S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. All the writ petitions relate to 'Project Schools' of 2nd Phase (1984-85). The petitioner of all the cases except one i.e. CWJC No. 6881/95 have prayed for almost same relief i.e. directions on the concerned authorities for regularisation/absorption or their services in the Government and for payment of salary with effect from 1.1.1989. For the said reason, all the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. 1he controversy relating to project Schools of 2nd Phase (1984-85) is pending before the Government since long. One of the dispute while related to the total number of sanctioned posts in such schools, other dispute relates to the fact whether a particular school is a Project School of the Government or not. 3. From the pleadings, as it appears that the Project Schools are schools established/taken over by the Government under a scheme to provide at least one Girls Secondary/High Schools in each Block of the State and no specific Rule/Act was framed, but were so established/taken over in pursuance of different instruments like letters and circulars. This Court at the time of hearing directed the State of Bihar to file specific counter affidavit giving details relating to the nature of schools; number of posts created; and the orders under which schools, if any, taken over as Project School, which have been filed in CWJC Nos. 8634 of 1996 and 6881 of 1995. On the direction or this Court, the State of Bihar also produced relevant File No. 12/PA-65/87 related to Project Schools and payment of salary to its teachers. 4. After hearing the parties pleadings made in different writ petitions, counter affidavits filed therein, original file placed by the State Government and Compendium of Circulars published in a book known as Bihar Madhyamik Shiksha Ka Ek Dashak'. I could trace out the history of Project School as mentioned hereunder. The State of Bihar framed scheme under its sixth five year plan to provide at least four Secondary/High Schools in each of the Blocks out of which one must be a Girls School. I could trace out the history of Project School as mentioned hereunder. The State of Bihar framed scheme under its sixth five year plan to provide at least four Secondary/High Schools in each of the Blocks out of which one must be a Girls School. A total of 435 Blocks were found wherein there was no recognised Girls High Schools and so the State Government decided to open a together 650 Girls High Schools in different Blocks during the following financial near : Year No. of Blocks 1981-82 150 1982-83 200 1983-84 200 1984-85 100 It appears that the target aforesaid to open Girls His Schools in Apperent Blooks was not achieved. Initially, the State Cove established 150 schools by Government Letter No. 2417 dated 3rd September, 1991 in the year 1981-82. These schools arc commonly known as 1st phase Girls School (1981-82) No such Girls School was opened in the subsequent years 1982-93 and 1983-84. By Letter No. 12 (C) dated 25th January, 1985, it was decided to open 300 Schools in different Blocks for the year 1984-85. Initially, by letter no. 108 dated 12th February, 1985. 75 schools in different Blocks and districts were notified and established, followed by letter no. 142 dated 23rd February, 1985, whereby and where under, it was decided to take over 225 school established by public assistance after necessary recommendation of a three Committee. The 300 schools were thereby established selected in the second phase (1984-95) and these cases relate to some of them. 5. One of the question to be determined in whether a project school of 2nd phase (1984-84) is established by state Govt. or taken over by the State Govt. on recognition? The other question relates to total number of sanctioned Posts of Assistant Teachers in such 2nd phase project schools (1984-85) This Court directed the state to obtain instruction and file additional counter affidavit on the aforesaid questions as well as smbiguity, if any, relating to sanction of posts as shown in letter no. 142 dated 4th February 1989. Such counter affidavits have been filed by the State in C.W.J.C. Nos. 142 dated 4th February 1989. Such counter affidavits have been filed by the State in C.W.J.C. Nos. 8634/96 ad 6881/95, from which the stand of the State, is as follows ; (a) Relating to status of 2nd phase project Schools (1984-85) : The status of 2nd these project School of 1984-85 are (i) there are schools established by public assistance but directly selected by Government and (ii) there are schools established by public assistance but recommended by three men Committee in terms with letter no. 142 dated 23rd February, 1985 to be taken over a project Schools. The above schools, all covered by one nomenclature i.e. 'project Schools'. The schools are not like Zila Schools (Govt. Schools) or nationslised schools, but since established/ sclected by Government under a scheme aimed to provide at least four secondary High Schools out of which one must be a Girls School. These school as per Government scheme would be established in most cases by taking over private schools which have been granting perm permission for establishment or atlast a projected school in terms with the Government of Bihar Secondary School, Board (see at paragraph 15 of the 2nd supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondents in C.W.J.C. 8634 of 1996). The school are being run as Project Schools as envisaged in the scheme itself to promote girls education in such Blocks where there is no Girls schools and as such it is a functional unit to attain that purpose without any institutional identity in terms of finality be yond that of project school (See 2nd supplementary counter afficavit filed by respondent in C.W.J.C. 6881 of 1996.) Further stand of the State that the 2nd phase Project Schools of 1984-85 directly selected by Government will be deemed to be td en over schools from the date of issuance of letter no. 108 dated 12th February, 1985 and those schools established in public assistance but recommended by three Men Committee constructed vide letter no. 142 dated 23rd February. 1985 will be deemed to be over schools on and from the date of issued of such a letter in favour of school concerned. 108 dated 12th February, 1985 and those schools established in public assistance but recommended by three Men Committee constructed vide letter no. 142 dated 23rd February. 1985 will be deemed to be over schools on and from the date of issued of such a letter in favour of school concerned. (See Paragraph 18 of 2nd supplementary counter affidavit filed by Respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 3034/96) (b) with regard to number of posts of Assistant Teachers sanctioned for 2nd phase project schools of 1984-85: According to the State, there are only five units of Assistant Teachers sanctioned by the State Govt. by letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989. There is neither any ambiguity nor any typographical error so far as the provisions laid down under letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989 as regards sanction of units are concerned. By letter no. 1047 dated 16th November 1985, one post of Head Master and four posts of Assistant Teachers have been sanctioned for 2nd Phase project Schools of 1984-85, which has been reiterated in clause (ii) of letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989 so far as clause (iii) of letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989 is concerned, it is an indicator of model requirement of posts that are necessary for it secondary level schools that is to Say, strength of a Project school may be increased depending upon tile financial resource of tile State of Bihar while the Head Master/Head Mistress is appointed by Department, the services of four eligible teachers are recognised against four units from amongst those working therein on the basis of qualification/seniority and utility. The utility aspect, in this context, aims at achieving the maximum advantage out of a teacher's qualification vis-a-vis various subjects of education, other things remained the same A teacher appears to be more useful if competent to teach more subjects than others in the light of his/her qualification subject to limited sanctioned strength of four units of teachers in totality. Those five units of teachers one Head Master/Mistress and four teachers stand sanctioned as per clause (ii) of letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989. According to the State, the Project school of the 1st phase of 1981-82 are guided by letter no. 703 dated 12th October, 1982, where as project schools of the 2nd phase of 1984-85 are guided by letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989. According to the State, the Project school of the 1st phase of 1981-82 are guided by letter no. 703 dated 12th October, 1982, where as project schools of the 2nd phase of 1984-85 are guided by letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989 so far as it relates to sanction of units of teachers are concerned. 6. From letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989, prima facie, it appeared that there is ambiguity in the said letter, there being contradictions in clause (ii) and (iii) thereein. In clause (ii) of the said letter dated 4th February, 1989, when it has been mentioned that five posts of teacher s have been created and to appoint teachers against those five posts clause (iii) speaks of staffing pattern which comes to eight posts of teachers apart from the post of Head Master/Mistress i.e. total nine posts. It is for the said reason, I have gone through the File No. 12/PA-85/87 relating to creation of posts of 2nd phase project school payment of salary to teachers etc. From the office note, it appears that the schools which were earlier established after obtaining permission from the State Govt. by Private Managing Committee and subsequently taken over as project school had nine posts of Teachers (including Head Master/Mistress) as sanctioned by the State Govt. They made appointments in such private schools; accordingly, as against nine posts of teachers. The schools taken over as project schools in the 1st phase of 1981-82, for that nine posts of teachers, including Head/Master/Mistress were sanctioned. However, while the question of taken over the services of teachers of 2nd phase project school of 1984-85 was taken up, a note was given by the then Director on 19th December, 1988, wherein it was mentioned that total five post of teachers (four Assistant Teachers and one Head Master/Mistress) have been created and at the stage of Minister, it was decided to pay salary against such five posts and to forward proposal for payment of honaririum of Rs.500/- each to four other teachers whose posts are to be created. Ultimately the noting of the said file moved and one Sri K.K. Sinha gave noting to adjust five teachers against the sanctioned posts and as four more posts of teachers had not been sanctioned, for such decision, to obtain concurrence of Finance Department, Ultimately letter no. 142 dated 4th February. Ultimately the noting of the said file moved and one Sri K.K. Sinha gave noting to adjust five teachers against the sanctioned posts and as four more posts of teachers had not been sanctioned, for such decision, to obtain concurrence of Finance Department, Ultimately letter no. 142 dated 4th February. 1989 was issued showing therein five sanctioned of posts of teachers and for adjustment of existing teachers against the same. However the matter relating to staffing pattern was also sanctioned in clause (iii) of the said letter dated 4th February, 1989. In the second supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Respondents in CWJC No. 8534/96, it is stated (at para 21) that the entire matter requires to be reviewed afresh by the State Govt. in the light of observations/directions of this Court in some other cases and for that some more time to the extent of three months will be needed as it can be decided only by the cabinet after due re-examination of the matter by personnel Deptt. Finance Department and the Law Department. 