ORDER The points involved in all the three writ applications are same and as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 1774/93 the petitioner has prayed for approving/regularising the services as Assistant Teacher in Radha Krishna Girls High School, Majhigaon, in the district of Palamau, and to pay all the benefits in terms of the Government Letter No. 142 dated 4.2.1989. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 2115/93, the two petitioners claiming themselves to be working as Assistant Teachers in Indira Gandhi Project Girls High School, Tarahasi, in the district of Palamau, have prayed for the same reliefs, as in C.W.J.C. No. 1774/93. 4. In C.W.J.C. No. 6067/94, the petitioner has prayed to quash the report of the State Level Screening Committee dated 18.8.1992, whereby the claim of the petitioner for recognition of her service as an Assistant Teacher in Ram Janki Project Girls High School, Mahadeiyan, in the district of Muzaffarpur has not been recommended and has also prayed for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Committee to recommend the name of the petitioner for recognition of her services as an Assistant Teacher of the said School to the State Government and direction to the State Government to regularise her services and make payment of the salary etc. in terms of the aforesaid Circular. 5. The facts necessary for disposal of these cases are as follows. The sole petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1774/93 claims that the School in question was established in the year 1982 and permission to establish the School was granted by the Director, Secondary Education, on 19.2.85 (Annexure-1). It was clearly mentioned in the said letter of permission that the Teachers fulfilling the requisite qualifications and eligibility are to be appointed in accordance with the staffing pattern, as contained in Letter No. 2064 dated 4.10.1980 and not more than nine Teachers should be appointed in the School. 6. The petitioner is a trained Science graduate and he was appointed on 26.8.86. The State Government had taken a policy decision and decided to establish four High Schools/Secondary Schools for each block including a Girls' Secondary School in 5th Five Year Plan. The School in question was selected and taken over as Project Schools, vide Letter No. 108 dated 12.2.85 (Annexure-6). The State Government had taken a policy decision and decided to establish four High Schools/Secondary Schools for each block including a Girls' Secondary School in 5th Five Year Plan. The School in question was selected and taken over as Project Schools, vide Letter No. 108 dated 12.2.85 (Annexure-6). On 14.8.1991, the District Education Officer inspected the School and found the petitioner working as Assistant Teacher in Science Group. Thereafter, the case of the petitioners and other Teachers working in the School were considered by the Screening Committee constituted in terms of Letter No. 142 dated 4.2.1989 and services of 7 (seven) teachers were recommended for regularisation, but the services of the petitioner was not recommended on the ground that he was appointed after the selection and take over of the School as Project School. A copy of the report of the Screening Committee has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. In pursuance of the said recommendation, an office order was issued on 30.1.93 and services of other teachers were regularised. 7. In C.W.J.C. No. 2115/93, it is stated that the School was established in the year 1982 as Private School by local people and petitioner no. 1 was appointed on 10.7.1987 and petitioner no. 2 was appointed on 26.8.1987. The Government took a policy decision to establish the Project School, in phase, in Vth Five Year Plan. The present School was taken over in the second phase by Letter No. 108 dated 12.2.1985, vide Annexure-3. After submission of the Project Report by the Committee constituted at the Divisional Level, the Screening Committee considered the said report on 20.4.91 and found that so far as the petitioners are concerned, their appointments have been made after the selection of the School as Project School and, accordingly, did not recommend their case for regularisation. Thereafter the Government after considering the report of the Screening Committee issued an order dated 30.1.93 (Annexure-6) regularising the services of other Teachers. 8. In C.W.J.C. No. 6067/94, the petitioner has claimed the School in question was established in the year 1984 by the local people and permission to establish the School was granted on 27.9.1988 as proprietary School, vide Annexure-1. The petitioner was already appointed prior to that on 2.1.1988. 8. In C.W.J.C. No. 6067/94, the petitioner has claimed the School in question was established in the year 1984 by the local people and permission to establish the School was granted on 27.9.1988 as proprietary School, vide Annexure-1. The petitioner was already appointed prior to that on 2.1.1988. The petitioner's School was selected and taken over as Project School on 18.12.1985 and thereafter the matter was considered by the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee in its meeting held in the year 1992 recommended for regularisation of services of two non-teaching employees, vide Annexure-7, and, thereafter, the Government issued an order on 20.3.93 (Annexure-8) by which the services of other non-teaching employees were regularised ignoring the claim of the petitioner. 9. Counter affidavits have been filed in all the three cases. The stand of the State in all the three cases is that the petitioner/petitioners in all the cases were appointed after the Schools in question were selected as Project Schools and, as such, their services were not regularised or approved in terms of Circular no. 142 dated 4.2.1989. 10. As stated above, all the three Schools were taken over as Project Schools in Second Phase. According to the Government Letter No. 108 dated 12.2.1985, 75 Girls Schools were selected by the State Government as Project Schools. The list of the aforesaid 75 Schools have been given in the aforesaid letter, Radha Krishna Girls High Schools, Majhigaon and Indira Gandhi Girls High School, Tarahasi, were selected as Project Schools by Letter no. 108 dated 12.2.1985. So far as third School, Ram Janki Girls High School, Mahadeiyan, is concerned, it was selected by a three-men Committee on 18.12.85. The said Committee was constituted to select the other Schools. 