N. Pandey, J.:— This batch of cases relate to different Project Schools selected by the State Government for execution of a scheme to provide four High Schools in each of the Blocks of this State, at least one of which should be a Girls' High School. The idea first of all appears to have been mooted by the Director, Secondary Education-cum-Special Secretary, Department of Education, through circular no. 1115, dated 27th May, 1981, that 650 Project Schools would be established under the aforesaid scheme. Since such schools were to be established year-wise in different phases, it was decided that in the first phase, 150 schools shall be established in the year 1981-1982, 200 during the year 1982-1983, another 200 in the year 1983-1984, and the remaining 100 schools were to be established in the year 1984-1985, i.e within the four financial years. It was also decided that first priority shall be given to the regions of Santhal Perganas and Chhotanagpur, which are the most backward areas of this State, particularly in the sphere of education. The District Education Officers of those areas were directed to prepare a list of such Blocks where there were only two or less schools by giving preference to such schools which had been granted permission for “establishment” or were at least “proposed schools” in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act. It would further appear that having regard to huge financial involvement, basic idea of the Government was to take over such schools which had at least land and building etc. so that with the limited resources, the implementation of the scheme could be possible in different phases.

2. In this way, the State Government initially established 150 schools in the financial year 1981-1982, commonly known as “first phase Project Schools”. However, no project school was opened in the subsequent years i.e 1982-1983 and 1983-1984. For the reasons best known to the authorities, it was only by letter no. 12C dated 25th January, 1985 that a decision was taken to select further 300 schools during the financial year 1984-1985 and in that direction initially by letter no. 108 dated 27th February, 1985, 75 schools were selected and notified by the Government as established schools. Thereafter, by letter no. 142 dated 23rd February, 1985, a three-man committee was constituted to complete the process of selection of the remaining 225 schools which were established with the assistance of the local people. The first phase of the schools are those which were established by the State Government itself and after the establishment not only the school buildings were constructed out of its fund, the management and control of such schools also throughout remained with the State Government. It appears that since the State Government was not in a position to establish all the schools of its own, it was decided to select some of the High Schools privately established and managed by local people as “Project Schools”. These batch of cases before us are those schools which were taken over and selected in the financial year 1984-1985.

3. According to the petitioners, establishment or take over of all the Project Schools in different Blocks of the State are one continuous process under a common scheme. Therefore, the servive conditions of the teachers and the employees of such schools should be governed by the same provisions as were made applicable to the teaching and non-teaching employees of 150 Project Schools, which were selected during the financial year 1981-1982. From the relevant circulars, it is evident that the process for selection or take over of all the 650 schools were though to be completed in different financial years but under a common scheme. But according to them, the respondents have adopted different criteria for the teachers of remaining Project Schools taken over during the year 1984-1985.

4. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is since these 300 Project Schools were taken over in the second phase, therefore, it is a futile effort on the part of the petitioners to claim that the criteria which were applied for the take-over of the schools of 1981-1982 batch, should also be applied for the present batch of schools. Further stand of the Government is that the provisions concerning Project Schools, particularly those relating to recognition/regularisation of services of the teachers of the schools taken over as Project Schools and payment of their salary etc. are to be governed by different sets of circulars and the provisions relating to the Project Schools of the first batch have no application to the schools of the second batch or the third batch.

5. In my view, having regard to facts of the present cases and the nature of the rival contentions of the parties, it would be apt to notice that the present batch of cases were disposed of by this Court, vide judgment dated 1st May, 1995, in C.W.J.C No. 10397 of 1992 and analogous matters. Later while hearing the appeal arising therefrom bearing Civil Appeal No. 10245 of 1996 of the aggrieved parties, the apex Court noticed that there were contradictory views of two Division Benches of this Court and thus disposed of the appeals with a direction to this Court for constitution of a Full bench to deal with all the issues which were raised and considered by the Division Bench in the judgement under appeals. The L.P.A No. 1092 of 1995 is also based on same facts, hence the same has also been referred to this Full Bench by the apex Court by an order passed in another Civil Appeal No. 15768. Hence all these cases are before us for disposal.

6. Before proceeding further, it may be noted at the outset that the Project Schools were not established or regulated under any of the Acts or statutory rules. The scheme itself was mooted by a Government decision contained in the circular issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar and implementation of the scheme was accordingly regulated through various letters issued from time to time, as a result of which there are several inconsistencies in the mode of implementation of the scheme as a result of which the educational programme undertaken by the Government could not get its full effect.

7. Coming to the facts of these cases and a bare reference to the first circular of the Government bearing no. 1115, dated 27th January, 1981, there appears no doubt that all such schools have been selected under one common scheme of the State Government to provide 650 new schools in each of 587 Blocks of this State for the benefit and upliftment of the educationally backward rural areas. The implementation of the scheme was of course to be done in different financial years, commencing from 1981-1982 to 1984-1985. It would further appear that initially the later part of the circular issued in the year 1981, deals only with respect to 150 schools which were to be taken over in the said financial year. But in the facts and circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that take over of all Project Schools was a continuous process under the same scheme and thus, to avoid any discrimination among the students of one area with that of another area where schools were established in the financial year 1984-1985, the manner and the provisions which were adopted for the recognition and regularisation of services of teachers and non-teaching staff are to be applied alike and failure in doing that would frustrate the very object of the scheme to educate the students admitted in such schools. For example the schools established earlier had the advantage of teaching of various subjects for which there is provision for appointment of 9 teachers of different subjects whereas for the subsequent phases, the Government provided less number of teachers which obviously would deprive such schools teaching any subject other than those for which the teachers are appointed though the same is available in the schools which were established in the first phase.

8. In the second counter affidavit filed by the Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, in CWJC No. 12326 of 1992, a list of all the 300 schools which were selected pursuant to letter no. 12(C) dated 25th January, 1985, and further list of 150 schools selected during the financial year 1981-1982, have been given. Therefore, there remains no controversy regarding establishment or selection of all such “Project Schools”.

9. It has already been noticed above that there was no statutory provision laying down any criteria and procedure for implementation of the instant scheme. The State Government and its authorities, therefore, vide various circulars and fetters issued from time to time with regard to selection of the schools and service conditions of the teaching and non-teaching staff. Learned Advocates appearing for the parties took us through quite a number of circulars, such as (a) Circular No. 1115, dated 25th July, 1981, (b) Circular No. 30 dated 22nd January, 1982, (c) Circular No. 109 dated 15th March, 1982, (d) Circular No. 705 dated 12th October, 1982, (e) Circular No. 142 dated 23rd September, 1985, (f) Circular No. 405 dated 19th July, 1986 and (g) Circular No. 142, dated 4th February, 1989. But in the facts and circumstances of these cases, it is not considered necessary to set out each of the circulars separately and thus only relevant circulars have been referred to in this judgment. It would also be relevant to mention that in the present batch of cases, we are not called upon to examine the validity of the decisions of the Government for take over/selection of a particular project school. The question basically raised is regarding recognition/regularisation of the services of teaching and non-teaching staff of the Project Schools which have been selected under the scheme.

10. One of the questions for determination is whether service conditions of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Project Schools, selected during the financial year 1984-1985, commonly called as “the Project Schools of the Second batch” are the same and similar as prescribed and adopted for the selection/recognition of the teaching and non-teaching staff of 150 Project Schools which were selected during the financial year 1981-1982. The other question for consideration is regarding the total number of sanctioned posts of Assistant teachers of the second batch as per staffing pattern of the Project Schools (1984-1985) and also regarding the minimum qualification on the date of their appointment by the Managing Committee of their respective schools. Likewise, there are few cases in this batch where petitioners have been refused recognition or regularisation of their services either on the ground of being overage or underage at the time of their appointment by the Managing Committee of their respective schools and in some of the cases they have been refused regularisation/recognition since they had degree of ‘fazil’, ‘Shiksha Shastri’ and ‘Acharya’ etc. only which according to the State were not equivalent to Graduate from University. In some of the cases process of screening etc. have not yet been completed for which also grievance has been raised by them.

11. According to the State counsel, from circular no. 705 dated 12th October, 1982, it would appear that provisions for recognition/regularisation of services of the teachers of the Project Schools of the first phase, selected in the financial year 1981-1982 are different from those schools of the second phase, which were selected purusant to letter no. 12(c), dated 25th January, 1985, and circular no. 142, dated 23rd September, 1985. The provisions for recognition/regularisation of the services of the teachers of these schools were in fact prescribed under circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989. Therefore, it was submitted that it is futile effort on the part of the petitioners to claim the benefits of circular no. 705, dated 12th October, 1982.

12. In my view, even if the argument of the State counsel is accepted that these schools were taken over in two different phases, yet there cannot be any scope to dispute that selection of such schools were made under a common scheme of the State Government to provide 650 Project Schools in different Blocks of this State. It is true that the selection of 150 Project Schools was made during the financial year 1981-1982 and the next batch of 300 schools were selected in the year 1984-1985 and that circular no. 705, dated 12th October, 1982, laid down the provisions for recognition/regularisation of the services of the teachers of the Project Schools of the first phase but it would further appear that upto the stage of final selection of the remaining 300 Project Schools, no separate provision was prescribed for recognition or regularisation of the services of such teachers of these Project Schools which were selected in the year 1984-1985 on the report of three-man Selection Committee. It was for the first time that by circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, somewhat slightly different provisions for recognition/regularisation of the services of the teachers of the Project Schools of the second phase were prescribed such as to reduce the sanctioned strength of the Assistant teachers of these Project schools from 9 to 5 as also to fix up 31 years as the maximum qualifying age of such teachers on the date of appointment by the Managing Committee of their respective schools.

13. On the strength of the aforesaid circular, learned counsel for the State contended since there are only 5 units of teachers sanctioned by the State Government, it would not be open to the petitioners to claim that sanctioned strength of the teachers for the second phase also should be fixed at nine like the Project Schools of the 1st phase. Because, it is well known that in appropriate cases or in case of any financial stringency, it is always open to the State Government either to reduce or enhance the sanctioned strength of the employees of any institution and change the policy. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if the Government took a decision to reduce the strength of teachers from 9 to 5. According to the learned State counsel, it is well settled that in such cases, Court should not normally direct the Government to increase the sanctioned strength. The direction of the Court should not run counter to the State's policy. In other words, the functions which are completely within the domain of the State, should not be interfered with. In support of this, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of The Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Service Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1980 SC 379) as well as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma (AIR 1986 SC 847).

14. True, it is, from a bare reference to the authoritative pronouncements of the apex Court as noticed above, it would appear that Court should not normally endeavor to examine whether sanctioned strength of a particular cadre should be increased or be decreased. But in my view, having regard to the facts of the aforesaid cases, the said analogy may not be applicable to the present case. I have already noticed that in the present cases, this was a common scheme of the State Government to establish 650 Project Schools in different financial years. It has been noticed that as per letter no. 705, dated 12th October, 1982, the staffing strength of Assistant teachers was fixed at 9, whereas as per clause (ii) of letter no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, such strength was reduced to 5 including Headmaster/Headmistress besides four teachers. But significantly, a bare reference to the said circular would show that there is a clear ambiguity and unworkable due to the glaring contradiction in clauses (ii) and (iii). Because clause (ii) shows that there shall be five posts of teachers, whereas clause (iii) provides that staffing pattern will be same as prescribed in Government's circular no. 705, dated 12th October 1982, i.e 8 posts of Assistant teachers, apart from a post of Headmaster/Headmistress i.e total 9 posts as under:—

(i) Language Group—3 units, (ii) Humanities Group—3 units, (iii) Science Group—3 units, & (iv) Others—1 unit.

15. During hearing of these cases, we were informed that previously also in some of the cases like the one in the case of Rabindra Kumar v. State of Bihar [1998 (3) PLJR 54], this Court had occasion to notice such ambiguity and apparent contradictions in clauses (ii) and (iii). But unfortunately, the respondents instead of making necessary corrections in clause (ii) of the aforesaid letter, are making unreasonable attempt all the time to establish that strength of the teachers for the Project schools selected in the year 1984-1985 should be only five.

16. That apart, a question may also arise whether provisions of circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, can be applied retrospectively in the facts and circumstances of the present cases where admittedly Project Schools of the second batch were selected during the financial year 1984-1985 as also admitted by the Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, in its second counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 12326 of 1992. It would be useful to notice that previously also this Court while disposing of some of the cases like CWJC No. 1333 of 1993, CWJC No. 1882 of 1993, MJC No. 1232 of 1991, as well as CWJC No. 1160 of 1991, had held that the circular in question cannot be applied retrospectively as it is well settled that the Government cannot and should not alter or modify any circular retrospectively which may affect or prejudice the right of the Government servants. In this regard, reference can usefully be made to some of the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Ex Major M.C Singhal v. Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services (AIR 1972 SC 628), Union of India v. K.P Joseph (AIR 1973 SC 303), Chairman Railway Board v. C.R Rangadhamaiah [(1997) 6 SCC 623] and Food Corporation of India etc. etc. v. Om Prakash Sharma (AIR 1998 SC 2682). From a plain reading of the aforesaid decisions, it would appear that retrospective application of such classification generally violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present cases, nothing has been brought before us on behalf of that State to show that circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, was issued for a different class of persons or teachers and other employees of the schools of this batch requiring more skill or qualification from that of the first batch. Nor there appears any justification that for a particular block where schools of second batch are established requirement of only five teachers would suffice for effective and bona fide implementation of the scheme. Therefore, in my view, such a decision or policy of the State has to be declared arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, not with respect to the instant employees only but also with respect to local people where the present schools have been established.

17. Now the question which requires consideration is as regards the minimum age for appointment of teachers/staff in the schools in question. In some of the cases, the authorities have declined recognition/regularisation of services of the petitioners belonging to general category on the ground that they were overage i.e more than 31 years of age at the time of appointment by the Managing Committee of their respective schools.

18. Before coming to the instant circular, it would be relevant to mention that even in the Circular No. 705, dated 12th October, 1982, issued with respect to 150 schools of the first batch, 31 years was prescribed as the maximum qualifying age for the trained graduates of general category and 32 years for the Post Graduate trained. With respect to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, a relaxation of five years was prescribed. As per paragraph (vi) of Circular No. 142, dated 4th February, 1989 also, which was issued for the second batch of schools, the same age limit of 31 years for general candidates was prescribed and 32 years for post graduate trained on the date of their appointments by the Managing Committees of the respective schools. However, an unsuccessful attempt has been made on behalf of the petitioners to question the validity of paragraph (vi) of Circular No. 142, elated 4th February, 1989, with the aid of clause 6(iii) of notification no. 129, dated 30th November, 1981, containing rules relating to recognition and taking over of the management and control of the schools in terms of Section 3(3) of the Bihar Non-Gazetted Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management & Control) Act, 1980, whereby and whereunder a provision to grant relaxation of age was prescribed for the teachers and non-teaching staff of the taken over schools upto 35 years of age and for the Headmaster upto 45 years. It was urged that previously also this Court while disposing of CWJC No. 1824 of 1992 and CWJC No. 1333 of 1993, had directed the State Government to recognise/regularise the services of the teachers of the Project Schools by granting age relaxation in terms of the provisions of clause 6(iii) of the aforesaid notification no. 129, dated 30th November, 1981.

19. In my view, a bare analysis of the instant provision and the facts of the present cases would show that the views expressed in the above-mentioned cases were rightly not accepted by the last Division Bench which has disposed of the present batch of cases vide the judgment dated May 1, 1995. Undisputedly, the provisions of the notification no. 129, dated 30th November, 1981, related to the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools which were taken over by Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management & Control) Act, 1980, whereas with respect to the Project Schools, which are quite different from taken over Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools, the State Government prescribed different minimum ages for the teachers. It is not in dispute that the Project Schools are completely different from Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools and the service conditions of the teachers/non-teaching staff of Project schools are governed by various circulars issued by the State Government from time to time and not by the statutory provisions applicable to taken over Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools. Thus I do not find any substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the age prescribed under the aforementioned statutory provisions for teachers of taken over Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools should be applied to the teachers of the Project Schools also.

20. I thus, uphold the validity of the provisions prescribing qualifying age for teachers of Project Schools of general category as 31 years on the date of their appointment by respective Managing Committees of the schools.

21. However, on behalf of the petitions, it was alternatively submitted that admittedly the selection process of these schools were complete in the year 1986 and that all such petitioners are working on ad hoc basis for the last 16-17 years without any break and also got their wages. Thus according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be highly inequitable to discontinue them simply on the ground that some of them had crossed the age of 31 years at the time of initial appointment by the respective Managing Committees.

22. In my view, having regard to the facts of these cases, there appears some substance in the submission. The respondents have also accepted that process for selection of such schools were complete in the year 1986 on the recommendation of the three-man committee. It is also not disputed that petitioners are working uninterruptedly for the last 16-17 years. The apex Court in the case of Delhi Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. The State of Maharastra (AIR 1990 SC 1607) held that where the initial appointment was not made in the strict terms of the rule, but the temporary appointee continued uninterruptedly for a long period till regularisation of the service, the period rendered by him should be taken into consideration for the purpose of consequential benefits. Therefore, in my view, since such petitioners have continued uninterruptedly for a period of 16-17 years, they should not be removed from the job on a simple ground that they had crossed the age of 31 years at the time of initial appointment by the Managing Committee. Similar was the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of The Executive Engineer C.P.W.D v. R.L Singh, Civil Engineer [1997 (1) PLJR 509] in which in the facts of that case, while approving the proposition that it is always open to the State Government to consider the validity of appointment already made for the purpose of grant or refusal of post facto approval. Thus having regard to the fact that appellants had continued uninterruptedly in service for more than 17 years, the State Government was directed to regularise their services against the post within the staffing pattern as applicable to those colleges.

23. That apart, this cannot be denied that at the time of initial appointment of these petitioners, there was no statutory rule or circular to prescribe the upper qualifying age for appointment of a teacher in a privately managed school. It would also appear that the State Government while taking over the management and control of other privately managed schools under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management & Control) Act, 1980, had granted age relaxation to the teachers and non-teaching staff of these schools upto the age of 35 years. Therefore, although the relevant circular of the State Government, whereby the maximum age was relaxed to 35 years for the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Non-Government Secondary Schools, is not applicable to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the Project Schools as already held above but having regard to the facts that they have continued uninterruptedly for several years, it would be in fact too hard to reject their claim at such a belated stage simply because some of them had crossed the age of 31 years at the time of initial appointment by the Managing Committee before the take over of the schools as Project School. I am, therefore, of the view that in the background of the facts stated above, such petitioners are also entitled for the regularisation/recognition of their services against the post within the aforementioned staffing pattern.

24. Now coming to the cases of such petitioners who have been refused regularisation of service on the ground of being underage, it has to be noticed that as per circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, there is a prescription about the upper age limit. But no lower limit of age has been prescribed either in the instant circular or the previous circular no. 705 dated 12th October, 1982 nor anything is stated in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the State also could not point out any statutory provision in which the minimum age limit has been fixed for the appointment of a teacher in a privately managed or even Government schools. It would appear from the ratio laid down in the case of Mokhtar Ahmad v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation [1995 (1) PLJR 183] that it was held that the minimum qualifying age for appointment was 18 years. Therefore, in absence of any other contrary provision, I fully agree with the views expressed by this Court in the abovementioned case.

25. In some of the cases before us, the petitioners have been refused recognition/regularisation of their services on the ground that they did not possess the requisite training qualification of B.Ed (Bachelor in Education) though they had the certificates of B.T (Basic Trained). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, only stipulates trained graduate as the minimum qualification. It does not specify any certificate that the State Government has also recognised B.T equivalent to B.Ed for appointment of teachers in Non-Government High School or nationalised schools. Therefore, candidates having B.T certificates should also be treated as “trained graduates”. In this regard, our attention was drawn to a letter of the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, dated 18th April, 1996, contained in Annexure 16 and yet another letter of the same authority, dated 27th June, 1977, as contained in Annexure 16.A to the supplementary affidavit dated 25th January, 1999, filed in CWJC No. 1224, to show that B.T Certificates are treated equivalent to B.Ed and Dip-in-Ed for the purpose of appointment of teachers in Non-Government High Schools or nationalised schools. It was thus contended that respondents are not justified in denying recognition/regularisation of the services of such teachers on the ground that they had not passed the B.Ed Examination.

26. From the aforesaid letters of the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, it would appear that for the purpose of appointment in a Non-Government High School, B.T certificates are treated at par with B.Ed qualification. But in absence of any such circular with respect to the present appointment or admission in the counter affidavit on behalf of the State, I do not feel inclined to hold that certificates of B.T are at par with B.Ed qualification. Any person having passed matriculation examination may appear at the B.T examination conducted by the Secondary School Examination Board and can get a certificate in this regard whereas a person is not entitled to get a degree of B.Ed unless he or she had passed the Graduation examination. It has been noticed that the expression “trained graduate” is very well understood for a candidate having Bachelor's degree in the subject of education in addition to Bachelor's degree in Arts or Science or Commerce etc. That apart, a certificate of B.T as noticed above, is granted by the Secondary School Examination Board, whereas the degree of B.Ed is granted by University. But, however, I may clarify that in spite of the aforesaid views of mine, it will be open to the authorities of the State Government to consider whether a “B.T certificate” can be equated to that of “B.Ed qualification” or “qualification of Dip-in-Ed”.

