JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing the letter No. 2843 dated 19.12.2011 issued under the signature of the Director of the Primary Education, State of Jharkhand addressed to the Regional Deputy Director, Santhal pargana rang (sic) Dumka whereby and whereunder the proposal of the approval of statement of the petitioner was rejected/turned down. Further prayer has been made to pay the retiral benefit along with the monthly pension with effect from 1.1.2013 with interest. Factual Matrix 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 23.2.1974 and he superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.12.2012. The petitioner attended a training course, pursuant to a direction by the District Superintendent of Education. The petitioner was granted Matric Trained Scale w.e.f. 27.1.1984. Since the salary and the retiral benefits were not finalized by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court earlier by filing the writ petition [W.P.(S) No. 3116 of 2013]. 3. This Hon'ble Court after hearing the parties and perusal of the documents on record and taking into consideration that the order dated 15.6.1984 and 19.12.2011 have never been brought to the notice of the petitioner and since the petitioner has superannuated from service, the fact has been disclosed in the counter-affidavit. Sine those orders were not the subject matter of challenge as those were never served to the petitioner it was left open to the petitioner to challenge those orders in a separate writ petition with a direction to the respondents for payment of salary from 1.11.2010 to 31.12.2012 in view of the earlier direction of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.(S) No. 3116 of 2013, this writ petition has been preferred challenging the rejection order by which the proposition statement of the petitioner were not approved by the concerned authorities. 4. Mr. Uday Kant Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the service of the petitioner was approved by the District Education Officer and the petitioner was sent for training by the order of the District Superintendent of Education. Although the services of the petitioner were not approved, he continued in service for about 39 long years and as such the petitioner is entitled for salary for the period 1.11.2010 to 31.12.2012. The orders dated 15.6.1984 and 9.12.2011 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Although the services of the petitioner were not approved, he continued in service for about 39 long years and as such the petitioner is entitled for salary for the period 1.11.2010 to 31.12.2012. The orders dated 15.6.1984 and 9.12.2011 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2013(4) JCR 355 2013 (4) JLJR 355 : 2013 (4) JCR 15 in W.P.(S) No. 3371/2006 disposed of on 22.7.2013. 6. Learned Counsel argued that it is not open to the respondents to reopen the matter of appointment as the petitioner had worked continuously for long 39 years and even the Apex Court had also observed that if trained teachers were not available, untrained teachers could be engaged by even granting age relaxation so that stream of education keeps flowing in the backward areas of Santhal Pargana. This Hon'ble Court quashed the impugned orders in which proposition statement of petitioners who had worked for long years were rejected and as such the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was selected and initially appointed on temporary basis for the post of primary teacher which is established and managed by minority through letter Memo No. 21/73 dated 19.12.1973. Vide Memo No. 3-0-30/38, sh, 3915, dated 15.11.1978 Special Secretary, Government of Bihar had conveyed to all District Education Officer, all District Superintendent of Education, all school Inspector and all Sub-Divisional Educational Officer that in Primary School established and managed by minorities, the service of such untrained teachers, who have been appointed after 1.1.1971 cannot be appointed in any circumstances. The petitioner was appointed after 1.1.1971 through appointment letter vide Memo No. 12/3/74-75, dated 6.4.1974. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs determination. Admittedly the petitioner has worked for 39 long years and as such it is not open to the respondents to reopen the case of the petitioner in the matter of appointment. I find strength in the argument of-the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner has worked for 39 long years and as such it is not open to the respondents to reopen the case of the petitioner in the matter of appointment. I find strength in the argument of-the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The said consideration was already made and the said circular was also under consideration in a case decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4439/2000, reported in 2003(1) JCR 583 (Jhr.) [: 2003(1) JLJR 477 . The learned Single Judge of this Court found that it was too late after 19 years in the said case to allow the respondents to reopen the matters when the petitioner had worked continuously for so long and the order had been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. In the earlier writ petition W.P.(S) No. 3116/2013 it was admitted that rejection of the proposition statement of the petitioner was never brought to the notice of the petitioner and it was only brought on record after superannuation. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, observation, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the order dated 19.12.2011 issued under the signature of Director, Primary Education, State of Jharkhand addressed to the Regional Deputy Director, Santhal pargana, Dumka and direct the respondents to pay retiral benefits along with monthly pension with effect from 1.1.2013 with statutory interest. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.