11. As stated above, the State Government came out with a policy decision, contained in Letter No. 142 dated 4.2.1989 laying down the terms and conditions for absorbing or regularising the services of teaching and non-teaching staffs of the Project Schools taken over in the second phase. The aforesaid Circular provides, inter alia, that the services of such teachers will be taken over by the Government with the recommendation of the Bihar Vidyalaya Seva Board who were working in the Project Schools directly taken over by the State Government or by Three-men-Committee in terms of Letter no. The aforesaid Circular provides, inter alia, that the services of such teachers will be taken over by the Government with the recommendation of the Bihar Vidyalaya Seva Board who were working in the Project Schools directly taken over by the State Government or by Three-men-Committee in terms of Letter no. 142 dated 4.2.89 provided that the Schools have been granted permission for establishment by the Director Secondary Education and Girls Students have been registered to appear in the examination held by the Bihar Secondary School Examination Board as a students of the same school and the results have been published as a students of the said school. It is also provided that the services of those teachers will be approved or recognised, who have been appointed against the sanctioned strength according to staffing pattern and possessing requisite qualification and there is need to engage them in the said School. Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Circular provides that the services of only those teachers will be recognised who are regularly working and who have been appointed by the Managing Committee before grant of permission for establishment or before the selection of the school as project schools by the Head Office, or by the District Level Committee constituted to select Schools as Project Schools." 12. In this case, the question for consideration is as to whether the decision of the State Government refusing to regularise or approve the services of the petitioners is valid in the eye of law or not. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no legal bar in making appointment after the Schools were selected as Project Schools and, as such, the private Managing Committee was competent to appoint teachers and, in that view of the matter, the respondent State was wholly unjustified in not considering the case for regularisation on the ground mentioned above. 14. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that once the Schools were selected as Project Schools, then the private Managing Committee ceased to have any control over the School and could not make any appointment of the teachers. 14. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that once the Schools were selected as Project Schools, then the private Managing Committee ceased to have any control over the School and could not make any appointment of the teachers. It is also contended that the terms and conditions of the regulation for approving the services of the teaching non-teaching staff of the School taken over in second phase are covered by Circular Letter No.142 dated 4.2.1989 wherein it is clearly mentioned that services of those teachers could be regularised and approved, who were appointed by the Managing Committee prior to grant of permission for the establishment or prior to the date of selection of the schools as project schools by the Head Office or by the District Level Three-men Committee. The teaching and non-teaching staffs who do not fulfil the requirement of paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Circular are not entitled for consideration of their cases for regularisation. 15. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kumud Kumar Srivastava (C.W.J.C. No. 10397/92) and in other batch cases disposed of on 1.5.95 has already held that Letter No. 142 dated 4.2.89 will govern the case of Project Schools taken over in second phase. The schools in question have been taken over as Project Schools in second phase and as such the case of the petitioners has to be considered in terms of the policy decision contained in the aforesaid letter. According to paragraph 3 of the Letter, it is clear that the cases of only those teachers will be considered for absorption and regularisation who were appointed by the Managing Committee prior to grant of permission or selection of the schools as Project Schools either by the Head Office or by the Three-men District Level Selection Committee. This criteria laid down by the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary. The idea behind making the aforesaid provision is to protect the interest of the teachers who were working from before grant of permission to establish the school and before its selection as Project School and also to deny the benefit of the policy decision to those who have been appointed by the Managing Committee after the happening of the aforesaid three eventualities. 16. So far as petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 16. So far as petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 1774/93 and 2115/93 are concerned, it is clear that the Project Schools were taken over by Letter no. 108 dated 12.2.85 and all the three petitioners in both the writ applications have been appointed after that date. In view of the aforesaid paragraph 3 of the Circular Letter no. 142 dated 4.2.89 their cases do not fall within the zone of consideration for absorption and regularisation. Accordingly, in my view, the Screening Committee rightly did not recommend their cases for regularisation/absorption. 17. So far as the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6067/94 is concerned, she was appointed on 2.1.1988 and the School in question was granted permission to establish on 27-9-88 (vide Annexure-1). Though from the counter affidavit, it appears that the School was selected in the year 1985 yet she was appointed prior to grant of permission to establish the school. Her case has to be considered in terms of Circular Letter No. 142 dated 4.2.89 and if she fulfils the other requirements including her appointment against the sanctioned strength according to staffing pattern, then her case has to be considered. 18. I find myself unable to agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that all the teacher appointed prior to the date of screening are eligible for consideration of their cases for the purpose of absorption/regularisation, as the said submission runs counter to the specific provision contained in paragraph 3 of the Circular no. 142 dated 4.2.1989. 19. In the result, C.W.J.C. Nos. 1774 and 2115 of 1993 are dismissed. So far as C.W.J.C. No. 6067/94 is concerned, the same is disposed of with the direction to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the provisions as contained in paragraph 3 of the Circular Letter no. 142 dated 4.2.1989.