27. In the abovementioned group of cases, there are 2-3 cases where petitioners are claiming their regularisation/recognition of services since they had passed the physical training examination. Therefore, according to them, they possessed the minimum qualification of trained graduate as required under circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989. It has been contended that it would appear from letter no. 6066, dated 24th November, 1986, that the State Government had also accepted that physical trained teachers are in the category of trained graduates and, therefore, entitled for appointment to the post of teachers or Headmaster. A reference in this regard was also made to a decision of this Court in the case of Kumar Kant Choudhary v. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga (1979 BBCJ 184). In that case, question for consideration was whether a physical trained teacher was qualified to be considered for the post of Headmaster and Assistant Headmaster in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Bihar High School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1972. It was noticed that having regard to the provisions of the Rules, petitioner of that case was one of the trained graduate teachers of the school as such sufficiently qualified to be considered for the post of Headmaster.

28. In my view, the said decision of this Court rendered in the abovementioned case, or circular no. 6066, dated 24th November, 1986, are with respect to schools of different category. Therefore, it would not be proper to apply the ratio of that case or the provisions contained in the said circular to the teachers of the Project Schools. That apart, as I have already noticed, expression “trained graduate” as prescribed under circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, would mean a candidate having Bachelor's degree in the subject of Education in addition to Bachelor's degree in any of the subjects of Arts or Science or Commerce. But in case there is requirement of physical trained teacher as per the staffing pattern notified in circular no. 705, dated 12th October, 1982, the claim of such teachers can be considered. Because, applicability and scope of the decision of the Government in the abovementioned circular or the decision of this Court in the case of Kumar Kant Choudhary v. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga (supra) can only be relevant for consideration provided posts of physical trained teachers are available in the Project Schools.

29. The next group of cases in this batch are where some of the petitioners have been refused regularisation on the ground that they did not possess the Graduation degree as commonly understood like B.A or B.Sc from a recognised University, but had possessed other degrees like “Shiksha Shastri”, “Acharya” or “Fazil” etc. It was contended that admittedly for appointment of Assistant teachers in the nationalised schools, qualification of “Shiksha Shastri” “Acharya or Fazil” etc. is being treated at par with those of trained graduates. A reference was also made to a resolution and also certain letters of the Government of Bihar whereby it was decided that teachers having certificates of “Acharya” and “Fazil” were equated with that of the trained graduates for the purpose of scale etc. As would appear from the aforesaid letters, teachers having degree of “Acharya” and “Fazil” etc. are entitled for the trained Graduate scale and other pecuniary benefits in a nationalised High School. But no material was brought to our notice to show that similar benefit was extended to the teachers having degree of “Shiksha Shastri”, “Acharya” or “Fazil” of the Project Schools or that they are also entitled for the same pay scale, which has been provided for the trained Graduate teachers, nor there was any such provision either in circular no. 705, dated 12th October, 1982, or circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989. However, having regard that such benefits have now been extended to the teachers of nationalised schools, it would be necessary for the authorities to examine this aspect, whether or not the teachers having “Shiksha Shastri”, “Acharya” or “Fazil” etc. may be treated at par with the trained graduates for the purpose of recognition/regularisation of their services in the Project Schools.

30. Now coming to a group of cases in which some of the teachers have been refused regularisation of their services since they did not possess minimum required qualification at the time of appointments by the Managing Committee of their respective schools. It would appear from circular no. 705, dated 12th October, 1982, or the second circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, the minimum qualification for appointment of a teacher in such schools is “trained graduate” and one of the subjects at the graduation level is necessarily to be such as has been included within the sanctioned strength of teachers. With respect to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it was of course stipulated that in case candidates of these categories do not possess the training certificate, they will have to be trained at their cost within three years from the date of their appointments. From the aforesaid, it would thus appear that a teacher of general category must be a trained graduate for the purpose of recognition/regularisation of the service. According to the counsel for the State, however, such a teacher must be trained graduate on the day on which he/she was appointed by the Managing Committee, whereas according to the counsel for the petitioners, the candidate must possess the qualification of “trained graduate” on the day the case is being examined for recognition/regularisation in the Project Schools by the Screening Committee.

