JUDGMENT By Court: Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for directing the respondents to recognize/regularize his services on the post of Assistant Teacher in Project Langta Baba Girls High School, Mirzaganj, district Giridih in the subject of commerce, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6626-6675 of 2001 reported in (2006) 2 SCC 545 and consequentially, for release of arrears of his salary with effect from 1st January 1989 in view of letter no. 142 dated 04th February 1989. 3. As per the case of the petitioner, the school in question was selected by the State Government in view of the letter no. 108 dated 12th February 1985. According to the petitioner, he was appointed by the Managing Committee of the school on the post of Assistant Teacher on 04th February 1985 in commerce subject and was having a qualification of B.Com and B.Ed on the date of his appointment. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the criteria laid down under the Circular dated 04th February 1989 which is also annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent on 27th January 2010, at least one teacher amongst the subjects Music, Arts and Commerce in order of their inter-se seniority, was entitled to be appointed as per the sanctioned strength of teachers of such Project Schools in question. It is further submitted that after the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, three men Alam Committee, constituted by the State of Jharkhand, while considering the cases of the petitioner and other teachers of the same school, has not recommended the petitioner's name for regularization in the subject of commerce, simply on the ground that one Juhi Kumari who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the subject of Economics in the same school, has been regularized and there was no requirement of a teacher in the subject of commerce in the said school. Therefore, the services of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher of Commerce in the said school cannot be approved. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the same State respondent however in reply to the I.A. No. 1656/2013 filed by the petitioner in the instant case itself, at paragraph-7, have indicated that as per the provisions of letter no. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the same State respondent however in reply to the I.A. No. 1656/2013 filed by the petitioner in the instant case itself, at paragraph-7, have indicated that as per the provisions of letter no. 142 dated 04th February 1989, post of commerce teacher has been provided additionally in Project Schools (1984-85 Phase) and the petitioner has been appointed as against that post. In the light of the aforesaid statement, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the sanctioned strength of the Project School like one, maximum nine teachers could have been appointed and their services were to be regularized. The grounds for not recommending the petitioner's case by the three men Alam Committee, is however contrary to the same Circular dated 04th February 1989 which prescribed the sanctioned strength of such Project Schools. It has been further submitted that as per clause-III(Kha) of the said Circular itself, Economics subject has been indicated separately as belonging to the group of Humanity subject, while Commerce subject has been shown in the fourth category i.e. clause-III(Gha) which relates to other teachers in the subjects of Minority Language, Music, Arts and Commerce against which one post of teacher has been shown to be approved under the sanctioned strength. The services of such teachers, of course, would be approved in order of their inter-se seniority. It is therefore submitted that the three men Alam Committee has completely overlooked this aspect of the matter while refusing to recommend the petitioner's name. Therefore, the respondent should be directed to recognize the petitioner's services in accordance with law as against one post of other teachers under clause-III(Gha) of Circular dated 04th February 1989 which also includes commerce subject. 6. Learned A.A.G., appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the exercise to recognize the services of the teachers in Project Schools under the respondent State, were undertaken by three men committee constituted by the State Government pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. Learned A.A.G., appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the exercise to recognize the services of the teachers in Project Schools under the respondent State, were undertaken by three men committee constituted by the State Government pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The three men committee after taking into account the relevant eligibility criteria and the sanctioned strength of such teachers in any Project School, did not find that the subject of commerce was sanctioned in the said school when the services of a teacher namely Juhi Kumari in the subject of Economics, has already been approved by the respondent. 7. However, learned counsel is not able to dispute that under the same Circular dated 04th February 1989 which lays down the sanctioned strength, the subject of Economics has been indicated in clause-III(Kha) under the humanity group where the post of three teachers are said to be sanctioned while the subject of commerce has been shown to be under clause-III(Gha) where post of one teacher has been sanctioned against the subject of Minority Language, Music, Arts and Commerce. 8. It is also otherwise evident from perusal of para-7 of the reply to I.A. No. 1656/2013 filed on 22nd March 2013 in the instant case by the respondent that the post of commerce teacher has been provided additionally in the Project School (1984-85 Phase) and that the petitioner has been appointed against that post. 9. Counsel for the respondent submits that the report of the three men committee however is not clear as to whether under the sanctioned strength of one teacher under clause-III(Gha) of Circular dated 04th February 1989, another teacher of other subject covered under the said clause has already been recognized and regularized by the State Government. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant materials on record, it appears that there is no dispute, so far as the question of selection of the instant school is concerned, under the Circular No. 108 dated 12th February 1985. The three men committee which undertook the exercise relating to the regularization of the services of the teachers in one or the other Project Girls Schools has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 04th February 1985 and at the relevant point of time, he was having a qualification of B.Com and B.Ed. 11. The three men committee which undertook the exercise relating to the regularization of the services of the teachers in one or the other Project Girls Schools has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 04th February 1985 and at the relevant point of time, he was having a qualification of B.Com and B.Ed. 11. However, as has been indicated herein-above, the claim of the petitioner appears to have been rejected on the ground that there was no requirement to approve the services of the petitioner in the subject of commerce in the presence of another teacher Juhi Kumari whose services as a teacher in Economics subject had already been regularized in the same school. As would appear from the discussions made herein above, the relevant aspect relating to the sanction of one teacher in the subjects covered under Clause-III(Gha) of Circular dated 04th February 1989 being Minority Language, Music, Arts and Commerce, has however escaped the attention of the three men committee while considering the petitioner's case. Respondents in their reply to the I.A. No. 1656/2013 have also stated that the petitioner was appointed in the commerce subject which was sanctioned in such schools selected in 1984-85 phase. 12. In that view of the matter, it is desirable that the case of the petitioner be reconsidered at the level of the respondent once again. Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2 - The Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand to consider the case of the petitioner for recognition / regularization of his services on the post of Assistant Teacher in the commerce subject in the Project Langta Baba Girls High School, Mirzaganj, district Giridih in accordance with law after due scrutiny of the relevant records of the petitioner and the school in question as also relevant circulars and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject and also taking into account the aforesaid facts which has been referred to in the earlier paragraph of this judgment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment / order along with a fresh representation of the petitioner duly supported with necessary facts and documents. It is made clear that the report of the three men committee which goes against the petitioner on the aforesaid issue, shall not come in the way of respondent no. 2 in taking a fresh decision in the matter. Needless to say, if the petitioner's services are recognized/regularized in the school in question, in the subject of commerce, the admissible consequential relief shall be released in his favour thereafter within a reasonable time. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Petition disposed of.