ORDER : Both the writ-petitions are heard together. 2. In W.P.(S) No.4952 of 2015, the petitioners have sought a direction upon the respondent-State to confirm their services with retrospective effect and for promotion as well as payment in revised pay-scale. In W.P.(S) No.4953 of 2015, petitioners have prayed for grant of increments. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P.-V referring to Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teachers & Non-teaching Employees Recruitment and Service Conditions Rules, 2015 submits that all those teaching and non-teaching employees who were appointed during 1981-1982 and 1984-1985 in the Project Schools, if they fulfill the conditions laid down therein, shall be governed under 2015 Rules. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to fault on the part of respondent-State in not constituting Vidyalaya Seva Board, recommendation for confirmation could not be made and in the meantime, the petitioners superannuated from service. It is contended that the petitioners, who served for more than 30 years, are entitled for regularization of their services and consequential benefits. 6. Briefly stated, father of petitioner no.1 namely, Deepak Narayan Singh, was appointed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee on 02.01.1978. Petitioner no.2 was appointed in similar manner by the Managing Committee on 15.01.1978. Appointment letters of the petitioners have been annexed alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 22.10.2016. It appears that, on 30.04.1984 appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers on monthly salary of Rs.10/- was approved by District Education Officer, Palamau. The appointment was purely temporary. The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Notification dated 27.12.1988 submits that appointment of the petitioners has been approved by the Director, Secondary Education-cum-Joint Secretary. I find that, in the said Notification, there were 2 conditions namely, on recommendation of the Vidyalaya Seva Board service of the appointees can be regularized and only after receiving training, untrained teachers would be entitled for payment of pay-scale of trained-teachers. The petitioners were appointed as untrained teachers, and they have failed to disclose whether they received training or not. It has also not been disclosed that they were paid pay-scale of the trained-teachers or not. Notification dated 27.12.1988 does not disclose that these petitioners were appointed on sanctioned vacant posts. The petitioners were appointed as untrained teachers, and they have failed to disclose whether they received training or not. It has also not been disclosed that they were paid pay-scale of the trained-teachers or not. Notification dated 27.12.1988 does not disclose that these petitioners were appointed on sanctioned vacant posts. Various disputes raised by the teachers engaged in the project Schools came up before this Court; one being in “Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh vs State reported in (2000) 1 PLJR 287 . The petitioners, however, have chosen to agitate their grievances only after their retirement. In terms of 2015 Notification, cases of only those teachers who were appointed during 1981-82 and 1984-85 can be considered provided, their appointments were approved by the Government. There is no such order of the State Government in case of the petitioners. 7. I find that the writ-petition is bereft of foundational facts for issuing mandamus to the respondent-State for regularizing petitioners' services and for granting promotion and other consequential benefits to them. Reliance on the orders passed by this Court is clearly misplaced. In Tarkeshwar Prasad Sahu & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.(S) No.3122 of 2005) case, this Court did not direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants therein. The petitioners have failed to show that they are regulated under 2015 Rules. 8. In the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ-petitions and accordingly, these are dismissed.