IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.59 of 2008 Ram Yatan Kumar Paswan, son of Binda Paswan, resident of Ward No.13, Raxaul, P.S. Raxaul, District – East Champaran…………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 3. District Magistrate, District – East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur 5. District Education Officer, Motihari, District East Champaran 6. District Superintendent of Education, Motihari, East Champaran. 7. Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Motihari, District East Champaran 8. Kashinath Prasad Sah, former Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Raxaul, East Champaran. 9. Shankar Baitha, former S.D.O.-cum-Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Raxaul, East Chamaparan. 10. Head Master, Rahmani Hajari Mal High School, Raxaul, District East Champaran. 11. Punita Devi, Ex-Ward councilor, Raxaul, District East Champaran 12. Gyan Prakash, Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Raxaul, District East Champaran. 13. Subodh Kumar Baitha, son of Not known, at present teacher in Government Urdu Primary School, Pareuwan, Raxaul, District East Champaran…………………………Respondents ---------- 2 23.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment as teacher in a school under Nagar Parishad / Nagar - 2 - Panchayat of the district of East Champaran. Petitioner’s qualification is B.A. and claims to have completed his teachers’ training course from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkatta, West Bengal. This Court has earlier held that certificate of teachers’ training course obtained from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkatta is not a valid qualification for consideration of the case of a candidate for appointment as a teacher in this State. Therefore, that claim is no more available to the petitioner. The next contention of the petitioner is that he is a graduate whereas respondent no.13 has been selected on consideration of his intermediate degree. He submits that since the petitioner had higher qualification, he ought to have been considered in preference of respondent no.13. However, Rules provide that qualification of a candidate of intermediate and equivalent degree shall be taken into account for consideration of his case for appointment. Admittedly, respondent no.13 had higher marks than that of the petitioner in intermediate. - 3 - In view of this admitted position, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. The same is dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)