IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.621 of 2010 1. RAMDEO PRIYADARSHI S/O SRI SWARUP LAL SINGH R/O VILL.- DEONAGAR, MAHULI, P.S. LAKHNOUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. 2. RAJESHWAR PRASAD S/O SRI SWARUP LAL SINGH R/O VILL.- DEONAGAR, MAHULI, P.S. LAKHNOUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. ----------- Appellants/Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI . 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHUBANI . 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER-CUM-SECRETARY PANNEL NIRMAN SAMITI, MADHEPUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER LAKHNOUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. ------------ Respondents/Respondents 8. BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI RAM NANDAN PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- FATAKI KUTT, P.S.- MADHEPUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. 9. MAHENDRA PRASAD S/O GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD R/O VILL.- HARBHANGA, P.S. MADHEPUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. 10. INDRADEV PRASAD S/O SRI SUDESHWAR PRASAD R/O VILL.- BELA, P.S.- LAKHNOUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. 11. REKHA KUMARI D/O LATE MAKESHWAR PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- PARMESHWRA, P.S.- LAKHNOUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. 12. BINOD KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM CHANDRA SINGH R/O VILL.- PATHRAHI, P.S.- JHANJHARPUR, R.S. DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. 13. MANISH KUMAR S/O SHYAM CHANDRA PRASAD R/O VILL.- PATHRAHI, P.S.- JHANJHARPUR, R.S. DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. 14. BEBI KUMARI D/O SRI RAM ANUGRAH SAH R/O VILL.- DEEP, P.S. JHANJHARPUR, R.S. DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. --------------Petitioners/Proforma Respondents ----------- For the Appellants :- Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Baleshwar Kamath, Adv. For the Respondent :- Mr. Bajarangi Lal, AC to GA8 ---------- 2 2 05.04.2010 I. A. No. 3193 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 days. We have heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Baleshwar Kamath, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate 8 for the State. Mr. Bajarangi Lal does not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay of five days and accordingly delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I. A. No. 3193 of 2010 stands disposed of L. P. A. No. 621 of 2010 As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission. On consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard for the purpose of admission and final disposal. Questioning the correctness of the order dated 18.1.2010 passed by learned singe Judge in CWJC No. 13511 of 2009, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. The singular issue that was raised before the 3 learned single Judge was that B. T. Training (Baby Teacher Certificate Training) obtained by the appellants in different sessions from Uttar Pradesh (Hindi University) is equivalent to basic training meant for the post of Assistant Teacher. Learned single Judge has referred to the decision rendered in LPA No. 387 of 2009, whereby, a Division Bench has held as follows:- “… It is true that though in the advertisement, the institution i.e. Hindi Vishwavidhyalaya, Allahabad, is mentioned, but any certificate issued by the Institute is not accepted. The qualification of Baby Teachers Certificate Training Examination has not been mentioned as training qualification or equivalent training qualification and following the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dhirendra Kumar Singh and others v. The State of Bihar and others (2008(1) Patna Law Journal Reports, 583) the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court rendered in CWJC No. 1387 of 2007 and its analogous cases, where the services of the petitioners, who were appointed as trained Assistant Teachers in different Primary and Secondary Schools, were terminated and this Court interfered in the matter. The court noticed that they had 4 undergone training of two years in Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag and got certificates. But whether that certificate can be an equivalent certificate as prescribed was not considered. The learned single Judge correctly held in the impugned order that the qualification of Baby Teachers Certificate Training Examination is not a recognized qualification prescribed by the employer and thus, dismissed the writ petition….” We respectfully agree with the aforesaid view and accordingly we find that there is no error in the order of the learned single Judge. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Rishi (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)