Judgment 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20th June, 1998 (Annexure-7), whereby and whereunder, the claim of petitioner for payment of salary of certain period has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a Science Teacher and no post of Science Teacher has been created. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has been directed to recover the excess amount if already paid. 2. Last time when the case was taken up on 4th April, 2000, this Court took into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28th October, 1967, being a degree holder in Science. 3. In that time, there was no Science teaching in the school nor any post was sanctioned. The appointment of petitioner was made against other post sanctioned in term with staffing pattern and not for the purpose of science teaching. It is only since 1971 when the school started imparting teaching in Science, the petitioner was asked to teach Science. 4. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, it was observed by the Court that the petitioner had nothing to do with the creation or aboiition of a post of science teacher, nor had any concern with 1989 Ordinance, for the purpose of appointment, having appointed as back as in 1967. 5. The Respondents were given opportunity to file counter affidavit/supplementary affidavit in respect to the aforesaid question. 6. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Shiksha Board. 7. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, wherein while they have reiterated earlier stand have again taken plea that 429 schools were taken over, vide Ordinance 1989, where staffing pattern of the school was prescribed. The fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1967, while there was no science teaching imparted in the school and his appointment was made against a sanctioned post in 1967 has not been disputed. 8. There is no document on the record to suggest that the post against which the petitioner was appointed in 1967 has been abolished subsequently. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold the impugned order dated 20th June, 1998 (Annexure-7), as illegal so far as it relates to declaration that the petitioner was appointed as Science Teacher and recovery of salary are concerned. The rest part of the said order are affirmed. 10. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold the impugned order dated 20th June, 1998 (Annexure-7), as illegal so far as it relates to declaration that the petitioner was appointed as Science Teacher and recovery of salary are concerned. The rest part of the said order are affirmed. 10. The respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary, if any due to petitioner, on an early date. If the amount is to be sanctioned by the State, they will do so within two months and release of fund, the Board will pay such arrears of salary, if any due, within one month thereof. 11. The petitioner will produce a copy of this order before the Secretary, Primary and Adult Education and Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, who are to ensure compliance. 12. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.