Judgment 1. Petitioner has filed the writ application in question seeking quashing of Annexure-1 and 2 which have been passed at the level of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar. The two annexures are dated 23.6.2011 and 21.7.2008 respectively. 2. By virtue of Annexure-2 claim of the petitioner namely Sanghmitra Kumari for recognition of her service as an Assistant Teacher in Nawal Kishore Project Girls High School, Masaurhi has been rejected on the ground that there is no post available against which service could be regularized. Annexure-1 is the order passed in appeal where not only the claim of the present petitioner was considered but even the case of one Smt. Veena Kumari Singh was also dealt with because claim of the petitioner for appointment as an Assistant Teacher on the third post in the school for Social Science was dependent upon the status of Smt. Veena Kumari Singh, private respondent No.5 and not independent of. 3. According to the petitioner, she was duly appointed on the post of an Assistant Teacher by the erstwhile Management as a Social Science Teacher. She was teaching other subjects as well in the school as at the graduation level the subjects she had were Hindi, Economics and Political Science and all the three subjects come under social science group. She had legitimate right for confirmation on recognition of service in that category. The finding that there was no third post available in the school also deserves to be re-looked into since in many a cases people’s service was recognized even on third post. She further contended that the private respondent was untrained graduate teacher and therefore the petitioner had a better claim. 4. The Director heard the petitioner, the private respondent and the Headmaster of the School besides the departmental authorities. Claim of the private respondent was that she was appointed as an Economics teacher and she has been teaching Economics and English in the said school all along. Appointment of the petitioner was as a Sanskrit Teacher. She was teaching Hindi and Sanskrit. There are materials and reflections to show that petitioner was appointed as a Sanskrit Teacher and was never a Social Science Teacher like the private respondent. Appointment of the petitioner was as a Sanskrit Teacher. She was teaching Hindi and Sanskrit. There are materials and reflections to show that petitioner was appointed as a Sanskrit Teacher and was never a Social Science Teacher like the private respondent. The Director did take note of the fact that appointment letter of the petitioner did not indicate as to the subject on which she was appointed but there are many circumstantial evidence to show that she was appointed as a Sanskrit Teacher. She was imparting education in Sanskrit and Hindi to the students. The fact also corroborated by the Principal of the School in question and the stand taken by the petitioner that she was a Social Science teacher is her own creation only with an object to get foothold in the school in matter of such continuance and recognition of service. 5. The Director had occasion to look into some of the earlier records even relating to the period 1988-89. From perusal of the same it was established that petitioner Sanghmitra Kumari was appointed as a Sanskrit Teacher and her subject of study was Sanskrit and Hindi. Merely because she was graduate in other subjects it does not make her Social Science teacher. Appointment by the Managing Committee was as the last teacher in Sanskrit and Hindi and if that is the origin and the basis for entry of the petitioner in service in the school, she cannot wish it away now by taking a new plea that her appointment was as a Social Science Teacher by trying to take advantage of one document which was letter of appointment. 6. Even the 3-Member Committee did not accept the contention of the petitioner with regard to her appointment as a Social Science teacher. On a detailed hearing the Director has come to a considered opinion that the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee as a Sanskrit and Hindi teacher. Since there are irregularities in such appointment and no posts are available in the Social Science stream as well as a Sanskrit and Hindi teacher in the school as petitioner was the last teacher in addition to the sanctioned strength, her claim for recognition of service or its regularization was unwarranted and uncalled for. 7. During the course of submissions counsel representing the petitioner tries to nit-pick in the rationale or direction of the Director. 7. During the course of submissions counsel representing the petitioner tries to nit-pick in the rationale or direction of the Director. He contends that even the Acting Headmaster was in league with the private respondent and she intentionally had tried to create an impression that she was a teacher in Hindi and Sanskrit and not a Social Science teacher, which was not correct. She is taking other classes as well and was never identified as a Sanskrit teacher alone. 8. The insinuation and allegations so made by the petitioner against the Principal and authorities would have merited consideration provided the order did not reflect that there were other documents available to show that the appointment of the petitioner by the Managing Committee was as a Sanskrit Teacher on the basis of that subject including Hindi. Even otherwise she was appointed as a last teacher. It is not open on her part to declare herself to be a Social Science teacher. It is being done because she knows equally well that there is no vacant post for Sanskrit or Hindi teacher to which she could be accommodated. There is no clear evidence which would show that petitioner was appointed as a Social Science teacher. Her claim that there has been illegality committed by the Director or the 3-Member Committee in regard to recognition of her service as no post is available, is not based on substantive evidence and grounds. Rationale and reasoning given by the Director in the order contained in Anneuxre-1 justifies the initial decision which was taken in Annexure-2. 9. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.