'Acharya' was equivalent to a Master's Degree in Sanskrit conferred by an University. In the case of Acharya reliance was placed on certain provisions of circular letter no. 6066 dated 24-11-1986. The aforesaid circular relates to the admissibility of selection grade pay scales to the teachers of the nationalised high schools and on the basis of this circular alone it cannot be held that an Acharya degree holder was equal to a trained graduate for all purposes and particularly for the purpose of recognition/regularisation of his services in a project school. Similarly, no material was brought to our notice in support of the contention that Shiksha Shastri was equivalent to B.Ed. Similarly, no material was brought to our notice in support of the contention that Shiksha Shastri was equivalent to B.Ed. and in that view it is not possible to give any positive directions that persons holding the degree of Acharya or Shiksha Shastri must be treated as trained graduate for the purpose of circular no. 142, dated 4-2-1989. It is, however, expected that the authorities will examine this matter and if there are any materials in support of the claim that Acharya or Shiksha Shastri are equivalent to trained graduate for the purpose of recognition/regularisation of services of teachers in the project schools of the second phase then the concerned persons will be given suitable reliefs. 36. In the next sub-group are cases in which it is alleged that though the schools in question have been subjected to screening by the committee as required under circular no. 142, dated 4-2-1989, no orders have been issued regarding recognition/regularisation of the teachers who were working in those schools before their takeover. 37. The first case in this group is CWJC No. 12326 of 1992 (argued by Mr. Rajenelra Pd. Singh). In this application directions have been sought to be given to the respondent authorities "to screen the names of the petitioners and other teachers for making payment of salary tram the date Raghubir High School, Subhadra Jamunia, Gaunaha, district West Champaran has been taken over under the project scheme by the Government'. A counter affidavit, affirmed by the Deputy Director (Head Quarter), Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar has been filed in this case. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State tells an altogether different story and from its contents it appears that the petitioners tried to forcibly highjack and capture a school opened by the Government and are now seeking this Court's intervention in order to secure the regularisation of their services in the Government. In view of the statements made in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit the petitioners' claim appears to be wholly b3seless and without any substance and no relief can be granted by this Court to the petitioners in this case. CWJC No. 12326/1992 is accordingly dismissed. 38. As regards the other two cases in this sub-group, namely, CWJC Nos. 1427 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh) and 8741 of 1993 (argued by Mr. CWJC No. 12326/1992 is accordingly dismissed. 38. As regards the other two cases in this sub-group, namely, CWJC Nos. 1427 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh) and 8741 of 1993 (argued by Mr. Shivendra Kishore), no detailed counter affidavit in these cases have been filed on behalf of the State. These two cases are accordingly disposed of with a direction that in case the schools in question have been subjected to screening in terms of circular no. 142, elated 4-2-1989, the concerned authorities should pass appropriate orders in regard to the teachers working in those schools. In case, as stated by the 'petitioners, the screening of the schools is complete, appropriate orders in respect of the individual teachers should be passed preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 39. In the next sub-group are cases in which it is stated that the schools in question are yet to be screened. These are CWJC Nos. 4145 of 1993 (argued by Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh) and 8858 of 1993 and 2371 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Shivendra Kishore). At this stage, it may be noted that all proceedings in relation to the project schools of the second phase were put in abeyance on account of a stay order passed by this Court on 1-9-1993 in CWJC No. 12326/1992. The interim order dated 1-9-1993 was passed in the following terms : "In view of the intricacies involved, in our opinion, it is expedient that the Government should stay its hand in any further screening and making appointment of any person in relation to the project schools." It was on account of this order that the respondent authorities had stopped the process of screening of the project schools and regularisation of services of their teachers. 40. The aforesaid CWJC No. 12326/1992 has been dismissed by order passed above in this judgment and now, therefore, there would be no impediment in the way of the respondent authorities to proceed with the screening of the schools and regularisation of services of such of the teachers who may be entitled in terms of the relevant provisions. These three writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the direction that the concerned authorities should pass appropriate orders in respect of the petitioners after the screening of the schools. 41. These three writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the direction that the concerned authorities should pass appropriate orders in respect of the petitioners after the screening of the schools. 41. In the next sub-group, there are two cases, that is, CWJC No. 12930 of 1993 (argued by Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh) and CWJC No. 1779 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Shivendra Kishore). In these two cases the petitioners make a grievance th3t their claim for regularisation was rejected without assigning any reason. These two cases are disposed of with the direction that the authorities should pass a fresh reasoned order in case of the petitioners after reconsidering their cases in the light of this judgment. 42. The last sub-group consists of three cases; CWJC No. 5116 of 1993 (argued by Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh) and CWJC No. 1549 of 1994 and 2878 of 1994 (argued by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh). In these case it is slated that the petitioners' representations were pending and remained to be disposed of by the authorities. These applications are disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioners of these cases file a fresh representation before the authorities, they should be considered in the light of this judgment and disposed of by passing a reasoned order. 43. In the result, C.W.J.C. Nos. 10397 of 1992, 3848, 7239, 5103, 8720, 4427, 8498, 6293, 1764 of 1993 and C.W.J.C. No. 1181 of 1994 are dismissed. C.W.J.C. Nos. 1772, 5585 of 1993 and 2752 of 1994 related to cases where the petitioners were refused regularisation of services on the ground that they were underage on the date of their appointment by the Managing Committee of the concerned schools. The matters contained in these writ petitions are remitted back to the concerned authorities to take a fresh decision in the light of this judgment. C.W.J.C. Nos. 8492, 6164, 2394, 11924, 2870 of 1993 and C.W.J.C. No. 2725, 1709, 1430, 2077, 1604, 1654, 3064, 1705, 1184, 1182, 2752 and 2676 of 1994 are allowed and the matters contained therein are remitted back to the concerned authorities to take fresh decisions in those cases in the light of this judgment. C.W.J.C. Nos. 5586 and 6777 of 1993 and C.W.J.C. nos. 1704 and 1224 of 1094 are dismissed. In C.W.J.C. Nos. C.W.J.C. Nos. 5586 and 6777 of 1993 and C.W.J.C. nos. 1704 and 1224 of 1094 are dismissed. In C.W.J.C. Nos. 8499, 1223 and 1551 of 1994, it will be open to the petitioners to file fresh representations before the concerned authorities who will dispose them of in accordance with law. In respect of the other cases dealt with in this judgment, appropriate directions have been given while dealing with those cases. The authorities shall act in accordance with those directions.