IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8255 of 2007 Tajammul Hussain, son of late Md. Najib, resident of village Chak Qutub, P.S. Vaishali, P.O. Purkhauli, via Lalganj, District Vaishali at Hajipur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Director, Research and Training, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur 6. The District Education Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur … Respondents ---------------------------------- 3. 3.11.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State, however, is present. This Court by an order dated .27.9.2011 had directed the counsel for the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit as with regard to the history and continuance of recognition of Mallia Fakhrauddin Ali Ahmad B.Ed. Teachers’ Training College, Rambagh, Purnea in the background that the petitioner in this writ application had sought a declaration from this Court that the qualification of B.Ed. acquired by him from the aforementioned College in 1991-92 Session is valid making him eligible for appointment in Government service. It was in this regard that the following observations were made by this Court while directing the petitioner to file his supplementary affidavit: “ Mr. Farooque Moazzam, learned counsel for the petitioner, would explain that the aforesaid College was given temporary recognition from 1985-86 Session to 1989-90 Session by an order of the State Government dated 16th August, 1988 and that after such temporary recognition had expired in the year 2 1990 the College could continue to take admission for onwards sessions, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 even without there being any order of permanent recognition because the Government had issued orders granting temporary recognition on year to year basis. In the considered opinion of this Court though the documents on record including the order granting permanent recognition dated 10.8.1994, as contained in Annexure 2/A, do not take notice of any extension of temporary recognition beyond 1989-90 Session; and such permanent recognition given in August, 1994 by the nature of its contents would only lead to an interference of there being a prospective recognition, the reliance placed by the petitioner on a communication dated 26.8.1994 that such permanent recognition was supposed to be given with effect from 1990-91 Session would by itself create a big confusion as to whether the State Government had earlier issued order of further temporary recognition beyond 1989-90 Session. In this regard it has to be taken note of the fact that if there was already a further extension of temporary recognition beyond 1989-90 Session there was no need for issuance of such letter dated 26.8.1994 which in effect gives the so called validity to retrospective recognition. None- the-less Mr. Moazzam is quite sure of issuance of such order granting temporary recognition after 1989- 90 Session till permanent recognition was given and seeks indulgence of this Court to bring them on record alongwith some other orders by which permanent recognition given by the State Government was sought to be restored when by a subsequent order dated 12.7.2003, as contained in Annexure 3, the 3 permanent recognition was cancelled with retrospective effect. Mr. Moazzam, learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for and is allowed ten days’ time to file a supplementary affidavit.” Today when the case has appeared neither the counsel for the petitioner has appeared nor the desired supplementary affidavit has been filed. In absence thereof it becomes clear that the College in question had no valid recognition for 1991-92 Session and as such, this Court would find it difficult to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of this writ application, relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondents to accord validity of the qualification of B.Ed. degree obtained from the aforesaid recognized training College for the Session 1991-1992 for the purpose of inclusion the name of the petitioner in the panel. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection to the aforesaid post in either of the aforesaid institution and empanel the name of the petitioner in the list of successful candidates on the basis of valid and genuine degree of B.Ed. obtained from the aforesaid recognized training college. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondents not to reject the candidature of the petitioner for the aforesaid post based on pending claim before the respondent authorities in the light of genuine and valid 4 qualification of B.Ed. obtained by the petitioner from the recognized training college. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondents to keep one post of Assistant Teacher in a school be vacant. (v) For issuance of an appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to pay respect of different pronomements of this Hon’ble Court in different writ applications which has already been adjudicated upon.” As noted above, since the petitioner had never acquired his qualification of B.Ed. from a recognized institution for the academic Session in question in which he is said to have pursued his course and passed out the examination, the Government and/or any statutory appointing authority will not be bound to recognize such qualification of the petitioner. That being so, this application must fail and it is ordered accordingly. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/