JUDGEMENT Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. This case has a long chequered history. Petitioner virtually seeks her reinstatement in a School which, she claims, was a Project School. She was dismissed in the year 1987 and, as such, her dismissal by the Private Managing Committee was wrong. (Consequently, she prays for payment of her remuneration. 2. Petitioner was dismissed in 1987. She challenged her dismissal order by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3761 of 1989. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 21.03.1990 (Annexure-6). This Court gave a clear finding in the year 1990 that the School is absolutely a non-government and unrecognized institution. Therefore, no writ could be issued and the application was, thus, rejected. Petitioner was given liberty to move competent Civil Court for redressal of her grievances. This was the order passed by a Division Bench. 3. Petitioner then agitated the matter before the authorities and once again her claims were not considered by the authorities. She filed another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 8260 of 1995. The said writ petition was heard and finally disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 18.03.1997 (Annexure-17). The learned Single Judge took note of the Division Bench judgment but apparently chose not to be bound by it, in view of subsequent judgments, which in its opinion had given a concrete shape to the law relating to the Project School. It found no new facts justifying interference yet, it went into various questions of fact and gave a finding contrary to the Division Bench judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 4. With due respect, I am bound by the findings given by the Division Bench, which finding has neither been reversed on appeal or review. Thus, the finding of the Division Bench being that at the time of dismissal of the petitioner, the School was a Private School and not a School taken over as Project School, I cannot ignore the said finding. 5. In view of the said finding, petitioner would once again have no cause to move this Court. Moreover, in view of the said finding, the whole stand of the petitioner falls to the ground because if in 1990 the School was not taken over then the Managing Committee was competent to dismiss the petitioner in 1987. 5. In view of the said finding, petitioner would once again have no cause to move this Court. Moreover, in view of the said finding, the whole stand of the petitioner falls to the ground because if in 1990 the School was not taken over then the Managing Committee was competent to dismiss the petitioner in 1987. That being so, petitioner was, admittedly, not shown on the rolls of the School when ultimately it was taken over. The State passed order clearly stating that when the School was taken over as the Project School, petitioners name did not figure. Petitioner had been dismissed in 1987 itself. On this ground alone, the writ petition cannot succeed. The petitioner is unable to bring on record any contrary material to show as to when the School was taken over. To the contrary, recent affidavits, as filed, show that the reports were submitted in the present century and not earlier. 6. Petitioner asserts that State cannot take the plea that the records are not available to it as it has done in the impugned order. State has clearly mentioned in the impugned order that the communication, as referred to by the petitioner, were not to\be found on the record of the Three Men Committee nor with the Collector nor in the Secretariat and, as such, State could not fix the date of take over of the School prior to the dismissal of petitioner. In absence of any authentic records to show and establish that the School was taken over prior to petitioners dismissal, this Court cannot permit the petitioner to re-agitate the matter. Even the final report as annexed by the petitioner herself by which the School has been taken over being a report of the year 2008 on affidavit from 1.1.1989 which date is the date from which payment of salary liability is assumed by the State. Admittedly, two years prior to that petitioner had been dismissed. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed.