IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12716 of 2010 1. SUNIL RAVIDAS S/O SRI RAM RAVIDAS R/O VILL RAMPUR, P.S.SURYAGARHA, DISTT-LAKHISARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, H.R.D.DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION DISTT-LAKHISARAI. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK- SURYAGAGRHA, DISTT-LAKHISARAI. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK-SURYAGAGRHA, DISTT-LAKHISARAI. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ RAMPUR, BLOCK-SURYADHA, DISTT-LAKHISARAI ----------- 2. 04.04.2011 Submission of the learned counsel is primarily based on the finding which has been given by learned Single Judge, which is Annexure-6 to the writ application. It related to the status of such persons who had obtained a Madhyama or Sahitya Visharad degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Contention of the learned counsel is that since his appointment is prior to 23.2.2007, therefore, he comes within the domain of the decision (Annexure-6) and he ought to have been allowed to continue on the post. There was no occasion to remove him by virtue of the order dated 15.2.2010 contained in Annexure-1 and it should be 2 interfered with. This Court fails to appreciate the rationale of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner because Annexure-6 was the subject matter of challenge before a Division Bench and the learned Division Bench categorically decreed that qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized to be akin to intermediate. In fact the exact words of the Division Bench in case of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Mamta Kumari & Ors. reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 318 at Paragraph-18 are:- “ 18. In view of the aforesaid clear order of the subsequent Division Bench in the case of Surendra Prasad (Supra) holding that the examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized much less treated to be equivalent by the State of Bihar, we can say with sense of certainty that qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized to be equivalent to the qualification of intermediate by the State of Bihar and if on that basis alone, the respondent writ petitioners had obtained their appointment, the same will have to be held as void ab initio, (emphasis mine) inasmuch as, it is well settled if the candidate did not possess the requisite qualification, such appointments would liable to be set aside. To that extent, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the State on the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma (Supra) as also Bir Singh (Supra) seems to be apt and appropriate’’. 3 The Division Bench has held in so many words that any appointment made on the basis of a degree obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was void ab initio. If that is so then I fail to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that his case should be guided by the decision of the learned Single Judge. Since the decision of the learned Single Judge is overruled by a Division Bench Judgment, the decision of the learned Single Judge has no application to the case of the petitioner. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1. This writ application is dismissed because the case of the petitioner is covered by the Division Bench Judgment and not Annexure-6 as contended by the petitioner. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)