ORDER : I.A. No. 6363 of 2015 For the reasons carved out in the application and there being no serious objection from the opposite side, delay of 46 days in filing the accompanied appeal, is hereby, condoned. I.A. No. 6363 of 2015 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 683 of 2015 Aggrieved of order dated 18.08.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 674 of 2014, the instant Letters patent Appeal has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred as petitioner) contends that the petitioner after she completed seven years as In-charge Headmistress is entitled for benefit of regularization as held in “A.K. Pradhan Vs. State of Bihar and Others” reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 211 SC. It is submitted that two other persons namely, Ayesha Kumar and Julyani Barla whose services were also confirmed by Vidyalaya Seva Board along with the petitioner were regularized however, the petitioner's case has been distinguished on the ground that there is no endorsement in her service book that she had continued to work as In-charge Headmistress of the school from the date of taking over. 4. The facts of the case as disclosed in the present proceeding indicate that the petitioner was appointed in Project Girls School, Kuru, Lohardaga pursuant to a decision taken by the Managing Committee in its meeting dated 28.12.1981. The District Education Officer, Ranchi approved petitioner's service vide order contained in Memo dated 10.02.1984 with effect from 28.06.1982. In the service book of the petitioner her date of appointment is entered as 28.06.1982. The petitioner claimed that since 28.06.1982 itself she was working as In-charge Headmistress, being the senior most teacher in the school. 5. It is not in dispute that in terms of Section 3(3) of Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over Management and Control) Act, 1981 a teacher who completed more than seven years of service after taking over was held entitled for regularization by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “A.K. Pradhan” (supra) case. What distinguishes the case of the petitioner from Ayesha Kumar case is that the petitioner failed to produce any material to establish that she continued as In-charge Headmistress for more than seven years after the date of taking over. What distinguishes the case of the petitioner from Ayesha Kumar case is that the petitioner failed to produce any material to establish that she continued as In-charge Headmistress for more than seven years after the date of taking over. In the present proceeding also the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she worked as In-charge Headmistress for more than seven years after the appointed date. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that service book of the petitioner remained in custody of the respondents and it was their responsibility to make appropriate entries therein, is liable to be rejected. The learned Single Judge on a consideration of the materials brought before the Writ Court has held as under: “In the instant case, though the petitioner's service was also confirmed by Vidayalaya Seva Board by an order passed in 1992 with the other two persons, Ayesha Kumar and Julyani Balra, but so far as claim of regularization on the post of Headmistress is concerned, the averments and the pleadings on record do not show that the petitioner had remained as an In-charge Headmistress for a period of 7 years reckoned from the date of taking over of the school. Therefore, in the absence of such essential material facts, it would not be appropriate to direct the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in view of ratio laid in A.K. Pradhan's case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 6. In the writ petition except stating that she completed seven years of service as In-charge Headmistress, the petitioner did not produce any material before the Writ Court. Order dated 31.01.1992 of Bihar Seva Board also discloses that petitioner's service as “teacher” was approved by the Board and not as In-charge Headmistress. 7. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.08.2015, we decline to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the Letters Patent appeal is dismissed.