31. In my view, having regard to the facts noticed above, in absence of any policy of the Government fixing the cut-off date for the purpose of possessing such minimum qualification, it would not be proper for the respondents to refuse recognition/regularisation of the services of the teachers on the ground that at the time of their appointments by the Managing Committees of the respective schools, they were not trained graduates. Because such a requirement was prescribed for the first time by circular no. 142, dated 4th February, 1989, which, as I have already held above, cannot be applied retrospectively. It would also be relevant to mention that similar was the view expressed by this Court on the previous occasion while disposing of these cases.

32. That apart, in support of the said view that cut-off date in such cases should be the date of report of the three-man committee, a reference can usefully be made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Naresh Prasad Nirala v. State of Bihar (1987 PLJR 341). In that case, a similar question relating to the teachers of a nationalised school had come up for consideration. It was noticed that for the purpose of regularisation of the services of the teachers in terms of Section 3(3) of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management & Control) Act, 1980, no cut-off date was fixed for possessing the qualification of trained graduate. Therefore, it was held that the outer limit shall be the date of the report of the Special Board for consideration of the eligibility, qualification and suitability of a teacher for absorption etc. Apart from the views expressed above by the Full Bench, a reference can also be made to some of the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana (AIR 1978 SC 1536), and T.R Kapur v. State of Haryana (AIR 1987 SC 415).

33. It was next contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWJC No. 1772 of 1993 that at the time of initial appointment, even assuming some of the teachers had not acquired requisite qualification and experience but later until the stage of final decision for regularisation/recognition of their services, they acquired the requisite qualifications for being appointed as teacher, such candidates would be entitled to regularisation of their services, if they continued to serve for long time uninterruptedly. Reliance in this regard was also made to the abovementioned decisions of the apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana (supra) and yet another decision in the case of T.R Kapur v. State of Haryana (supra).

34. In my view, facts of the present cases are completely different from those before the apex Court in the abovementioned cases. That apart, as noticed above, similar question was answered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Naresh Prasad Nirala v. State of Bihar (supra) as stated above. It was held that a teacher, who was not trained on the date of report of the Special Board cannot claim to be considered for absorption in Government service on the ground of having subsequently acquired requisite qualification. True it is, the aforesaid case was in relation to a teacher of nationalised High School, but certainly ratio of that case regarding scope of untrained teachers in the matter relating to absorption/regularisation of service in the Project Schools can also be held relevant. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I hold that cut-off date for possessing the minimum qualification shall be the date on which the reports were submitted by the Screening Committee.

35. The next group of cases are where the grievance of the petitioners is that although the screening was made by the Committee as required under Circular no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989, but no final decision was taken regarding recognition or regularisation of the teachers who were working in those schools before the take-over, nor steps were taken for payment of wages and in some of the cases, orders were passed but without assigning any reason. That apart, there are some cases where even screening was not done by the Committee although schools were selected under the scheme.

36. In my view, it would be appropriate to mention that this Full Bench has only to examine the broad propositions regarding scope and applicability of different circulars of the Government in the matter regarding implementation of the instant scheme, and the service conditions regarding eligibility, qualifications, suitability etc. of teaching and non-teaching staff for regularisation/recognition of their services in the Project Schools. Individual cases of the petitioners of course, shall be examined by the respondent authorities in terms of the findings of this Full Bench in these cases as we have not been posted with the facts in detail by the respective parties. In some of the cases State has not even filed counter affidavit perhaps under the impression that once this Court decided the principle then the authority concerned would examine individual cases and dispose it of in the light of the said principle.

37. Accordingly, in the light of the findings recorded above, all the writ applications are disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioners for recognition/absorption of their services in the respective schools. Since these matters continued to remain pending for a long time, final implementation of the direction of this Full Bench should be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment before the competent authority. However, in the facts and circumstances of these cases, there shall be no order as to costs.

38. Radha Mohan Prasad, J.:— I agree.

39. S.K Katriar, J.:— I agree.