JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Petitioner wants quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 3167 dated 9.10.2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ application). By virtue of this order the claim of the petitioner to include her past service rendered by her under aided school, namely, Ganga Devi Arya Kanya Middle School, Sahebganj, Chapra between 2.4.1964 to 25.3.1973 has not been taken into consideration and in fact has been rejected by the respondents by the impugned order. 2. Petitioner retired as Assistant Teacher on 31.1.2003 from the Primary School, Dahiyawan Tola, Mathia, in Chapra Town, Chapra. Post retirement, when the pension of the petitioner was not finalised she was compelled to file a writ, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 9061 of 2003. During the pendency of the writ application the petitioners sanction for pension was forwarded to the Accountant General and pension and gratuity came to be sanctioned by the Accountant General, Bihar on 22.10.2003 treating the service of the petitioner with effect from 26.3.1973. 3. Petitioner was not satisfied with the said sanction and authorization of pension and, therefore, decided to approach respondent No. 3, the District Superintendent of Education, Saran with representation that her past service should also be taken into consideration since the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 2.4.1964 in a Government aided school, namely, Ganga Devi Arya Kanya Middle School, Sahebganj, Chapra. She had worked in the said school till 25.3.1973 when on the basis of an interview conducted by the Education Planning Committee she came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 14.3.1973. This according to the petitioner was a valid reason to treat the service rendered by her between 2.4.1964 to 14.3.1973 as part and parcel of the service rendered under the respondents. Stand of the petitioner is that refusal by respondent No. 3 in his decision contained in Annexure-4 is an illegal and arbitrary action passed without application of mind, if not malafide in law. Petitioner also submits that the order of rejection only states that the same is not in accordance with the rules but it does not state that as to which rule came in the way. 4. Respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit to explain the basis on which the request of the petitioner had been rejected vide Annexure-4. Petitioner also submits that the order of rejection only states that the same is not in accordance with the rules but it does not state that as to which rule came in the way. 4. Respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit to explain the basis on which the request of the petitioner had been rejected vide Annexure-4. The stand is that the petitioner had earlier moved the High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 9061 of 2003, the Court refused to pass any order in favour of the petitioner but gave liberty to the petitioner to claim the benefit of past service by way of a fresh writ application because the primary relief in the earlier writ was limited to non-grant of pension. Respondents have stated that when the petitioner filed the earlier writ application the original service-book of the petitioner was verified from which it emerged that a wrong entry had been made in the service-book in collusion with the petitioner that she had worked in Government aided school from 2.4.1964 to 25.3.1973. An enquiry was held by the Area Education Officer, Chapra and it emerged that way back the petitioner had been dismissed from service by the Managing Committee of Ganga Devi Arya Kanya Middle School, Sahebganj, Chapra on 22.7.1973. The report in this regard has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. The further stand taken in the counter affidavit is that some antedated entries have been made on 8.2.1987 by the then District Superintendent of Education who had already retired from service by then by making these false entries in service-book the petitioner is trying to get the benefit of past service and that too for a period which was managed by a Managing Committee and which was not a nationalized or taken-over school. If that is the position then there was no occasion to consider the claim of the petitioner to include her earlier service under Ganga Devi Arya Kanya Middle School, Sahebganj, Chapra. 5. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner an effort has been made to dilute the enquiry report by stating that it was a case of removal from service and not of dismissal and the payment to the employees of the school was made by the Government. 5. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner an effort has been made to dilute the enquiry report by stating that it was a case of removal from service and not of dismissal and the payment to the employees of the school was made by the Government. The so-called wrong entry or interpolation has been explained as misleading and misconceived statement. 6. Keeping the submission and the averments made in the writ application on behalf of the petitioner as well as taking the stand with the supporting document contained in Annexure-A which relates to the year 1999 there is material to show that the matter was looked into by the concerned authority much before the petitioner came to retire in the year 2003. These basic facts never came to be challenged at any point of time and only after the petitioner has retired that she now wants the benefit of past service. Respondents has also brought on record a Xerox copy of the service-book contained in Annexure-B to show that certain additions have been made to give benefit to the petitioner when on record she is not entitled to. 7. Since the petitioner has failed to make a clear case for interference in the present writ application and the reasons even though not furnished in Annexure-4 is available which are found to be cogent and reasonable, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.