IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17917 of 2009 1. MD.ISLAM S/O JEEBACH MIYAN R/O VILL AND P.O- BAGHA KUSMAR, VIA PHULPARAS P.S- KHUTAUNA, DISTT- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPRTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION), HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHUBANI 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KHUTAUNA, DISTT- MADHUBANI ----------- 2 20.4.2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for a direction to the respondents to recognize the certificate of teachers training examination (short course) given by Bihar School Examination Board, as the requisite qualification for being appointed as trained Assistant Teacher. The grievance of the petitioner is that since his teachers’ training certificate is not being recognized by the respondents, as such he has not been called for counselling for teachers’ appointment. Petitioner’s case is that he had taken admission in Primary Teachers training College, Rampur, Samastipur for the Session 1976. The duration of training was July 2 to December, 1976 and after completing the course, he appeared in the examination conducted by Bihar School Examination Board and declared successful. Petitioner is claiming that on the basis of this degree, he is eligible for being appointed on the post of Primary Teacher as a trained candidate. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, where it has been stated that Teachers’ training (short course) of six months is not a requisite qualification for being appointed as trained Primary Teacher. The Panchayat Primary teachers ( Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, in this regard, clearly provides that the candidates must have passed certificate of two years training course from any institute recognized by the N.C.E.T. Six months course, which has been completed by the petitioner, is not a requisite qualification, as per Rule. This is the reason that the petitioner has not called for counselling. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that rule which was framed in the year 2006, has been amended in the year 2008 and under amended rule also, 3 the training course is provided for two years. Since the petitioner is not fulfilling eligibility criteria, he has not been called for counselling. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the Counsel, I find that no illegality has been committed by the respondents by not calling the petitioner’s for counselling, since the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as trained teacher. This application is dismissed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar