ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petitioner-school has come before this Court seeking quashing the present impugned order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide memo no. 4193 dated 19.12.2006 by which an application for recognition of petitioner school has been rejected. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed relying upon the notification no. 2501 dated 31.12.1982 for denying recognition of school although, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1021/1991(R) categorically held vide order dated 09.10.1998 (Annexure-7) that the notification shall not apply to the petitioner school as it is not retrospective in nature while the school was established in the year 1969 itself. It is further submitted that when the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to reconsider the matter by the aforesaid judgment, whereinafter a decision was taken by the Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Secondary, Primary & Adult Education, Bihar, Patna rejecting the said application of the petitioner (order contained at Annexure-8) dated 08.01.2001, which was challenged before this Court by filing writ petition being CWJC No. 2084 of 2001 in which vide order dated 11.05.2001 learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 08.01.2001 remitting the matter to the competent authority for decision as the authority falling under the successor State of Bihar had no jurisdiction to pass such an order in relation to school falling the territory of Jharkhand. It was also indicated in the said order that the order passed by the Division Bench in CWJC No. 1021 of 1991(R) is also to be taken into account while passing the reasoned order. It is submitted that after the application was made, respondent no. 3 directed the respondent no. 5 to conduct enquiry and thereafter, respondent no. 5, the District Superintendent of Education, Palamau has favourably recommended for recognition of the petitioner school vide order dated 02.05.2006(Annexure-12). However, respondent no. 2 the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi once again proceeded to reject the application in a cryptic manner without application of mind by recording that petitioner school does not fulfill the eligibility condition prescribed under Notification No. 2501 dated 31.12.1982. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 again, taking into account the circular, which is categorically held to be non-applicable to the petitioner school in the judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 09.10.1998 is unsustainable in law as well as on facts. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the basis of averment made in the counter affidavit, submits that the recognition of the said school has been refused as it did not fulfill the criteria as per the Bihar Primary and Middle Education Rules, 1961 and as such, this application has been rejected by the impugned order. It is again reiterated on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is at liberty to apply again if the criteria laid down in Memo No. 2501 dated 31.12.1982 is fulfilled. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the record and impugned order, it appears that petitioner school was established in the year 1969 and was inspected from time to time by the respondent authorities and when its recognition was refused, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1021 of 1991(R) challenging the order dated 19.11.1990 passed by the Special Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The said writ petition was decided in favour of the petitioner. The Division Bench of Patna High Court while discussing the contents of the said notification held in para-11 that the notification does not have retrospective operation and it cannot apply to the schools, which have been established and in which teachers were appointed before the notification was issued. While allowing the writ application, petitioner was allowed to make afresh application for seeking recognition to the school before the respondent authorities, who were directed to decide the matter in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a stipulated time. Thereafter, an order was passed vide letter no. 72 dated 08.01.2001 by the Additional Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult, Education Department, Bihar after the bifurcation of the present State which was again challenged in a subsequent writ petition being CWJC No. 2084 of 2001(Annexure-9) and the same was quashed as being without jurisdiction having passed after 15th November, 2000 as the petitioner school falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. While allowing the writ petition following observations were made, which are quoted hereinbelow:- “The case is remitted to the competent authority for decision. The petitioner will file a detailed representation alongwith a copy of judgment and order dated 9th October, 1998 passed in CWJC No. 1021 of 1997(R), before the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The said Officer on behalf of the State of Jharkhand is to take necessary steps after due enquiry and then pass a reasoned order and communicate the decision to petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of such representation. The writ petitioner stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.” 6. Thereafter, the petitioner's representation was again reconsidered and it appears that District Superintendent of Education submitted his report to the Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand through his letter dated 02.05.2006 (Annexure-12). After discussing the context of the petitioner school, it was stated that school can be granted aid in the interest of the students and as such it appears that recommendation in favour of the school was made. However, by the impugned order contained in Memo No. 4193 dated 19.12.2006 (Annexure-13) application of the petitioner school for recognition has once again been rejected by passing a cryptic order by the respondent no. 2, the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and again relying upon the same memo no.2501 dated 31.12.1982 with liberty to the petitioner to apply again. Obviously to enable it to apply while fulfilling the criteria under the said resolution of 1982. From the aforesaid facts recorded hereinabove, it appears that impugned order suffers from non application of mind and reason for rejecting the application is the same, which was earlier found non applicable to the petitioner school by the judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the year 1998. The petitioner has been seeking recognition since its establishment and the matter has been dealt with in such a cryptic and casual manner by the respondent authorities which this Court fails to appreciate. Atleast the respondents would have passed a detailed order giving sufficient reason. On the other hand, the impugned order is misconceived as it has relied on the same circular, which was held to be non applicable to the petitioner. Petitioner is once again relegated to position from where he had started. Atleast the respondents would have passed a detailed order giving sufficient reason. On the other hand, the impugned order is misconceived as it has relied on the same circular, which was held to be non applicable to the petitioner. Petitioner is once again relegated to position from where he had started. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi is quashed by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation and the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 16 weeks from the date of production of copy of the order. 8. This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.