ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner's case for recognition of her services in Project Girls High School, Lota, Khutpani, District-Singhbhum West, was rejected by Three Men Alam Committee constituted by Government of Jharkhand in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.01.2006 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 6626-6675/2001 in the case of Government of Bihar vs. Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh) on two grounds, (i) that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 28.12.1986 / 03.01.1987 in the subject Biology after selection of the school in 1984-85 phase. She was having qualification of Graduation at the relevant point of time, (ii) that the petitioner was untrained at the time of appointment and therefore, recognition of her services could not be granted. This report at Annexure-2, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is under challenge in the writ petition apart from seeking writ of mandamus for approval of her services. She claims to have been serving in the school without any break since her appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to two line of decision rendered by this Court earlier and orders passed consequent thereto by the respondent authorities granting recognition of services of such teachers whose cases were rejected by Three Men Alam Committee on the same grounds. So far as the first ground of rejection of the petitioner's claim is concerned, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Dinanath Ram & others vs. State of Jharkhand & others in WPS No. 3450/2011 and that of Arun Kumar Sahu vs. The State of Jharkhand & others in WPS No. 5717/2013. Learned counsel has also referred to the case of Raghunath Sahu vs. The State of Jharkhand & others in WPS No. 5876/2013 to support the submission that the services of these persons who were also appointed by the Managing Committee after selection of the Project School in question, have been approved by the State Government consequent to the orders passed by this Court in their cases. Order at Annexure-12/1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 07.01.2016 bearing Memo No. 3285 dated 04.12.2015 of Director, Secondary Education, Govt. Order at Annexure-12/1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 07.01.2016 bearing Memo No. 3285 dated 04.12.2015 of Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand in the case of Arun Kumar Sahu vs. State of Jharkhand & others and order dated 09.12.2015 bearing Memo No. 3302 passed by the same respondent in the case of Raghunath Sahu vs. State of Jharkhand & others are evidenced in support of the submission and are enclosed to the same supplementary affidavit. 4. So far as the second ground of rejection is concerned, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of several such female teachers such as Juhi Kumari and Sazla Verma whose services have been recognized by the respondent Department vide Notification dated 09.02.2011 bearing Notification No. 424, though they were also untrained at the time of selection and have remained untrained till their services were recognized. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case of Abhilasha Jha vs. State of Jharkhand & others in WPS No. 7220/2011 and Smt. Swarn Lata vs. State of Jharkhand & others in WPS No. 6561/2013 in whose cases also, respondent Director, Secondary Education consequent to the orders passed in their writ petition, have recognized their services taking into account the specific condition contained in the Department Letter No. 142 dated 04.02.1989 (Annexure-14/1) passed in the case of Swarn Lata vs. State of Jharkhand & others enclosed to the said supplementary affidavit bearing memo No. 3245 dated 01.12.2015 by the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 3) is also cited in support of the aforesaid submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in line with the ratio rendered in the case of similarly situated persons and orders passed by the respondent Director, Secondary Education in those cases, petitioner's case should also be considered and her services should be recognized by the respondent authorities. The impugned report of Three Men Alam Committee, so far as it relates to the petitioner, be quashed. 5. Counsel for the State submits that instructions have not been received in the matter. Writ petition appears to be pending since February 2015. The impugned report of Three Men Alam Committee, so far as it relates to the petitioner, be quashed. 5. Counsel for the State submits that instructions have not been received in the matter. Writ petition appears to be pending since February 2015. Counsel for the respondent however submits that the case of the petitioner can be considered on her representation by the Respondent No. 3 after due scrutiny of relevant records and judgments relied upon by the petitioner and orders passed in the case of one or the other teachers of such project school in question. 6. Having considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the relevant facts pleaded, it is deemed appropriate that the Respondent No. 3-Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand should accord due consideration on the petitioner's claim for recognition of her services at project school in question after taking into account all relevant attendant material facts and judgments relied upon by the petitioner including orders passed in such cases. Let such consideration be made within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with a detailed representation on behalf of the petitioner, in accordance with law. 7. Needless to say, during such consideration, Three Men Alam Committee Report in respect of the petitioner, would not come into the way of the Respondent No. 3-Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand while taking a fresh decision in the matter. Dependent upon such decision, if service of the petitioner is recognized in the school in question, Respondent No. 3 would also pass necessary orders in relation to payment of arrears as well as current salary of the petitioner within a reasonable time. 8. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.