IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1215 of 2010 1. RAMA SHANKAR SINGH S/O SHRI DHARAM NATH SINGH R/O VILL.- DHARAMPURA, P.S.- DORIGANJ, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) 2. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI BHRIGUNATH SINGH R/O VILL.- DHARAMPURA, P.S.- DORIGANJ, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) 3. GOVIND SHARAN MISHRA S/O LATE PANCHAM MISHRA R/O VILL.- UMARPUR, P.O.- PAIGA, P.S.- BHELDI, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SARAN AT CHAPRA 5. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER SARAN DIVISION AT CHAPRA 6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, SARAN AT CHAPRA 7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SARAN AT CHAPRA 8. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SARAN AT CHAPRA 9. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 10. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MADHEPURA 11. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TARAIYA DISTT.- SARAN 12. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER TARAIYA-I, DISTT.- SARAN 13. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER REVILGANJ, DISTT.- SARAN 14. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER REVILGANJ, DISTT.- SARAN 15. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DARIYAPUR, DISTT.- SARAN 16. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER DARIYAPUR, DISTT.- SARAN ----------- 2 25.06.2010 The three petitioners obtained the degree of Shiksha Visharad from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in between 1990- 1995. They claim that the same is equivalent to B Ed degree and, as such, they are entitled to be considered for public employment wherever B Ed qualification is necessary condition of eligibility. They complain that they are not being permitted to do so on the strength of order as contained in Memo No 1948 dated 20.11.2008 as passed by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. Mr Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition, would submit that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been established at Allahabad under an Act of Parliament being the Hindi 2 Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 with the object of inter alia, holding examinations through the medium of Hindi language and to confer degrees, Diplomas and other academic distinctions. It was, accordingly, conducting the course of Shiksha Visharad. He would further submit that as is apparent from Annexure-6 being letter dated 25.03.2000 of the Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna wherein it was clearly stated that the State Government, by resolution No 394 dated 17.04.1983, had granted equivalence to Shiksha Visharad with B Ed degree. Thus, the equivalence would continue at least upto 1995 because in 1993, the National Council for Teachers Education Act (NCTE) came into being which was enforced with effect from 17.08.1995 whereafter no institution, other than a University, could start or take up B Ed courses. The NCTE has not granted any such permission to the said institution. Therefore, at least upto the said date, in view of the State Government’s own resolution, as aforesaid, equivalence cannot be denied. This aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the Principal Secretary when he issued the impugned order dated 19.11.2008. The attention of Principal Secretary was not drawn to the fact that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act is a Parliamentary Act and that the State Government had, in 1983, resolved to grant equivalence. In my view, the submissions as being made on behalf of petitioners require consideration but first they must receive attention of the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department who would consult his counterpart in the Education Department in the State and take fresh decision in the matter so far as the period prior to 1995 is concerned and then issue fresh directives 3 in this regard at an early date preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before him especially in view of the fact that people having such qualification are applying for employment and are not being considered for public employment and uncertainty looms large over it. The petitioners would have a right and remedy consequent to the order passed by the Principal Secretary in this regard which, upon being passed, must be communicated to the petitioners as well. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Till the time, the Principal Secretary takes a decision in this aspect of the matter, his decision, as reflected in the impugned order, would not be given effect to and any action taken by any authority disregarding such directions would be subject to final orders that may be passed by the Principal Secretary upon reconsideration of the matter, as aforesaid. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)