7. From the aforesaid facts and stand taken by the State Govt. this court comes to a definite conclusion and held that (a) the second phase Project school of 1984-85 established with public assistance but directly selected by Govt. vide letter no. 108 dated 12th may, 1985, total 75 in number, as mentioned therein will be deemed to be taken over schools on and from the date of issuance of such a letter i.e. 12th February, 1985, (b) those schools established with public assistance but recommended by three men Committee consisting of District Magistrate B.D.O. and D.D.C. in terms with letter no, 142 dated 2nd February, 1989 will be deemed to be taken over schools on and from the date of issuance of such letter by the three Men Committee in favour of the concerned schools (about 225 in number), and (c) there are five units of teachers stand sanctioned, including the post of head master Mistress, for second phase Project schools of 1984-85, as shown at Clause (ii) of letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989 subject to increase of such strangth as may be required in one or other schools in terms with staffing pattern, as mentioned in clause (iii) of letter No. 149 dated 4th February, 1989 and the matter is pending consideration before the State Government. 8. 142 dated 4th February, 1989 subject to increase of such strangth as may be required in one or other schools in terms with staffing pattern, as mentioned in clause (iii) of letter No. 149 dated 4th February, 1989 and the matter is pending consideration before the State Government. 8. In the background of the aforesaid finding, now I, would like to discuss the Indivdual claim and counter claim as made by the parties in each of the writ petitions and its merit, as discussd hereunder. 9. Petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 8634/96, 4618/96, 5353/96, and 3869/96 have made almost similar prayer for recognition of their services/absorption as Assistant Teachers on their respective Project Schools and for payment of salary with effect from 1-1-89 in accordance with the guidelines laid down by letter No. 142 dated 4th February, 1989. (i) C.W.J.C. No. 8634 of 1996 (Rabindra Kumar petitioner) I The case of the petitioner is that he graduated in the year 1981 and then appointed on 6th August, 1984 as Assistent Teacher by the then Managing Committee of Ram Swaroop Singh Girls High School, Barahuiya Garauli in the district of Gopalganj. In the meantime, be completed B. Ed. course (1982-83) of which result was published on 23rd February, 1986. The school, in question, was taken over as Project School by letter no. 108 dated 12th February, 1985 wherein after the State Govt. also constructed the building. The State Govt. though came out with the guidelines vide letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989 for recognition of service of teaching and non-teaching employees of 2nd phase Project schools of 1984-85 but no step was taken for recognition of services of employees of the school in question. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner along with other teaching and non-teaching employees preferred C.W.J.C. No. 7142/91, wherein this court by its order dated 28th November, 1991 directed the respondents to screen the causes of employees of the said schools. Thereafter, in pursuance of direction given by the Director, secondary Education, vide his letter dated 19th February, 1992 the D.E.O. Gopalganj submitted report on 27th April, 1992 giving details of employees working in the school including the petitioner. The grievance of this petitioner is that while services of other teaching and non-teaching employees have been recognised by memo dated 30th January, 1993, his service has not yet been recognised. The grievance of this petitioner is that while services of other teaching and non-teaching employees have been recognised by memo dated 30th January, 1993, his service has not yet been recognised. Even recently, by one Notification dated 7th August, 1996, the services of other teaches have been recognised, It is stated that the Birendra Kumar Singh who was appointed much after the appointment of petitioner on 16th November, 1984, but while his services ha\e been recognised, the petitioner has been left out. An intervention petition has been filed by one Smt. Bharti Singh being I.A. No. 562/96. According to her, she is functioning in the school as Assistant Teacher and being a lady, she has better right for absorption/recognition of service under the Respondents-State over the petitioner. The stand of the Stare is that the services of four teachers have already been recogised against four sanctioned units, apart from the post of Head Master/Masters. The four units sanctioned for a 2nd Phase Project School (1984-85) are (a) Language one unit; (b) science/math-one unit and (c) Humanities-two units. It is stated that the petitioner cannot be considered against the sanctioned unit of Science teacher for being senior to Birendra Kumar Singh, he being not qualified for the post of Science Teacher. (ii) CWJC No. 4618 of 1996 (Pradip Kumar Singh petitioner) ; The case of this petitioner is that Rani Braj Kumari Girls High School, Bear, in the district of Aurangabad was established in the year 1971 and used to be run by private Managing Committee with the people's help. The State of Bihar granted permission to establish the school on 9th March, 1972, wherein after the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28th February, 1982. The petitioner joined the post on 1st March, 1982 and he was B.A. (Honours) at the time of appointment. He had already appeared in B. Ed. Examination by the time he was appointed of which result was published in June, 1983. The school in question, namely, Rani Braj Kumari Girls High School was taken over as Project School in pursuance of