IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15605 of 2007 SHATRUGHAN MANDAL & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.13102 of 2006 RANJANA RANI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13105 of 2006 SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13299 of 2006 SHIV NARAYAN GUPTA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11006 of 2008 KRISHNA KANT SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.12080 of 2008 SABITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8298 of 2007 KIRAN KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4694 of 2008 BINOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With - 2 - CWJC No.8488 of 2007 MAHESH KUMAR RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.13202 of 2008 AJIT KUMAR RANJAN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Counsel for the State: Mr. S.C. 21, Mr. G.A. 5, Mr. A.A.G.-II, Mr. Mayank Rukhiar Counsel for the A.I.C.T.E.: Mr. S.N.Pathak, Adv. ----------- 4 09.09.2008 Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the N.C.T.E. in this batch of writ applications. The issue relates to equivalence of a qualification of Shiksha Visharad Degree granted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad, and its affiliated institutions, with a B.Ed. degree granted by an institution recognized or affiliated to the N.C.T.E. or a Recognized Institution. The controversy is in the background of appointments made and threatened or non-consideration for appointment on the post of Primary and Secondary Teachers (Trained) in different districts of the State in pursuance of the framing of the Bihar Nagar Nikay Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. Rule 8 (ka) 3- is the subject of controversy. It divides the applicants into two categories. Those who have obtained their - 3 - qualification of training prior to coming into force of the N.C.T.E. Act from a recognized institution and those who have acquired the qualification thereafter. The issue first came before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12635/2006 when a Bench of this Court by an order dated 8.12.2006 declined to grant relief and to accept the issue of equivalence. The matter travelled in L.P.A. No. 45 of 2007 which was disposed by a Division Bench on 17.3.2008 with the observation that the State Government should take a decision on the issue of equivalence within the time prescribed. A representation was then filed in terms of the order of the Division Bench appended as Annexure-20 to the supplementary affidavit in C.W.J.C. no. 15605/2007. This Court notices that the representation inter alia raises issues of the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad, being promulgated under an Act of Parliament. Orders of the N.C.T.E. that the institution was not required to obtain recognition being an autonomous body. Earlier decisions of the State Government of 16.8.1965 order n. 6 (Ri)- 203/64 that certain other states had recognized the degree of Shiksha Visarad granted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad; that the University grants Commissioner also recognized B. Ed. Degree by it; that the C.B.S.E. for purposes of appointment of teachers also recognizes the same degree. Subsequently another Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4007/2007 and analogous cases - 4 - on 30.6.2008 disposed the writ applications with direction to the State Government to take a fresh decision in light of the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad having the status of a deemed University under section 3 of the U.G.C. Act. The Special Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar then passed the impugned order dated 24.7.2008 declining to accord the status of equivalence to a Shiksha Visarad Degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad with that of B.Ed degree granted by recognized University. Two fold submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioners. First, that the impugned order is not a decision of the State Government which has to be in the form of a policy decision but it is the order of an individual Officer. This was not the order of the L.P.A. Court and the order is vitiated on that ground alone. Additionally, even if the respondents were permitted to rely upon the same, it is cryptic and does not reflect proper application of mind with seriousness to the issues raised by the petitioners in their representations as discussed above, in pursuance of the liberty granted by the L.P.A. Court. It ignores relevant materials and arrives at an arbitrary decision without any reasons for non equivalence by independent application of mind. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the - 5 - matter and the wide ramifications that the issue involved as noticed by the Division Bench in its order dated 17.3.2008, a rather casual and perfunctory counter affidavit has been filed placing reliance on the order of the Single Bench which merged into the order of the Division Bench. It were almost as if the formality of filing counter affidavit was being fulfilled. Even in the counter affidavit, not even a semblance of an attempt has been made to deal with the issues raised in the representation of the petitioner. This Court is satisfied that the petitioners have raised serious issues for consideration requiring a reasoned and appropriate speaking order in accordance with law by a policy decision to be taken by the State and not of an individual officer. For both the reasons as aforesaid, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the order bearing memo no. 1206 dated 24.7.2008 at Annexure-18 to C.W.J.C. no. 15605/2007. It is accordingly quashed. The writ applications are allowed. The matters are remanded to the State Government for an appropriate policy decision in accordance with law by a reasoned speaking order upon due consideration of the materials in the representation to be taken within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. The need to fix a time limit of four weeks only, arises in - 6 - the background of the fact that the State Government proposes to commence fresh recruitment of teachers, as the Court is informed at Bar. Those who claimed to be eligible for consideration in pursuance of Shiksha Visarad Degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad cannot be permitted to be defeated by making their applications infructuous for reason of laches by the State Government in taking a policy decision in the matter. This Court, therefore, directs that : (a) those who are already in service on the basis of Shiksha Visarad Degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad shall not be disturbed from their status till such time that the State Government takes an appropriate fresh policy decision. (b) The Court expects that the State Government shall take a policy decision in the matter within four weeks and only thereafter commence the process of fresh recruitment in light of such policy decision to be taken. (c) If such a policy decision is not taken within a period of four weeks, the respondents shall be obliged to also consider those who have obtained their Shiksha Visarad Degree from - 7 - Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad. However, while considering and making any appointments of such persons, the State shall be at liberty to require an undertaking from them that their appointment will be subject to such final decision that the State Government may take subsequently and for which no equity shall be claimed by them at a later stage. A detail representation on behalf of the petitioners as discussed above, appended at Annexure-20 to C.W.J.C. No. 15605/2007, is already available with the respondents and on which the fresh reasoned decision is required to be taken by the State Government. However, if any of the petitioners wish to file a further representation raising substantive issues of equivalence in law based on documentary evidences, they must do so at the time of presentation of a certified copy of the this order. It has already been noticed by the L.P.A. Bench that the matter concerns a large number of persons and therefore, liberty was granted to file a representation in a representative capacity . This Court, therefore, further directs that any such decision taken by the respondent State as policy decision shall be equally applicable to all - 8 - such persons with regard to whom the issue of equivalence of Shiksha Visarad Degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad arises and that the respondents shall not insist upon individual Court orders multiplying litigation, based on the nature of the final decision that may be taken by them. I.A. No. 5385/2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 11006/2008 for addition of parties to which learned counsel for the State has no objection is hereby allowed and the applicants in the I.A. application shall be deemed to be the original writ petitioners also . The writ application stands disposed. pkj (Navin Sinha, J)