JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. The appellant’s writ petition seeking pay protection and seniority vis-à-vis his past service in a Government Aided Minority School has been dismissed by the learned First Court. The appellant was originally appointed on 1st September, 1986 in Samast Sant Middle School, Kachabari Karra. Subsequently, he was selected for a Government School through the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and he joined the said School on 7th January, 2004. The appellant writ-petitioner is still in service in the Government School. He made a plea for adding to his service tenure in present employment the entire period served by him in the aforesaid minority aided school. The main ground for rejection of the writ petition was that the circular relied upon by the appellant before the learned First Court was not applicable in the case of the appellant as he was previously appointed in a Minority Institution which was not taken over by the Government. Before us, no prayer for pay protection or seniority has been pressed. The appellant seeks his service in the previous school to be computed as continuous service for the purpose of computation of his pensionery benefits. 2. There is no specific Rule on the basis of which service rendered in a Minority Run Aided School could be considered if a teaching staff joins in a Government School subsequently. In this case, the appointment of the appellant in the Government School was fresh appointment. 3. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the institutions carry similar status. His submission is that the regulatory authority of both the schools is the State only and he has relied on two circulars by which, according to him, both these kinds of institutions ought to be treated as part of the same organization. The first Circular is by Human Resources Development Department State of Bihar dated 28th February, 1990. This circular stipulates pay parity of the teaching and non-teaching staff of Government Schools and Minority Schools. The second one is also by the same body bearing No. 636 dated 18th July, 1992. By this Circular, in substance, parity has been contemplated in grant of pensionery benefits in the Schools which were taken over by the State and the State run Schools. The second one is also by the same body bearing No. 636 dated 18th July, 1992. By this Circular, in substance, parity has been contemplated in grant of pensionery benefits in the Schools which were taken over by the State and the State run Schools. In any event, though these circulars in substance contemplate some form of parity in pay and retiral benefits between State run schools, Aided Schools and Schools taken over by the State, these do not stipulate continuity of service of a teaching staff who initially worked in a Minority run Aided Schools and then joined a government school. 4. Mr. Kumar also emphasized on the fact that his relieving order was issued by the Educational Authorities and he urged that the same service book is being maintained in respect of service in both these schools. But, these factors also do not lead to the conclusion that service rendered in the previous organization would have to be computed when the petitioner joined as fresh appointee in a State run School. 5. In these circumstance, we do not find any error in the judgment under appeal. The judgment under appeal needs no interference and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.