Letter No. 108 dated 12th February, 1985, wherein after the school building was constructed by the State Government. After such take over, in pursuance of guidelines, contained in letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989, step was taken for recognition of services of teaching and non-teaching employees of the school. After such take over, in pursuance of guidelines, contained in letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989, step was taken for recognition of services of teaching and non-teaching employees of the school. The DEO, Aurangabad submitted his project report on 16th September, 1989 wherein the petitioner was shown functioning and his name was recommended along with others for recognition of service. However, when no step was taken by the State, he preferred a writ petition, CWJC 7153/91 along with others, wherein this Court by order dated 29th November, 1991 dieted to place the case of the petitioner and others before Screening Committee and to take a final decision there on. No action having taken on the said order of this Court, a contempt petition being MJC No. 335/92 was preferred by the petitioner and others, when Screening Committee submitted report and notification dated 23rd November, 1992 was issued, whereby and where under, the services of two Assistant Teachers, and such who were non-teaching employees of the school were recognised and they were absorbed. The case of the petitioner, however, was left out with an observation that tile petitioner passed the training after his appointment. It is alleged that the person junior to the petitioner namely, Jagnarain Pandey was absorbed but the petitioner was left out. The petitioner had to prefer another writ petition, CWJC 1604/94, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 1st May, 1995 along with some other cases with certain directions, as reported in 1995(2) PLJR 105 (Kumud Kumari Srivastava and 46 others Vs. the State of Bihar and others and analogous cases). Thereafter, the Respondents without considering the case of this petitioner issued another order on 20th May, 1995, by which services of other persons were absorbed. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner was left out on 13th March, 1996 on the ground that he was excess to the sanctioned strength for the purpose of absorption. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition being MJC No. 1378/95 for non-compliance of the order dated 1st May, 1995, passed in CWJC No. 1604/94. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner was left out on 13th March, 1996 on the ground that he was excess to the sanctioned strength for the purpose of absorption. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition being MJC No. 1378/95 for non-compliance of the order dated 1st May, 1995, passed in CWJC No. 1604/94. On 25th March, 1996, a Bench of this Court taking into consideration the order of rejection dated 13th March, 1996, disposed of the contempt petition with observation that no case for contempt was made out with liberty to the petitioner to prefer writ petition challenging the order dated 13th March, 1996. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. In the counter affidavait, the stand of the Respondents relating to total sanctioa of strength is same as taken in the earlier case. They have given reference of the order dated 13th March, 1996 showing reason for rejection of the case of the petitioner being beyond the sanctioned strength. The said order of rejection dated 13th March, 1996 having not challenged in the present writ petition, the Respondents have also raised the question of maintainability of the present writ petition. (iii) C.W.J.C. No. 5353 of 1996 (Meena Mishra petitioner) : The case of this petitioner is that she is working as Assistant Teacher in the Adarsh Girls High School, pachrukhi in the district of Siwan, was established in the year 1981. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Geography and History (Humaanities) on 19th March, 1983 by the then Managing Committee of the school. Since then the petitioner is functioning. The school, in question, was granted permanent recognition by order dated 12th May, 1983 and in pursuance of letter no. 142 dated 23rd February, 1955, the three Men Committee made recommendation to recognise the school as a project school, subsequently, by letter no 145 dated 5th October, 1985, the school was recognised and taken over as project school along with six other schools. It is stated that in pursuance of guidelines contained in letter no. 142 dated 4th February 1989 and on the direction of the Director, Secondary Education, the. D.E.O. submitted project report on 1st September, 1989, wherein the name of the, petitioner was shown and her case was recommend. It is stated that in pursuance of guidelines contained in letter no. 142 dated 4th February 1989 and on the direction of the Director, Secondary Education, the. D.E.O. submitted project report on 1st September, 1989, wherein the name of the, petitioner was shown and her case was recommend. Thereafter, the cases of teaching and non-teaching employees including the case of petitioner was placed before the Screening Committee, which found the petitioner and others eligible for absorption. However, no step having taken, the petitioner preferred writ petition. C.W.J.C. No. 637/92, which was disposed of on 31st July, 1992 by this Court with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education to consider the project report submitted before the Screening Committee, in accordance with law and after screening is done to refer the matter to the State Government for its approval. Thereafter, no action having taken, a contempt petition being M.J.C. 391/93 was filed, wherein specified time Schedule was framed by this Court vide order dated 1st August, 1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter a second contempt petition, M.J.C. No. 149/96 had to be preferred by the teaching and non-teaching employees wherein a show Cause reply was filed by the Respondents enclosing therein a letter No. 135 dated 13th March, 1996. By the said letter, the services of only four teachers were regularised including a dead person Late Natun Haider (S1. no. 3), who had already died. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in terms with the staffing pattern total nine posts including Head Master/Mistress stand sanctioned and the division of the units are as follows : (a) language Group 3 Units (b) Humanities Group 3 Units (c) Science Group 3 Units and (d) Others 1 Units Further, according to the petitioner, as her name was appearing at sl. no. 6 of the project report and the report submitted by the screening Committer, she is entitled for absorption under the Respondents State. According to the petitioner, Ms. Subhra Dey is at sl. no. 1 comes under the category of Language Croup. Smt. Shashi Prabha, at sl. 2, appointed under the category of Humanities Ms. Meena Singh at sl. no. 4, appointed in the category of Language Group and Natun Haidu, at sl. no. 3, is dead, as stated above. The only one teacher Ms. padwaja Rai at sl. no. no. 1 comes under the category of Language Croup. Smt. Shashi Prabha, at sl. 2, appointed under the category of Humanities Ms. Meena Singh at sl. no. 4, appointed in the category of Language Group and Natun Haidu, at sl. no. 3, is dead, as stated above. The only one teacher Ms. padwaja Rai at sl. no. 5, above the petitioner is a teacher of Sanskrit, who cannot be absorbed against the post for which Natun Haidor was shown to have been absorbed. This apart, said Ms. Padwaja Rai was found to be absent from the school right since January, 1992, which was pointed out in the report submitted by D.S.O. Siwan. In the present case also, the stand taken by the Respondent relating to sanction of unit is same and similar as taken in the earlier cases. So tar as Natun Haidor is concerned, it is stated that his service was recognised and it was ordered to pay salary since 1st January, 1989 and he died subsequently on 26th February, 1996 and thereby the question of regularisation of service of the petitioner does not arise. (iv) CWJC No. 9869 of 1996 (Ganesh Choubey-petitioner) : The case of this petitioner is that he is working as an Assictant Teacher in Sanskrit in Ram Swaroop Singh Balika High School in the district of Gopalganj. He was appointed by the then Managing Committee as an Assistant Teacher and joined the school on 1st May, 1984 when his qualification was Acharya in Sanskrit. His services were approved by the Managing Committee vide Resolution No. 3 dated 15th June, 1984 and the school, in question, was taken over by Government Order No. 108 dated 12th February, 1985. The DEO sent Project Report on 28th March, 1985 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown and the State Government also constructed building of the school. Subsequently, another report was submitted on 5th August, 1989 giving detail§ of the employer wherein the name of the petitioner was shown. Earlier, some teachers of the school preferred CWJC No. 7142/91 in which this Court passed certain directions for consideration of case for screening and absorption which was disposed of on 28th November, 1991, Subsequently, a contempt petition being MJC No. 635/92 was filed by the employees of the school for non-compliance of' the Court's order. Thereafter, on 30th January, 1993 names of two Asstt. Thereafter, on 30th January, 1993 names of two Asstt. Teachers were approved, followed by another order dated 7th August, 1996, wherein the service of another Asstt. Teacher, Braj Kishore Singh were approved. The grievance of the petitioner is that Smt. Asha Kumari and Birendra Kumar Singh are junior to him and while their services have been recognised, the petitioner has been left out from such recognition. Further, according to the petitioner in accordance with the staffing pattern, nine sanctioned posts stand created and the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his service against one of such nine posts. It is stated that for another school, Thuna Devi Balika Ueha Vidyalaya, Parson. Danes of nine teachers have been recommended for recognition/absorption, which benefit has been denied to the teachers of the petitioner's school including the petitioner. So far as the petitioner is concerned it is stated that by letter dated 15th June, 1995, the DEO was directed to verify the certificate of Degree of Acharya of the petitioner and to send report. Wherein after, the petitioner's mark-sheet and certificate was verified and favourable report was sent by letter no. 195 dated 19th June, 1995. It is alleged that the case of the petitioner was not considered and he has not been regularised in the services under the Respondents State on the ground that his certificate is to be verified and for that a post has been reserved. In the present case, a counter affidavit as been filed on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4, wherein while same stand has been taken relating to sanction of posts i.e. five units for a second phase Project school of 1980-85, it is stated that the regularisation is being made on the basis of seniority, "Utility and qualification. Further according to the Respondents a female teacher having adequate qualification is to be preferred over a male teacher in the matter of regularisation and Smt. Asha Kumari being a female, teacher, has been preferred and absorbed against the single unit post of Language Group. (v) CWJC No. 6881 of 1995 (Project Balika Uccha Vidyalaya, Thatopur & six others) : In this case, the petitioner who claimed to be the teaching and non-teaching employees of the Balika Vidyalaya aforesaid, have challenged the report, contained in letter no. (v) CWJC No. 6881 of 1995 (Project Balika Uccha Vidyalaya, Thatopur & six others) : In this case, the petitioner who claimed to be the teaching and non-teaching employees of the Balika Vidyalaya aforesaid, have challenged the report, contained in letter no. 830 dated 10th November, 1992, order No. 350 dated 20th April, 1993, by which case of teaching and non-teaching employees of the school in question, for absorption has been rejected in view of aforesaid report and the Notification on No. 275 dated 21st July, 1995, by which Project School aforesaid has been transferred to Chainpur Block within the same district of Bbabhua. The case of the petitioners is that they are working as teaching and non-teaching employees in the school at Thatopur. The petitioner no. 1 is functioning as Head Master, Petitioner No. 2 to 6 as Assistant Teachers' and petitioner No.7 as clerk. The School at Thatopur was established on 5th January, 1984 with the people's co-operation and subsequently it was taken over as project School by the State Govt. vide letter no. 108 dated 12th February, 1985. For the purpose of recognition of service absorption of teaching and non-teaching employees of the school, in Pursuance of guidelines, contained in letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989, the D.E.O. Darbhanga submitted Project report vide letter No. 1492 dated 5th September, 1989, whereby and where under, names of teaching and non-teaching employees including the petitioners were shown and recommended. Earlier the teaching and non-teaching employees of the school preferred C.W.J.C. No. 8587/98 wherein this Court by order dated 9th December, 1991 directed the Respondent to place their cases before the Screening Committee to consider the cases for absorption. The D.E.O. Darbhnga thereafter made enquiry and submitted a report by impugned letter no. 830 dated 10th November, 1992, wherein it was mentioned that no employee was working in the school and the appointments shown are mere paper transaction. It was on the basi3 of aforesaid report, the impugned Order No. 350 dated 20th April 1993 was passed, whereby the screening Committee declined to make recommendation. Earlier some teaching and non-teaching employees of the school preferred contempt petition being M.J.C. 1034/92 for non-Compliance of the Court's order and it was pointed out that earlier favourable recommendation was made by D.E.C. on 6th April, 1991. Earlier some teaching and non-teaching employees of the school preferred contempt petition being M.J.C. 1034/92 for non-Compliance of the Court's order and it was pointed out that earlier favourable recommendation was made by D.E.C. on 6th April, 1991. The Secretary of the school also requested vide his letter dated 6th September, 1993 to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, a fresh report was submitted by D.E.O. Darbhanga vide letter No. 1028 dated 26th October, 1994 and in the said report, it was accepted that the teaching and non-teaching employees are, in fact, working in the school. However, without consideration of their case, in the light of fresh report dated 26th October, 1994, the impugned order was passed, vide letter no. 275 dated 21st July, 1995, whereby and where under, the school at Thatopur was transferred from Bihari Block to Chainpur Block. A counter affidavit and another supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the Respondent. In the counter affidavit while the Respondents have highlighted the earlier report submitted by D.B.O. vide his letter no. 830 dated 10th November, 1992 to show that none of the employees were functioning in the school, it is further stated that the school does not have the permission to establish and there being poor attendance of students, taking into consideration the Liability, the impugned order was passed and the school was transferred to Chainpur Block within the same district. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the Respondents have given the details of project school established recognised and there by taken over in different phases. Details of first phase project Schools and second phase project schools have already been given in tile initial paragraphs, which are reiterated hereunder along with the details of third phase project schools taken over by the State Govt. Phase No. of Schools Letters 1. 1981-82 150 schools 1115 dt. 27.5.81 (Boys & girls) 109 dt. 15.3.82 182 dt. 25.3.82 705 dt. 12.10.82 749 dt. 19.11.82 Memo no. 208/C Edn. dt. 14.4.87 Memo No. 212/C Edn. dt. 14. 4. 87 2. 1984-85 300 school 108 dt. 12.2.85 (including those 142 dt. 23.2.85 directly selected by Govt.) 142 dt. 4.2.89 3. 1988-89 56 schools 1003 dt. 26.8.88 1004 dt. 26.8.88 10. From the pleadings made by the parties, it will be evident that the services of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 8614/96 (Rabindra Kumar): CWJC No. 4518/96 (Pradip Kr. 4. 87 2. 1984-85 300 school 108 dt. 12.2.85 (including those 142 dt. 23.2.85 directly selected by Govt.) 142 dt. 4.2.89 3. 1988-89 56 schools 1003 dt. 26.8.88 1004 dt. 26.8.88 10. From the pleadings made by the parties, it will be evident that the services of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 8614/96 (Rabindra Kumar): CWJC No. 4518/96 (Pradip Kr. Singh): CWJC No. 5353 of 1996 (Meena Mishra); and CWJC No. 9869/96 (Ganesh Choubey), have not been recognised, nor their absorption have been made by the State Government, as according to them, these petitioners are excess to the total number of strength of Assistant Teachers sanctioned for one or other second phase Project schools of 1984-85. 11. The petitioners who earlier moved before this court in different writ petitions where in certain orders were passed by this court, are of no avail for the purpose of determination of issue in the present cases. In the four cases aforesaid, the sole issue to be determined was relating to strength of Asstt. Teachers of a second phase Project Schools of 1984-85. 12. The question relating to recognition of service/absorption of teachers of second phase Project schools fell for consideration before a Single Bench of this court in the case of smt. Manju Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others in CWJC No. 421495, disposed of on 17th February 1997. In the said case, this court held that the teachers appointed by Private Managing Committees before selection of the school under the Project schools would not be entitled ipso jure to recognition of their services/appointment, if they fulfil the conditions of eligibility. The Court took into consideration the fact that the State Government has sanctioned a strength of only five teachers, including Head Master/Mistress for a second Phase Project schools and held that this court cannot issue any direction to increase the sanctioned strength, the same being policy matter and having financial implications. It is open to the State Government to accept/recognise the services of only such teachers who are considered suitable and useful. It is open to the State Government to accept/recognise the services of only such teachers who are considered suitable and useful. The court also took into consideration the clause (ii) of letter No. 142 dated 4th February, 1989, wherein direction was given to recognise the services of five teachers, including Head Master/Mistress keeping in view the Circular No. 705 dated 12th February, 1982 and Circular No. 1027 dated 2nd November, 1985 on the basis of “seniority, qualification and utility”, as stipulated under clause (iii) therein. 13. In the preceding paragraph, while I dealt the matter after taking into consideration the statement made in the counter affidavits, different circulars and the relevant office file, I also held that there are ,only five post of teachers including Head Master/Mistress have been sanctioned for second phase Project schools of 1984-85. There by, no positive direction can be issued by this Court for recognition/absorption of services of petitioners of CWJC Nos. 8634/96; 4618/96; 5353/96 and 9869/96 at this stage. 14. Now one of the question arise as to whether in accordance with satisfaction pattern the State Government is required to sanction nine post of teachers to teach different subjects upto Secondary level ? The guidelines issued under Circular No. 142 dated 4th February, 1989 is the only circular relevant for this purpose which lays down the manner in which recognition/absorption is to be made and the total number of sanction of posts. Under clause (iii) therein the staffing pattern has been laid down by the State which is as follows :- (a) Language Group- 3 (Hindi-1, English -1, Sanskrit-1): (b) Humanistic, Group- 3 (Out of Home Science, History, Geography, Social Studies, Economics any three on the basis of seniority and utility) ; (c) Science Group-2 (Matchematics -1 , Zoology Chemistry - 1); (d) Other Teacher-1 (out of Minority Language, Fine Arts, Commerce on the basis of seniority, eligibility and utility). 15. From the aforesaid staffing pattern, it will be evident that three teachers are required for Language Group, one for Hindi, one for English and one for Sanskrit Language. Similarly, two teachers are required to teach Science Group, one Mathematics and one Zoology Chemistry. So far as teachers for Humanities Group and one other teacher is concerned, these four teachers are to be recognised on the basis of seniority, eligibility and utility and not the others. Similarly, two teachers are required to teach Science Group, one Mathematics and one Zoology Chemistry. So far as teachers for Humanities Group and one other teacher is concerned, these four teachers are to be recognised on the basis of seniority, eligibility and utility and not the others. Thereby, at least nine teachers including Head Master utility and Mistress are required for a Project school in terms with the staffing pattern. 16. Admittedly, there is no difference between a Secondary level Project school taken over in the first phase, second phase and third phase. The standard of teaching and classes in all these three phases Project schools are same, except the manner and phase in which such Project schools have been established/taken over. The teaching upto a particular standard/level (Secondary level herein) has got nexus with subjects to be taught upto such standard/level, number of classes available in such school and the total number of strength of students in such schools. So far as the Question of sanction of stregth of teachers in one or other school is concerned, it is based on staffing pattern and the aforesaid factors, namely, standard/level upto which teaching is Imparted, number of subjects taught in the school and the strength of students in different standards/classes, but it has no nexus with the manner in which such schools have been established/taken over and the year in which such school has been established/taken over. 17. Admittedly, on the basis of staffing pattern, the State Government has sanctioned nine posts of teachers including Head Master/Mistress for first phase Project schools of 1981-82. This will be evident from letter no. 705 dated 12th October, 1982, wherein it has been stipulated that five teachers to be appointed in a school having three classes and nine teachers in a school having four classes similarly, nine posh of teacher including Head Master/Mistress have been sanctioned for third phase school of 1988-89, on the basis of the same staffing pattern, which will be evident from latte nos. 1003 and 1004, both dated 26th August 1988. It is also accepted by the counsel for the State that while the schools were running under Private Managil1g Committee, permission to establish schools and their approval were granted on the basis of total strength of teachers which was nine in number, including Head Master/Mistress which was the basis on which the Private Managing Committee made appointments. 18. It is also accepted by the counsel for the State that while the schools were running under Private Managil1g Committee, permission to establish schools and their approval were granted on the basis of total strength of teachers which was nine in number, including Head Master/Mistress which was the basis on which the Private Managing Committee made appointments. 