IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.82 of 2010 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR RESEARCH AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ........ ...... Appellants Versus 1. AJAY KUMAR S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD R/O VILL- MORABHICHAK, P.S. NIMCHAK-BATHANI, DISTT. GAYA 2. MD. ARIF S/O ANAMUL HAQUE R/O AT RAMNAGAR, KARJAMA, P.S. KHUDAGANJ, DISTT. NALANDA 3. SANJAY KUMAR S/O SRI BANSI PRASAD R/O AT MORABHICHAK, P.S. BATHANI, DISTT. GAYA 4. AFTAB ALAM S/O ABDUL AJIJ R/O AT AJOCHAK, P.S. KHUDAGANJ, DISTT. NALANDA ... .... Respondents ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Ram Bilas Mahto, AAG 8 For the respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Juber Ansari, Advocate -------------- 6 14-07-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents on merits of this Letters Patent Appeal for the purpose of its final disposal. The respondents/writ petitioners applied for their appointment as School Teachers in Primary Schools under the State of Bihar pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications. On the basis of a circular letter from the Director, Secondary Education addressed to all District Education Officers and other concerned officers 2 of Education Department dated 13-12-2008, the writ petitioners were not called for counselling. That letter was annexure-1 to the writ petition which was challenged on the limited ground that writ petitioners had obtained basic training for teacher prior to the session 1991-1993 and till then there was no controversy with regard to recognition of the concerned institution, that is, non Government National Udru Prathmik Shikchak Shichha Mahavidyalaya, Madhubani. It was only after constitution of NCTE in 1995 further recognition was not granted to this institution. Hence, according to the writ petitioners, the direction in annexure-1 not to treat the training degree of the writ petitioners valid on a bald allegation that all training certificates of some institutions had to be treated as invalid, was illegal. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, that is, State of Bihar and its authorities, it appears that the institution in question had recognition but for some reasons the institution could not reach the required level or was not found fit for further recognition and hence, after the sessions 1991-1993 the authorities 3 refused either to conduct the examination of students or to publish their results. It is clear from annexure-D to the counter affidavit of State and its officials filed in the writ proceeding that after the session 1991-1993 writ petitions filed before this court for holding of examination or for publication of results of the students of this institution were also not allowed. A perusal of order under appeal shows that all the relevant facts and the documents have been properly considered and on the basis of said consideration without interfering with the general directions contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition, the writ court held that the respondents in the writ petition should not have debarred the writ petitioners or similarly situated applicants from participating in the counselling only because the institution in question was subsequently de- recognized. The writ court has made it clear that the authorities will consider not only the case of petitioners but all similarly situated applicants who passed from the concerned institution prior to the session 1991-1993. On hearing the parties and considering the 4 relevant materials, we find no error of fact or law so as to warrant interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)