Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: "1. That this is an application for quashing of an order as contained in memo No. 244(P) Patna dated 11.05.2010 passed and issued by the respondent no. 3 (The Director, Secondary Education) by which recognition of service of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Project Indu Balika Uchcha Vidyalaya Sasaula Sabha, Police Station- Mejarganj, District-Sitamarhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the school') has been refused on the ground that the post of Physical Teacher is not sanctioned which is totally based on nonest and frivolous ground as the petitioner has been appointed in the school as subject teacher in History, which is within sanctioned strength, by issuing an appropriate writ and further for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions directing the respondents, particularly the respondent no. 3 to recognize the service of the petitioner on the post of as Assistant Teacher in History Subject in the school in view of the Full Bench Judgment, rendered in Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh and analogous cases on 07.12.1999, reported in 2000(I) PLJR 287 and the Judgment of the apex court pronounced on 03.01.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 6626-75 of 2001 and 6676-81/2001, which affirmed the Judgment of the Full Bench as referred above with certain directions and is reported in 2006(II) SCC 545 and further in view of the recommendation made by the Three Man Committee constituted in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the apex court as referred above and further in view of the several Govt. orders/circulars/Executive instructions issued from time to time by the State Govt. and further to pay him salary w.e. from 01.01.1989 with all consequential benefits in term of the Govt. letter no. 142 dated 04.02.1989." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order passed by the Director, Secondary Education dated 11.05.2010, has submitted that the reason given for rejecting the representation of the petitioner for absorption of the services in the Project School of being non availability of the post in the prescribed staffing pattern (Manak Mandal) is factually incorrect and legally impermissible and as such this Court may quash the aforementioned order dated 11.05.2010 and grant consequential relief for absorption of the services of the petitioner. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order, has submitted that the case of the petitioner was earlier considered for absorption in the Project School and was rejected by an order dated 22.07.2008 which in fact had only been reaffirmed by the impugned order on a reconsideration of the representation filed by the petitioner. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, this writ application filed after three to five year of cause of action is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches inasmuch as there is no explanation for such a delay. 6. This Court, however, has also gone into the merits of the matter, keeping in view of the claim of absorption of the service of the petitioner in the Project School in the light of the reason given in the impugned order. As noted above, the solitary reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his being absorbed in Project School is non-availability of sanctioned post of physical trained teacher in the prescribed staffing pattern of Project School. 7. From perusal of the materials on record, it would transpire that the petitioner claims that he was appointed in Indu Girls High School Sasaula Sabha, Sitamarhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the school') in the year 1981 under the decision of the Managing Committee dated 26.12.1981 and he had started working in the aforementioned school since 02.01.1982. According to the petitioner, the school in question was selected for becoming a Project School in the year 1985 and the petitioner, in view of his appointment as a teacher in the aforementioned school, had continued to work, but even then the State Government, by an order dated 22.07.2008, had rejected the claim of the petitioner for absorption in the Project School on the ground that there was no sanctioned post of physical trained teacher under the staffing pattern for the Project School. According to the petitioner, as against the aforementioned order dated 22.07.2008, he had filed a representation which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 11.05.2010. 8. As would be evident from the order dated 22.07.2008, as contained in Annexure-7, the solitary reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner of his absorption in the Project School was non-availability of the post of the Physical Trained Teacher within the staffing pattern. 8. As would be evident from the order dated 22.07.2008, as contained in Annexure-7, the solitary reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner of his absorption in the Project School was non-availability of the post of the Physical Trained Teacher within the staffing pattern. The staffing pattern for school like that of the petitioner's school, which was taken over in the second phase as a Project School, had only 09 sanctioned posts of teacher and to that extent it may be found even from perusal of prescribed norms as contained in Annexure-6 that the Government had sanctioned only 03 posts of Humanities, 03 post of Science and 03 posts of language (English, Hindi & Sanskrit) in terms of the staffing pattern of the nationalized high schools as contained in Government letter no. 705 dated 12.10.1982. 