18. In the present case of second phase project school of 1984-85 the Respondent haves not shown any reason to sanction only five posts of Teachers while the staffing pattern stipulates at least nine posh. It is not the case of Respondents that there is financial crisis for the present, which will be also evident from the fact that nine posts have been sanctioned for project schools subsequently taken over in the third phase. Accordingly, the Respondent State and their officials including the Commissioner and Secretary, Secondary Education Director Secondary Education: and Finance Commissioner and others are directed to considar the question relating to sanction of strength of teachers with respect to second phase project schools of 1984-85, which matter is panting since 1987, taking into consideration the staffing pattern, as laid down by the State Govt. under clause (iii) of guidelines, contained in letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989 the number of teaching posts sanctioned for other Project schools established/taken over in the first phase fond third phase and the relevant factors of individual schools including the total number of class, subject required to be taught and the standard/level upto which teaching is in parted in one or other see end phase Project school and communicate such decision to the concerned. Head Masters/ Head Mistress of such second phase project schools immediately and not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Judgment. If on the basis of staffing pattern and other factors, further posts are sanctioned by the State Government in that case, they will reconsider the cases of petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 8634/96; 4618/96; 5353/96; and 9866/96, for their recognition/absorption of service in their respective schools within a period of two month there after. 19. If on the basis of staffing pattern and other factors, further posts are sanctioned by the State Government in that case, they will reconsider the cases of petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 8634/96; 4618/96; 5353/96; and 9866/96, for their recognition/absorption of service in their respective schools within a period of two month there after. 19. So far as CWJC No. 6881 of 1995 preferred by teaching and non-teaching employees of Project Balika Uccha Vidyalaya, Thatopur is concerned the issues Involved in the present case are (a) whether the services of petitioners i.e. employees of the then Balika Uccha Vidyalaya, Thatopur are to be recognised/absorbed under the State? and (b) whether a school already recognised/taken over as Project School can be transferred from one Block to another Block? 20. From the pleadings made by the parties and the enclosures attached thereto, it appears that there is a disputed question of fact relating to appointment and functioning of teaching and non teaching employees of the school, including the petitioners. The D.E.O., Darbhnga by impugned letter no. 830 dated 10th October, 1992 submitted report and found that none of the teachers are functioning and the appointments are mere paper transaction. It was for the said reason, the Screening Committee declined to make recommendation as is evident from older No. 350 dated 20th April, 1993. Similar stand l1as been taken by the State Government in their counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the school, in question, does not have permission to establish, and there being poor attendance of students the viability of the school, in Question, has been doubted. In view of aforesaid disputed fact, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. However, in view of subsequent report submitted by DEO, Darbhanga vide letter no. 1028 dated 26th October, 1994, the Respondents ere directed to reconsider the matter and decide the question whether they will accept such report or not In this respect, a final decision to be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. 1028 dated 26th October, 1994, the Respondents ere directed to reconsider the matter and decide the question whether they will accept such report or not In this respect, a final decision to be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. As no relief is being granted in favour of the petitioners at this stage and no specific finding can be given by this Court till the State of Bihar accept the subsequent report of DEO dated 26th October 1994, this Court is not declined to interfere with the impugned order of transfer of school from one Block to another, as made by letter no. 275 dated 27th July 1995, at the instance or the present petitioners. 21. As this stage, I may observe that one or other party relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kumud Kumari Srivastava and 46 others, reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 215, but I have not taken into consideration the aforesaid Division Bench decision as the same stands set aside by Supreme Court order dated 23rd July, 1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10215 of 1996 analogous with other appeals (Usha Kumari Vs, State of Bihar and others) and the matter stands remitted to this Court for hearing by a larger Bench. 22. As the issues involved in these cash, in hand, are not the issues raised in the ease of Kumud Kumari Srivastava and others (Supra), no reference of the said case has been made by me in the present cases. One of the petitioners, namely Pradip Kumar Singh of CWJC No. 4618/96, though a party to an analogous case with the case of Kumud Kumari Srivastavu (supra), but subsequent cause of action having taken place after the decision of this Court in kumud Kumari Srivastava (supra) and the impugned order dated 13th March, 1996 having issued by the State which is not the subject matter in the earlier case, I preferred to decide the writ petition of petitioner Pradip Kumar Singh, without waiting the decision in the above cases. 23. Accordingly all the writ petitions stand disposed of in terms with the decision and direction as mentioaed above.