IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17349 of 2010 1. RAKESH KUMAR ARUN s/o late Harish Chandra Prasad, resident of Katara, Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur , Principal, Islamia Primary Teacher Education College, Phulwarisharif, Patna. 2. Islamia Primary Teacher Education College, Phulwarisharif, Patna through its Principal, Shri Rakesh Kumar Arun s/o Late Harish Chandra Prasad. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Bikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Bikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Bikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna 14 through its Secretary. 6. The Chairman ,Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna- 14. 7. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna- 14. 8. The National Council for Teacher Education, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neel Kanth Nagar, Nayapalli,Bhubneshwar-751012 through its Regional Director. ----------- 2 11.10.2010 The petitioner’s grievance is that notwithstanding recognization by the Bihar School Examination Board, permanent recognization granted by the State earlier and the permission granted by National Council for Teachers Education, the basic teacher training course conducted by the petitioner’s institution and the examination whereof are conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board is not being recognized by the State, as recognized qualification for selection of teacher in the 2 present recruitment drive for about 35,000 teachers. All the students of petitioner’s institution are thus being deprived of consideration. Leaned Advocate General, Bihar, Patna, appearing for the State points out that the entire matter is being monitored by the Apex Court and the Apex Court has directed the State to file the merit list by 21st October, 2010, and where after the Apex Court would hear the objection any further to the merit list and decide the matter. He thus submits that the petitioner, if he has any objection in respect of selection of teacher in this process should approach the Apex Court and not this Court because any interference by this Court at this stage would upset the schedule as set and as being monitored by the Apex Court. The second objection is that the applicant before this Court is the Principal of the Institution and not the students of the institution itself . He submits that it would be appropriate that the students should have been approached to this Court rather than the Principal. Having considered the mater, in my view, it is appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Apex Court rather than get this Court involved in controversy, which is being dealt with by the Apex Court itself. All objections ,as learned Advocate General points out, are to be considered by the Apex Court. Thus, petitioner is not left remedy. Petitioner has liberty to approach the Apex Court at the opportune time and in such a 3 situation it would be in appropriate for this Court to interfere in the matter. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)