9. Admittedly, in the school of the petitioner, as per the list of teachers, Smt. Chhabila Sinha was the teacher of Social Studies, Smt. Kumari Saroj Sinha was the teacher of Home Science, Sri Harishankar Kumar- Zoology, Sri Shiv Narayan Choudhary- Economics & Geography, Sri Gopikant Jha- Sanskrit, Sri Kumar Ram Ekbal Singh -Mathematics and Physics, Sri Arbind Kumar Singh- English and Sri Ramdeo Prasad Singh was the subject teacher of Hindi. In the list of teachers though the petitioner has tried to make out a case of being a teacher of History and Civics and thus a 4th teacher in the Humanities against only three sanctioned posts by the State Government for Project Schools but then what would really go against him is his qualification because the petitioner was a simple graduate even till 1992 as per the list of teachers produced by him vide Annexure-5. Therefore, if the petitioner had subsequently come out with a claim that he had passed training examination in physical education, that could have made him entitled for absorption had there been any post of physical trained teacher. 10. As noted above, the Government had made however it very clear that the appointment on the post of teacher in the Project School would be only from amongst the trained candidates against the sanctioned post of the staffing pattern. To that extent, letter no. 10. As noted above, the Government had made however it very clear that the appointment on the post of teacher in the Project School would be only from amongst the trained candidates against the sanctioned post of the staffing pattern. To that extent, letter no. 705 dated 12.10.1982 is significant wherein both the staffing pattern of sanctioned post as also the qualification for the post of teacher was clearly laid down and reads as follows: ^^izfrfyfi&i=kad 12@o 8&50@82f'k0&705] fnukad 12 vDVwcj] 82] fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx] izs"kd& Jh clUr dqekj nwcs] f'k{kk vk;qDr fcgkjA lsok esa&funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½ fcgkj iVukA fo"k;&jkT ds izR;sd iz[kaM esa ,d dU;k mPp fo|ky; lfgr 4 mPp fo|ky;ksa dh LFkkiukA mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lEcU/k esa foHkkxh; i=kad 30 fnukad 12-1-82 ds dze esa dguk gS fd jktdh; vkns'k la[;k 109 fnukad 15-3-82 ,oa jktdh; vkns'k la[;k 182 fnukad 25-3-82 }kjk dze'k% 72 fo|ky; xSj tutkfr ¼{ks=½ rFkk 78 fo|ky; ¼tutkfr {ks=½ esa 1-1-1982 ls [kksyus dk fu.kZ; jkT; ljdkj }kjk fy;k x;k gS rFkk bu fo|ky;ksa ds Hkou&fuekZ.k] miLdj ,oa LFkkiuk [kpZ ds fy, dqy 150 yk[k :i;s dh Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h gSA bu fo|ky;ks ds laxBu ,oa izcU/k O;oLFkk ds laca/k esa jkT; ljdkj us v/kksfyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;k gS& 1- izca/k O;oLFkk dh n`f"V ls ;s fo|ky; jktdh;d`r fo|ky;ksa dh dksfV esa jgsaxsA 2- lEcfU/kr ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh ls izR;sd fo|ky; dk fujh{k.k izfrosnu izkIr dj ,d vf/klwpuk tkjh dj bu fo|ky;ksa dk izcU/k ,oa fu;U=.k jkT; ljdkj }kjk vkSipkfjd :i ls fd;k tk;xkA 3- fof'k"v O;fDrRo okys O;fDr;ksa vFkok vxj fdlh O;fDr fo'ks"k@laLFkk }kjk ,d yk[k :i;s dh lEifr] uxn] tehu vFkok Hkou ds :i esa nku Lo:i ns nh x;h gks rks nku dh jkf'k ds lEcu/k esa jkT; ljdkj ds larq"V gksus ij fo|ky; dk uke mu O;fDr@laLFkk ds uke ij j[kk tk ldsxkA vU; ekeyksa esa LFkku fo'ks"k ds uke ij fo|ky; dk uke j[kk tk;xkA 4- fo|ky; ds fy, nku Lo:i izkIr tehu@Hkou dk] bl i= ds fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ds 3 ekg ds Hkhrj] fcgkj ds jkT;iky ds uke fuca/ku djkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA tehu@edku ds fuca/k ds mijkUr gh fo|ky; ds fy, Lohd`r jkf'k ;Fkk fufnZ"V :i ls foeqDr dh tk;xhA 5- fo|ky;ksa dks mu oxksaZ ¼oxZ 6 ls oxZ 10 ds chp½ ds lkFk ekU;rk nh tk;xh] tks tuojh 82 ls fo|ky; esa py jgs FksA 6- rhu oxhZ; fo|ky;ksa esa 5 rFkk 4 vFkok 5 oxhZ; fo|ky;ksa esa rRdky 9 f'k{kd fu;qDr fd, tk;saxsA 7- ftu fo|ky;ksa esa LFkk;h Hkou ugha gS ogka fo|ky; ds uke cUnkscLr ljdkjh tehu vFkok jkT;iky ds uke fucaf/kr tehu ij foHkkx }kjk Lohd`r Iyku ds vk/kkj ij f'k{kk foHkkx ds vfHk;U=.k dks"kkax }kjk fo|ky; Hkou dk fuekZ.k fd;k tk,xkA vr% 1981&82 esa fo|ky; Hkou ds fuekZ.k ds fy, Lohd`r jkf'k rFkk miLdj ,oa osru ds en dh cpr dh jkf'k] vxj dksbz gks rks f'k{kk foHkkx ds lacaf/kr dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark dh vfHk;kpuk ds vk/kkj ij ;Fkkle; muds foLrkjk/khu nh tk;xhA 8- fo|ky; esa miLdj] midj.k ,oa 'kSf{kd miknku ¼iqLrd lfgr½ ds fy, 30 gtkj :i;s dh jkf'k Lohdr dh xbZ gSa fo|ky; Hkou dh O;oLFkk gksus rFkk miLdjksa vkfn dks lqjf{kr :i ls j[kus dh O;oLFkk gksus ij fo|ky; dh vko';drk dks ns[krs gq, fo|ky; ij xfBr ,d dz; lfefr ftlesa voj fo|ky; ds dk;ksaZa esa vfHk:fp j[kus okys ,d LFkkuh; O;fDr rFkk fo|ky; ds ,d ojh; f'k{kd jgsaxs] }kjk fu;ekuqlkj miLdj vkfn dk dz; fd;k tk;xkA fofHkUu enksa ds fy, jkf'k dk foHkktu fuEuor gksxk& ¼d½ miLdj ¼foKku ,oa iqLrdky; lfgr½& 24]000@& ¼[k½ iqLrd & 3]000@& ¼x½ foKku midj.k & 2]500@& ¼?k½ eSi] Xyksc vkfn & 500@& 30]000@& 9- ¼A½ fo|ky; esa LFkk;h iz/kkuk/;kid dh fu;qfDr foHkkx }kjk ;Fkk fofgr jhfr ls dh tk,xhA ¼AA½ LFkk;h iz/kkuk/;kid dh fu;qfDr gksus rd dk;Zdkjh iz/kkuk/;kid dh O;oLFkk] mi;qZDr in ds fy, f'k{kd fo'ks"k dh ;ksX;rk ,oa mi;qDrrk dks ns[krs gq, {ks=h; mi f'k{kk funs'kd ds vuqeksnu ls ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh djsaxsA 10- fof/kor :i ls f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr esa gksus okys mifjgk;Z foyEc dks fn[kkrs gq, f'k{kdksa dh rRdky rnFkZ :i ls fu;qfDr dh tk;xhA fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr }kjk fu;qDr izf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dh vUohZ{kk&{ks=h; mi&f'k{kk funs'kd dh v/;{krk esa xfBr ,d lfefr }kjk fcuk foKkiu ds dh tk,xhA lacaf/kr izeaMy ds lHkh ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh bl lfefr ds lnL; gksaxsA f'k{kdksa dh vgrkZ ,oa mi;qDrrk dh tkap fo|ky; ds ikB~; fo"k;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,] bl flefr }kjk dh tk,xhA jktdh; lsok esa fu;qfDr gsrq ;ksX; ik;s tkus ij mUgsa jktdh; lsok eas rnFkZ :i ls fu;qDr fd;k tk,xk mudh fu;qfDr fo|ky; esa muds ;ksxnku dh frfFk vFkok 1-1-1982 tks ckn esa gks ls ekuh tk,xhA fo|ky; lsok cksMZ }kjk lgefr feyus ij budh fu;qfDr LFkk;h ekuh tk,xhA fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr }kjk fu;qDr izf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa ds lkFk lkFk izf'kf{kr gfjtu] vkfnoklh ,oa efgyk f'k{kdksa dks Hkh {ks=h; mi&f'k{kk funs'kd vUrohZ{kk esa 'kkfey djsaxsA vkSj rnqijkUr budh rnFkZ fu;qfDr gsrq izLrko funs'kd] ek/;fed f'k{kk ds vuqeksnukFkZ HksatsaxsA 11- fo|ky; esa f'k{kdksa dh fo"k;okj foHkktu fuEuor~ gksxh%& Hkk"kk & 3- ¼fgUnh] vaxzsth] ,oa laLd`r½ ekufodh & 3- ¼bfrgkl] Hkwxksy ,oa ukxfjd 'kkL=½ foKku ¼xf.kr lfgr½ 3- inkFkZ foKku] tho foKku] xf.krA 12- 9 Lohd`r inksa ds Hkhrj f'k{kdksa dh rnFkZ fu;qfDr] fo|ky; esa f'k{kd fo'ks"k dh fu;qfDr dh frfFk ds de esa gksxhA bl m|s'; ls fcgkj jktdh; ek/;fed fo|ky; ¼izcU/k ,oa fu;U=.k xzg.k½ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10¼9½ ds v/khu f'k{kdksa dh rnFkZ fu;qfDr djus dh 'kfDr vxys vkns'k rd] ek= bl iz;kstukFkZ ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh dks izR;k;ksftr dh tkrh gSA 13- fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr }kjk fu;qDr vizf'kf{kr f'k{kd] ftUgksaus izf'k{k.k izkIr dj fy;k gS ysfdu ijh{kkQy izdkf'kr ugha gqvk gS dh fu;qfDr vkSicaf/kd :i ls dh tk ldsxhA ,sls f'k{kdksa dks ijh{kkQy izdkf'kr gksus rd 500@& :i;s fuf'pr o`frdk ns; gksxhA ijh{kkQy izdkf'kr gksu ij mUgsa fu;fer osrueku feysxkA mudh fu;qfDr esa fo|ky; lsok cksMZ dh lgefr izkIr gksus ij mudh lsok LFkk;h ekuh tk;xhA 14- rnFkZ fu;qfDr ds ckn tks in fjDr jg tkrs gS bu inksa ij fo|ky; lsok cksMZ ls izkIr lwph ls fu;qfDr dh tk;xhA ;fn fdlh fo"k; fo'ks"k esa fo|ky; lsok cksMZ dh lwph miyC/k ugha gksxh rks mu inksa ij rnFkZ fu;qfDr foKkiu ds vk/kkj ij dh tk,xhA ,slh fu;qfDr gsrq inksa dk foKkiu funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½ }kjk dsUnzh; :i ls fd;k tk,xkA rFkk mEehnokjksa dk p;u fo'kq} mudh ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij dafMdk 10 esa of.kZr p;u lfefr }kjk fd;k tk,xkA ,slh rnFkZ fu;qfDr] fo|ky; lsok cksMZ ls izkIr lwph ls fu;qDr mEehnokj dk fo|ky; esa ;ksxnku djus dh frfFk vFkok N% ekg iwjk gksus ij tks igys gks] lekIr le>h tk,xhA rnFkZ fu;qfDr ds vk/kkj ij f'k{kd fo'ks"k dk LFkk;h fu;qfDr dk nkok ekU; ughas gksxkA 15- dU;k fo|ky;ksa iq:"k f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr ugha dh tk,xhA 16- izf'kf{kr mEehnokjksa dh vuqiyC/krk dh fLFkfr esa vizf'kf{kr gfjtu] vkfnoklh ,oa efgyk f'kf{kdkvksa dh vkSicaf/kr fu;qfDr] funs'kd ek/;fed f'k{kk dk iwokZns'k izkIr dj 500@& :i;s dh ekfld o`frdk ij bl 'krZ ij dh tk,xh fd ,sls f'k{kd nks o"kksa ds Hkhrj vius [kpZ ij izf'k{k.k izkIr dj ysaxsA izf'k{k.k esa Hkstus dh ftEesokjh jkT; ljdkj dh gksxhA izf'k{k.k izkIr djus ds mijkUr mudh lsok dk vuqeksnu fo|ky; lsok cksMZ }kjk gksus ds mijkUr gh mudh lsok LFkk;h ekuh tk;xh rFkk mDr frfFk ls mudh x.kuk ojh;rk gsrq dh tk,xhA 17- lkekU; izf'kf{kr mEehnokjksa ds fy, fu;qfDr dh mez 31 oz"kZ gksxhA ,e0,M0 ;ksX;rk/kkjh mEehnokjksa ds fy, mez lhek 32 o"kZ gksxhA gfjtu ,oa vkfnoklh mEehnokjksa dh fu;qfDr ds ekeys esa mez esa 5 o"kZ dh NwV gksxhA 18- fo|ky; esa LFkk;h iz/kkuk/;kid dh fu;qfDr inLFkkiu gksus rd fo|ky; ds f'k{kdksa ds osrukfn dh fudklh ,oa mudk Hkqxrku lacaf/kr ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k tk,xkA 19- izR;sd fo|ky; esa ,d fyfid rFkk nks vkns'kiky gksaxs rFkk mudh fu;qfDr foHkkxh; fu;e ,oa izfdz;k ds vuqlkj ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk dh tk,xhA tgka visf{kr ;ksX;rkokys fyfid@vkns'kiky dh fu;qfDr fo|ky; dh izca/k lfefr }kjk dh x;h gks mldk vuqeksnu 1-1-82 vFkok muds ;ksxnku djus dh frfFk ls tks ckn es gks] ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk dh tk,xhA 20- fo|ky; ds laxBu] iz'kklu ,oa fu;U=.k lEcu/kh dksb ekeyk ftlds laca/k esa mij dh dafMdkvksa esa dksbZ funsZ'k ughsa fd;k x;k gS] dk fucVkjk funs'kd ek/;fed f'k{kk lg vij lfpo] fu;ekuqlkj djsaxsA fo'oklHkktu g0@& ¼clUr dqekj nwcs½ f'k{kk vk;qDr] fcgkjA** (underlining for emphasis) 11. From the aforementioned Government circular dated 12.10.1982, it would firstly become very clear that there was no sanctioned post of physical trained teacher and if the petitioner