IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1124 of 2009 ASHA KUMARI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitoners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Mr. Ram Kumar Singh. For the State : AAG 6. ----------- 3. 18.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners, who claimed to have passed from Sidharth Mahila Teachers Training College, having obtained their B.Ed. degree during the Sessions 1985-86, 1986-87 and up to the Sessions 1991-92 are aggrieved by publication made by the Respondents as contained in Annexure-7 in which institution of the petitioners has been mentioned at serial 14 of Group A to have recognition only for the Sessions 1985-86 and 1986-87. It is their contention that this act of the Respondents was contrary to their own notification dated 24.4.1990 granting such recognition till further orders, which has been cancelled with prospective effect from 18.9.1992, the date of issuance of Annexurte-4. In this manner, the petitioners who took admission and completed the course during the period of recognition are being disqualified from consideration for appointment on the post of Assistant teachers in the second phase meant for appointment of teachers. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application to submit that examinations were held in 1994 after the 2 recognition was cancelled. The institution was granted temporary recognition for the Session 1987-88 on 9.11.1987. On 4.2.1989 it was granted retrospective recognition for the Sessions 1985-86 and 1986-87. On 24.4.1990 a notification was issued of recognized institutions in which the name of the present institution figured at serial 10, classified as recognised till further orders. This has been cancelled on 18.9.1992 with immediate effect and not retrospectively. The petitioners are candidates who took admission last in 1991-92 Sessions. Their admission was, therefore, during the period of recognition. The mere holding of the examination after cancellation of the recognition is of no avail. The institution was found to be validly fulfilling the conditions for imparting quality education on the date that the petitioners took admission. If things went wrong subsequently, that does not affect their admission. This issue with regard to the very same institution has been considered by a bench of this Court in CWJC No. 14133 of 2006 in which the consideration was for those who took admission for the academic Sessions 1988-89, 1990-91 and 1991- 92. It, therefore, clearly covers the petitioners of the present case also who are claiming admission during the aforesaid period. The State in that case also took similar objection that examination was conducted after annulment of recognition on 18.9.1992. Relying on certain Division Bench decisions it was held as follows : 3 “………. In the present matter, the petitioners had not only taken admission while the college in question had valid recognition but had subsequently been allowed to appear in the University examination also and have duly passed the same. Thus, their cases stand on much stronger footing and the certificates duly granted to them by the University cannot be treated as invalid and illegal on the ground stated by the learned counsel for the State.” The writ petition was allowed holding that the certificates issued to the petitioners therein were legal and valid. There is no occasion for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion. The petitioners are held to have acquired their B.Ed. qualification from the institution during the period when it had valid recognition. Annexure-7 is held to be bad to the extent that it qualifies the present institution at item 14 of Group A of the institutions which had recognition valid for Sessions 1985-86 and 1986-87 only. The petitioners are held to be entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Teacher in accordance with law on basis of their qualification from the aforesaid institution. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)