JUDGEMENT 1. I.A. No. 254 of 2008 has been filed by two teachers, namely, Pradip Kumar Singh and Satyendra Narayan Singh to intervene in the matter and join the petitioners to raise an identical grievance. They submit that their cases are identical to the writ petitioners and, therefore, for convenience, they may also be allowed to be added as petitioners in this case. 2. There is no opposition to the I.A. 3. Therefore, the I.A. is allowed. Let the said two persons be treated as petitioner nos. 21 and 22 in the writ application. 4. It is not disputed that all the petitioners were appointed in various project schools as teachers in 1984-85. Their services were also takenover as a consequence of take over of the School subject to approval by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board. The matter with regard to approval remained pending and, therefore they filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to grant permanent approval to their services with all consequential benefits. During the pendency of the writ application the Vidyalaya Sewa Board was abolished and its powers vested in the newly constituted Staff Selection Commission. However, the power with regard to selection and approval of services of School Teachers were not vested with the Staff Selection Commission. Hence the matter with regard to the approval of the services of the petitioners remained in limbo. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter connected with the takeover of Project Schools and the services of teaching and non-teaching staff working therein travelled up to the Honble Supreme Court and on the orders of the Honble Supreme Court a 3 Men Committee was constituted by the Government which examined the cases of teaching and non-feaching staff of the taken over Project Schools for approval of their services. Learned counsel also submits that the cases of these petitioners were also considered by the said Committee and finding their appointment as valid and legal, recommendations were made to the Government for approval of their services. He also submits that the appointments of the petitioners were made under the orders of the Director himself which was subject to approval by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board at that time. He submits that since the Vidyalaya Sewa Board is not in existence the said approval of takeover of their services by the Director becomes final. He also submits that the appointments of the petitioners were made under the orders of the Director himself which was subject to approval by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board at that time. He submits that since the Vidyalaya Sewa Board is not in existence the said approval of takeover of their services by the Director becomes final. He produces an office order of the office of the Director, Secondary Education dated 24th June, 2008 to show that in similar circumstances the Government itself has approved the services of some of the teachers on the recommendation of the said Committee. 6. Learned counsel for the State accepts that now there is no requirement for referring the matter for approval to the Vidyalaya Sewa Board as the Vidyalaya Sewa Board is not in existence and the Staff Selection Commission which has been vested with the powers of Vidyalaya Sewa Board has no power to approve the services of the School Teachers. However, he submits that as per the orders of the Honble Supreme Court the said 3 Men Committee was required to scrutinize the cases of teaching and non-teaching staff of the Project Schools and make recommendation on which their services has to be approved by the Government itself. He submits that the said office order dated 24th June, 2008 produced by learned counsel for the petitioners also shows that on the basis of report of the said Committee the services of the teachers named therein were approved by the Government. He submits that though statement has been made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that approval of services of teaching and non-teaching staff of Project Schools of 1984-85 phase was finally settled after the orders of the Honble Supreme Court, it is not clear whether the Screening Committee had in fact considered the cases of these petitioners also and had submitted its report. The office order dated 24th June, 2008 produced by learned counsel for the petitioner mentions in paragraph 1 itself that on the orders of the Honble Supreme Court the said Committee had submitted its report and on that basis the services of the teachers mentioned in the order were being approved. The petitioners have not produced any material on record to show that the said 3 Men Committee had in fact considered the cases of these petitioners also. 7. The petitioners have not produced any material on record to show that the said 3 Men Committee had in fact considered the cases of these petitioners also. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates that the cases of these petitioners were also considered by the said 3 Men Committee which had found the cases of the petitioners as genuine and valid and had recommended for their. final approval of their services. 8. If that is so only a formal order is required from the respondents in the matter in respect of approval of the services of the petitioners. However, since there is no material on record to show that final recommendations were made by the said 3 Men Committee in favour of these petitioners also, this Court directs the respondent no. 3 to verify from its records whether in respect of these petitioners also there was a recommendation of the said 3 Men Committee or not. If the records show that such recommendation is available the Director, Secondary Education shall issue a formal notification similar to the said office order dated 24.6.2008 giving concurrence to the services of the petitioners. In case the initial approval granted to the services of the petitioners by the Director earlier has to be treated as final then also the same has to be given effect to and a formal communication in this regard has to be made. However, if under the orders of the Honble Supreme Court the Screening Committee was required to go into the cases of the petitioners also and make a recommendation which has not been done in their respect, the Director, Secondary Education shall see to it that the same is done and final orders in accordance with law in respect of approval of services of the petitioners is issued preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Once the said approval is granted the petitioners shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 9. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.