wanted to claim of absorption the post of History teacher i.e. one of the three sanctioned post of teachers of Humanities, he was not having the prescribed qualification of having undergone and completed the teachers training course by way of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) The petitioner is shown having qualification of physical training and in fact even till today not a trained teacher having qualification of B.Ed. Thus, when there was never a scope of appointment of a teacher with physical training in a High School sought to be made Project School, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the petitioner's services could not have been absorbed inasmuch as there was a clear emphasis in the Government decision that for appointment of trained teacher against the prescribed number of sanctioned post. This would be also evident from the following passage of the Government letter no. This would be also evident from the following passage of the Government letter no. 142 dated 04.02.1989, which again for the sake of clarity and convenience is quoted hereinbelow: ^^i=kad&12@i 1&065@87&142 fcgkj ljdkj ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkxA izs"kd] Jh Mh0 ,l0 eq[kksik/;k; vij vk;qDr≶&fo'ks"k lfpo] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkjA lsok esa] funs'kd ¼ek0 f'k0½≶&laqDr lfpo] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkjA fo"k;& tu lg;ksx ls [kksys x;s oSls ckfydk ftUgsa o"kZ 1984&85 esa izkstsDV mPp fo|ky; dh LFkkiuk ;kstuk ds vUrxZr p;fur fd;k x;k gS muesa izcU/k lfefr }kjk Lohd`r in ds Hkhrj fu;qDr ,oa dk;Zjr vgZrk izkIr f'k{kd@f'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks ljdkjh lsok esa fu;qDr djus rFkk osru Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esaA egk'k;] funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lEcU/k esa lwfpr djuk gS fd tu lg;ksx ls [kksys x;s oSls fo|ky;ksa ftUgsa 1984&85 esa izkstsDV ;kstuk ds vUrxZr p;fur dj fy;k x;k gS muls izcU/k lfefr }kjk Lohd`r in ds Hkhrj fu;qDr ,oa dk;Zjr vgZrk izkIr f'k{kd@f'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks ljdkjh lsok esa fu;qDr djus rFkk mUgsa osru Hkqxrku djus ds fy;s ljdkj ds le{k dbZ Lzkksrksa ls vH;kosnu izkIr gq;s Fks vkSj fo/kku eaMy esa dbZ ckj ekuuh; lnL;ksa }kjk iz'u iwNs x;s gSa rFkk ljdkj dk /;ku Hkh bl vksj vkd`"V fd;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa dbZ ckj mPp Lrjh; fopkj foe'kZ Hkh gq, gSA jkT; ljdkj us lHkh igywvksa ij lE;d :i ls fopkj djrs gq, fuEuor fu.kZ; ysus dh d`ik dh gS& ¼1½¼d½ jkT; ljdkj ls ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr lh/ks p;fur tu lg;ksx ls [kksys x;s ckfydk mPp fo|ky; vkSj ¼[k½ foHkkxh; i=kad 142 fnukad 23&2&85 }kjk xfBr f=lnL;h; lfefr }kjk p;fur tu lg;ksx ls [kksys x;s ,sls ckfydk mPp fo|ky; ftUgaas ek/;fed f'k{kk dk;kZy; ls LFkkiuk dh vuqefr feyh gqbZ gksa rFkk ftudh Nk=k,a fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfedr dh ijh{kk esa vius gh fo|ky; ls iathd`r rFkk mRizsf"kr gqbZ gka rFkk mudk ijh{kkQy Hkh mlh fo|ky; ds uke ls izdkf'kr gqvk gks] rks izcU/k lfefr }kjk Lohd`r cy ds vUrxZr ekud eaMy ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;s x;s f'kf{kdk@f'k{kd tks f'k{kd in ij fu;qfDr dh fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ,oa vgZrk j[krs gksa rFkk fo"k; f'k{kd ds :i esa ckfydk mPp fo|ky; esa ftudh mi;ksfxrk izekf.kr gks] rks mudh lsok fo|ky; lsok cksMZ dh lgefr izkIr gksus ij ljdkjh lsod ds :i esa ysrs gq,] mUgsa f'k{kd in ij fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼2½ mi;qZDr dksfV ds fo|ky;ksa esa ek= Lohd`r 5 inksa ds fo:n~/k dafMdk&3 esa vafdr ekud eaMy dh n`f"V esa j[krs gq, ojh;rk] vgZrk ,oa mi;ksfxrk dh n`f"V ls f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr lEcfU/kr osrueku esa dh tk;sxhA ¼3½ ,sls fo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kdksa ds ekud eaMy fuEufyf[kr gksaxs& tSlk fd ljdkj dk ifji= la[;k 708 fnukad 12-10-82 ,oa 1027] fnukad 2-11-85 esa izko/kku gS& ¼d½ Hkk"kk lewg 3 ¼fgUnh&A] vaxzsth&A] laLd`r&A½ ¼[k½ ekufodh lewg&3 ¼x`g foKku] bfrgkl] Hkwxksy] ukxfjd 'kkL=] vFkZ'kkL= esa ls dksbZ rhu ojh;rk vgZrk ,oa mi;ksfxrk ds vkyksd esa½ ¼x½ foKku lewg&2 ¼xf.kr foKku&A] tho foKku&jlku 'kkL=&A½ ¼?k½ vU; f'k{kd&A ¼vYi la[;d Hkk"kk] laxhr yfyr dyk] okf.kT; fo"k; esa ls ,d ojh;rk vgZrk ,oa mi;ksfxrk ds vkyksd esaA½ ¼4½ f'k{kdksa dks ekU;rk ds fy;s U;wure ;ksX;rk Lukrd izf'kf{kr dh gksxh vkSj Lukrd Lrj ij muds }kjk fy;s x;s ,d fo"k; ,slk t:j gksuk pkfg, ftldk ftdz mi;qZDr ekud f'k{kd eaMy esa fd;k x;k gSaA efgyk] gfjtu] vkfnoklh dksfV esa izf'kf{kr vH;FkhZ ugha gksus ij vizf'kf{kr efgyk] gfjtu ,oa vkfnoklh dks Hkh lsok dh ekU;rk vizf'kf{kr Lukrd ds osrueku@o`frdk ij nh tk;sxhA bUgsa vius [kpZ ij fu;qfDr ds rhu o"kZ ds Hkhrj izf'kf{kr gksuk gksxk vkSj izf'k{k.k dh O;oLFkk jkT; ljdkj djk;sxhA vgZrk izkIr efgyk,a miyC/k ugha gksus ij gh Lukrd izf'kf{kr iq:"k f'k{kdksa dks ekU;rk ns ldsxh] efgyk,a miyc/k gksus ij mUgas vU;= leaftr dj fn;k tk;sxkA ¼5½ f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr ds fy, funs'kd] ek/;fed f'k{kk dh v/;{krk esa fuEufyf[kr lnL;ksa dh ,d Ldzhfuax lfefr cukbZ tkrh gS tks f'k{kdksa dh ojh;rk] mi;ksfxrk ,oa vgZrk dh leh{kk djds fu;qfDr gsrq viuh vuq'kalk jkT; ljdkj dks nsxh vkSj jkT; ljdkj ,l vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa fu;qfDr gsrq lE;d fu.kZ; ysxh& 1- funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½] fcgkj & v/;{k 2- vij f'k{kk funs'kd ¼eq[;ky;½& lnL; 3- jkT; ds ojh;re vij f'k{kk funs'kd& lnL; 4- fcgkj fo|ky; lsok cksMZ ds ,d izfrfuf/k& lnL; ¼ftldk euksu;u fo|ky; lsok cksMZ ds v/;{k djsaxs½ 5- izHkkjh mi funs'kd] ek0 f'k0 ¼eq[;ky;½& lnL; lfpo ¼izkstsDV fo|ky;½ ¼6½ lkekU; izf'kf{kr mEehnokjkas ds fy, fu;qfDr dh mez lhek 31 o"kZ gksxhA ,e0,M0 ;ksX;rk/kkjh mEehnokjksa ds fy, mez lhek 32 o"kZ gksxhA vizf'kf{kr efgyk dh fu;qfDr ds fy, vf/kdre vk;q 30 o"kZ dh gksxhA gfjtu ,oa vkfnoklh mEehnokjksa dh fu;qfDr ds ekeys esa 5 o"kksZa dh NwV gksxhA izcU/k lfefr }kjk ftl frfFk dks fu;qfDr dh xbZ gS ml frfFk dks mez lhek dh x.kuk dh tk;sxhA ¼7½ ftu fo|ky;ksa esa iz/kkuk/;kfidk dk inLFkkiu gks x;k gS ;k ftlesa foHkkx }kjk iz/kkuk/;kfidk dk inLFkkiu fd;k tk;sxk mu fo|ky;ksa esa ml fo"k; ds f'k{kd ftudh ekU;rk nh tk;sxh mudk leatu fdlh vU; fo|ky; esa dj fn;k tk;sxkA ;fn ,sls fo|ky; esa iwoZ ls ek/;fed f'k{kk dk;kZy; ds }kjk f'k{kd@f'kf{kdk dh fu;qfDr gqbZ gks vFkok gksusokyh gks rks inksa ds fo:n~/k ekU;rkizkIr f'k{kd dks vU; fo|ky; esa leaftr dj fn;k tk;sxkA 2- izkstsDV dU;k mPp fo|ky;ksa esa fu;qfDr ,oa dk;Zjr iq:"k f'k{kdksa dh lsok dh ekU;rk vU; lekU; 'krksaZ ds vykos fuEukafdr 'krksaaZa dh iwfrZ djus ij gh nh tk;sxh& ¼d½ ftl fo"k; ds os f'k{kd gSa ml fo"k; dh dksbZ nwljh efgyk f'kf{kdk ml fo|ky; esa ugha gksA ¼[k½ iq:"k f'k{kd Lohd`r in ds fo:n~/k fu;qDr gksA ¼x½ fo"k; ,oa fjfDr dks ns[krs gq, mUgsa tgka dgha Hkh leaftr fd;k tk;sxk ogkaa tkus esa mUgsa dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxhA 3- mUgha f'kf{kdk@f'k{kdksa dh lsok dh ekU;rk nh tk;sxh tks v|ru :i ls dk;Zjr gksa rFkk ftudh fu;qfDr izcU/k lfefr }kjk LFkkiuk dh vuqefr vFkok eq[;ky; }kjk p;u dh frfFk vFkok ftyk Lrj l{ke lfefr }kjk p;u dh frfFk ds iwoZ gqbZ gks] f'k{kdksa dh lsok fopkj.kh; gksxhA 4- osrueku esa fu;qDr f'k{kdksa dk osru Hkqxrku mi;qZDr Ldzhfuax dehVh dh vuq'kalk ij ljdkj ds vueksnuksijkUr fnukad 1-1-89 ls fd;k tk;sxkA 5- mi;qZDr dksfV ds fo|ky;ksa esa izcU/k lfefr }kjk fu;qDr vgZrk ,oa ;ksX;rk izkIr Lohd`r cy ds vUrxZr fu;qDr ,oa dk;Zjr f'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok Hkh dafMdk&A¼5½ esa nh izfdz;k ds vuq:i dh tk;sxhA 6- vuqjks/k gS fd jkT; ljdkj ds mi;qZDr fu.kZ;kuqlkj mi;qZDr dksfV ds fo|ky; esa dk;Zjr f'k{kd@f'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks ljdkjh lsok esa fu;qDr djus dh dk;ZokbZ 'kh?kz djsaA fo'oklHkktu ¼ch0,l0 eq[kksik/;k;½ vij vk;qDr≶&fo'ks"k lfpo ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkjA Kkikad&142@iVuk] fnukad 4 Qjojh] 1989 bZ0A** (Underlining for emphasis) 12. This Court has carefully gone into the submission of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the aforementioned admitted facts as also the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the cases arising out of Project Schools itself involving interpretation of the aforesaid Circular dated 04.02.1989 and the other issues arising out of the claims of absorption of teachers in the Project Schools. The full Bench of this Court, in the cases of Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh V. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2000(1) PLJR 287 , had categorically gone into the issue as with regard to the meaning and scope of ‘Trained Graduate’ being the qualification for appointment on the post of teachers and in this regard has straightway rejected the cases like that of the petitioner having qualification of training in physical education in the following terms: “24. In some of the cases before us, the petitioners have been refused recognition/regularization of their services on the ground that they did not possess the requisite training qualification of B.Ed.(Bachelor in Education) though they had the certificates of B.T. (Basic Trained). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, only stipulates trained graduate as the minimum qualification. It does not specify any certificate that the State Government has also recognized B.T. equivalent to B.Ed. for appointment of teachers in Non-Government High School or nationalized schools. Therefore, candidates having B.T. certificates should also be treated as “Trained graduates”. In this regard, our attention was drawn to a letter of the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, dated 18th April, 1996, contained in Annexure 16 and yet another letter of the same authority, dated 27th June, 1977, as contained in Annexure-16/A to the supplementary affidavit dated 25th January, 1999, filed in CWJC No. 1224, to show that B.T. Certificates are treated equivalent to B.Ed. and Di-in-Ed for the purpose of appointment of teachers in Non-Government High Schools or nationalized schools. It was thus contended that respondents are not justified in denying recognition/regularization of the services of such teachers on the ground that they had not passed the B.Ed. Examination. 25. From the aforesaid letters of the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, it would appear that for the purpose of appointment in a Non-Government High School, B.T. certificates are treated at part with B.Ed. qualification. Examination. 25. From the aforesaid letters of the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, it would appear that for the purpose of appointment in a Non-Government High School, B.T. certificates are treated at part with B.Ed. qualification. But in absence of any such circular with respect to the present appointment or admission in the counter affidavit on behalf of the State, I do not feel inclined to hold that certificates of B.T. are at par with B.Ed. qualification. Any person having passed matriculation examination may appear at the B.T. examination conducted by the Secondary School Examination Board and can get a certificate in this regard whereas a person is not entitled to get a degree of B.Ed. Unless he or she had passed the Graduation examination. It has been noticed that the expression “trained graduation? is very well understood for a candidate having Bachelor’s degree in the subject of education in addition to Bachelor’s degree in Arts or Science or Commerce etc. That apart, a certificate of B.T. as noticed above, is granted by the Secondary School Examination Board, whereas the degree of B.Ed. is granted by University. But, however, I may clarify that in spite of the aforesaid views of mine, it will be open to the authorities of the State Government to consider whether a „B.T. certificate? can be equated to that of B.Ed. qualification? or “qualification of Dip-in-Ed”. 26. In the abovementioned group of cases, there are 2-3 cases where petitioners are claiming their regularization/recognition of services since they had passed the physical training examination. Therefore, according to them, they possessed the minimum qualification of trained graduate as required under circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989. It has been contended that it would appear from letter no. 6066 dated 24th November, 1986, that the State Government had also accepted that physical trained teachers are in the category of trained graduates and, therefore, entitled for appointment to the post of teachers or Headmaster. A reference in this regard was also made to a decision of this Court in the case of Kumar Kant Choudhary v. the District Education Officer, Darbhanga and Others (1079 BBCJ 184). In that case, question for consideration was whether a physical trained teacher was qualified to be considered for the post of Headmaster and Assistant Headmaster in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Bihar High School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1972. In that case, question for consideration was whether a physical trained teacher was qualified to be considered for the post of Headmaster and Assistant Headmaster in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Bihar High School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1972. It was noticed that having regard to the provisions of the Rules, petitioner of that case was one of the trained graduate teachers of the school as such sufficiently qualified to be considered for the post of Headmaster. 27. In my view, the said decision of this Court rendered in the abovementioned case, or circular no. 6066, dated 24th November, 1986, are with respect to schools of different category. Therefore, it would not be proper to apply the ratio of that case or the provisions contained in the said circular to the teachers of the Project Schools. That apart, as I have already noticed, expression “trained graduate” as prescribed under circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989 would mean a candidate having Bachelor’s degree in the subject of Education in addition to Bachelor’s degree in any of the subjects of Arts or Science or Commerce.” (Underlining for emphasis) 13. Let it be noted that the aforementioned judgment of the Full Bench was approved by the Apex Court also in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Project Uchcha Vidya Shikshak Sangh & Ors. reported in 2006(1) PLJR 483 wherein as with regard to educational qualification of the teaching staff particularly with regard to the requirement of teachers training qualification of Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court was not interfered and all that the Apex Court had held in this regard was as follows: “90. reported in 2006(1) PLJR 483 wherein as with regard to educational qualification of the teaching staff particularly with regard to the requirement of teachers training qualification of Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court was not interfered and all that the Apex Court had held in this regard was as follows: “90. So far as educational qualification of the teaching staff is concerned, we are of the opinion that having regard to the fact that the limited number of teachers were to be appointed with a view to accomplish a constitutional goal of spreading literacy in the villages, particularly amongst the girls, the standard adopted in Zila Schools or Government Schools constituted in urban areas may not be insisted upon, as was observed by the High Court, but keeping in view the fact that it is essentially a Government function, the question as to whether some teachers having B.T. training or training in Physical Education would be allowed to continue in the said Project Schools or not is left to the State, wherefor a decision in a decision in accordance with law may be taken.” 14. It is an admitted fact that subsequently, the State Government had made screening of the teachers of the school and in the school of the petitioner only 02 teachers have been absorbed and the cases of other teachers namely, Smt. Kumari Saroj Sinha, Sri Parmeshwar Pathak (the petitioner), Sri Shiv Narayan Choudhary, Sri Kumar Ram Ekbal Singh, Sri Arbind Kumar Singh, Sri Ramdeo Prasad Singh, and Sri Shashank Chandra Pathak were rejected by a reasoned order dated 22.07.2008, which reads as follows: ^^ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx fcgkj] iVuk dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k&ifj0@ek0f'k0&05@2006 5777@ iVuk] fnukad 22 tqykbZ 2008 ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 6626&6675@2001 ds lkFk layXu flfoy vihy la[;k 6676&6681@2001 fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU; ouke ifj;kstuk mPp fo|ky; f'k{kd laa?k ,oa vU; esa fnukad 3-01-06 dks ikfjr vkns'k rnkuqlkj f=lnL;h; tkap lfefr ls izkIr tkap izfrosnu ij ljdkj ds vkns'kkuqlkj bUnq izkstsDV ckfydk mPp fo|ky; llkSyklHkk] lhrke<+h esa fo|ky; izca/k lfefr }kjk fu;qDr fuEukafdr f'k{kd@f'kf{kdk ,oa f'k{kdsRrj deZpkjh dh lsok dh ekU;rk ds nkos dks muds uke ds lkeus vafdr dkj.kksa ls vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS& dzekad f'k{kd@f'k{kdsRrj dehZ dk uke vLohd`fr dk dkj.k 01 Jherh dqekjh ljkst flugk lgk;d f'k{kd ekud e.My ds vUrxZr in miyC/k ugha jguk 02 Jh ijes'oj ikBd] lgk;d f'k{kd ekud e.My ds vurxZr 'kkjhfjd izf'kf{kr f'k{kd dk in miyC/k ugha jgukA 03 Jh f'ko ukjk;.k pkS/kjh] lgk;d f'k{kd vizf'kf{kr dh ;ksX;rk jgukA 04 Jh dqekj jke ,dcky flag] lgk;d f'k{kd vizf'kf{kr dh ;ksX;rk jgukA 05 Jh vjfoUn dqekj flag] lgk;d f'k{kd vizf'kf{kr dh ;ksX;rk jgukA 06 Jh jkenso izlkn flag] lgk;d f'k{kd vizf'kf{kr dh ;ksX;rk jgukA 07 Jh 'k'kkad pUnz ikBd] lgk;d f'k{kd ekud e.My ds vUrxZr ekufodh leqg esa in miyC/k ugha jgukA 2- ,sls f'k{kd@f'kf{kdk ,oa f'k{kdsRrj deZpkjh tks bl vkns'k ls fo{kqC/k gksaxs ,oa Lohd`r uhfr ds vUrxZr vkus dk nkok djsaxs vFkok Lohd`r uhfr ds vUrxZr fdlh f'k{kd@f'kf{kdk ,oa f'k{kdsRrj dehZ ds lfEefyr fd;s tkus ds fo:n~/k f'kdk;r izkIr gksrh gS rks izkIr vH;kosnu@f'kdk;r dk fuLrkj funs'kd ek/;fed f'k{kk }kjk ljdkj dk vkns'k izkIr dj fd;k tk;sxkA deys'oj izlkn flag funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½ Kkikad 5777@iVuk] fnukad 22@7@2008** 15. It is very significant to note here that when the petitioner had filed a representation, he did not deny the fact that he had only the qualification of being a teacher for physical trained teacher and in fact he had tried to equate his case with those Project Schools which were taken over in the first phase in the year 1981-82. This Court, however, will have no difficulty in holding the petitioner ineligible because he himself in paragraph 4 of the writ application has stated as follows: "4. ....... The State Government in the Financial year 1984-85 identified and selected 300 blocks with a view to complete the target of establishing one Girls High School in each of them vide Govt. Letter No. 12(C) dated 25.01.1985. The State Government, Department of Education vide Govt. letter No. -108 dated 12.02.1985 selected 75 Girls High Schools in each 75 blocks out of the selected 300 blocks, but the State functionaries field more impediments in selection of the school sitting in Headquarter as such, the State Govt. Department of Education, constituted a Three Man Committee headed by the District Magistrate of the concerned district authorizing with the same power to select the schools within their respective district vide Govt. letter No. -142 dated 23.02.1985. The school of the petitioner has been selected by the Three Man Committee, which is admitted position as services of some of teaching and non-teaching staffs of the school has been recognized treating the school validly selected." 16. Thus, once the petitioner admits that the school in question was made a Project School in second phase in 1985, there would be no difficulty in the applicability of the aforementioned Circulars and the petitioner, therefore, was not entitled for absorption of his service as there was no sanctioned post of physical trained teacher amongst staffing pattern of 09 sanctioned posts of teachers, cannot be permitted to raise any issue now which has already been concluded by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh (supra). 17. 17. Judged in this background, this Court also would not find any error in the impugned order dated 11.05.2010 which only reiterates earlier decision dated 22.07.2008 by once again rejecting the cases of 07 out of 09 teachers of the school including the petitioner on the ground of either sanctioned post being not available or the person concerned being untrained. 18. The instances cited by the petitioner that in some other cases services have been absorbed, having been not raised in the representation filed by him on 19.12.2011, this Court would refuse to examine this aspect inasmuch as the impugned order could not have taken note of the aforementioned aspect. 19. The law also is well settled that in order to make out a case of discrimination, one has to establish his own right because illegality allowed in one case cannot be perpetuated in another case as well. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Bihar Vs Upendra Narayan Singh reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 , wherein it was held as follows: "67. By now it is well settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order - Chandigarh Admn. Vs. Jagjit Singh, {(1995) 1SCC 745}; Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, { (1997) 1 SCC 35 }; Union of India v. J.V. Subhaiah, {(1996) 2SCC 258}; Gursharan Singh v. NDMC, { (1996) 2 SCC 459 }; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, { (1997) 3 SCC 321 }; Faridabad Central Government. Vs. Jagjit Singh, {(1995) 1SCC 745}; Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, { (1997) 1 SCC 35 }; Union of India v. J.V. Subhaiah, {(1996) 2SCC 258}; Gursharan Singh v. NDMC, { (1996) 2 SCC 459 }; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, { (1997) 3 SCC 321 }; Faridabad Central Government. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, { (1997) 7 SCC 752 }; Style (Dress Land) v. UT, Chandigarh, { (1999) 7 SCC 89 }; State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, { (2000) 9 SCC 94 }; Union of India v. International Trading Co., { (2003) 5 SCC 437 } and Directorate of Film Festivals v. G. Aurav Ashwin Jain { (2007) 4 SCC 737 }. 20. It has to be also kept in mind that the petitioner, after the order dated 22.07.2008, has remained with no claim for his being absorbed in service and, therefore, this Court can not allow reopening of the stale matter specially when the petitioner has approached this Court after considerable delay of more than three to five years. 21. It thus becomes clear that the petitioner had made a belated attempt to re-open a stale issue which was already settled in his cases in the year 2008 by passing the order rejecting the cases for absorption vide order dated 22.07.2008 and which was only reaffirmed by the impugned order dated 19.04.2010. The petitioner, however, have filed this writ application on 08.08.2013 without explaining the delay of more than at least three to five years even from the date of last order. The only ground for them in moving this Court belatedly is that in some other cases this Court has passed favourable orders for absorbing the services of teachers in Project Schools. Firstly, no cases has been brought forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner as with regard to persons like the two petitioner who claims their absorption only on the basis of their having qualification of training in physical education. Secondly, this Court must hold that the petitioner could not have sat on fence till someone else's case was decided and then reagitate his claim which he had not pursued for several years. 22. By now it is well settled that if a person is not vigilant he cannot ask the Court to grant relief only on the basis of law declared in some other cases. 22. By now it is well settled that if a person is not vigilant he cannot ask the Court to grant relief only on the basis of law declared in some other cases. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rup Diamonds v. Union of India reported in (1989) 2 SCC 356 ; Bhoop Singh v. Union of India reported in (1992) 2 SCC 137 and Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538 ). 23. The further plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was awaiting the result of his representation after his case for absorptions was rejected can also not sufficiently explain the delay of more than three years even from the date of rejection of the representation of the petitioner. Such delay is not condonable as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Kamini Kumar v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1972 SC 2060 ; Jagdish Narain v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1973 SC 1343 ; Shushil Kumar v. Union of India reported in AIR 1986 SC 1636 ; High Court of M.P. v. Mahesh Prakash reported in AIR 1995 SC 2595 and B. Ramanjini v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 2023 . 24. The whole issue as with regard to delay disentitling even the plea of discrimination was beautifully summed up by the Apex Court in the case of Bhup Singh (supra), wherein it was held as follows: "No attempt has been made by the petitioner to explain why he shoes to be silent for so long, if he too was interested in being reinstated and had not abandoned his claim, if any. If the petitioner's contention is upheld that lapse of any length of time is of no consequence in the present case, it would mean that any such police constable can choose to wait even till he attains the age of superannuation and then assail the termination of his service and claim monetary benefits for the entire period on the same ground. That would be a startling proposition. In our opinion, this cannot be the true import of Article 14 or the requirement of the principle of non-discrimination embodied therein, which is the foundation of petitioner's case." 25. That would be a startling proposition. In our opinion, this cannot be the true import of Article 14 or the requirement of the principle of non-discrimination embodied therein, which is the foundation of petitioner's case." 25. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner even on merit has no case. 26. That being so, this writ application is dismissed both on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merit.