IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11565 OF 2007 BISWA MOHAN PRASAD SINGH, S/O SRI RAM KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE LARUA, P.S SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ............PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 5.THE DIRECTOR (TRAINING & RESERACH), HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. ............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 08.11.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In this application, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus for his appointment on the post of assistant teacher in Secondary School. The petitioner is said to have undergone teachers training course in a distant education programme from the institute of distant education, Jivajee University, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. He is said to have passed the said examination in the year 1997. As a matter of fact when the petitioner had applied for the said post of assistant teacher, he was also selected subject to verification of his educational qualification. It now however transpires that the petitioner had undergone teachers 2 training course in the year 1995-96 session from a institute which had no recognition at that point of time from N.C.T.E. This becomes clear from paragraph no. 3 of the letter of the Director of the Institute of Distant Education, Jivajee University, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. In the said letter it has been said that since the admission in the course was taken prior to constitution of N.C.T.E, there was no relevance of recognition of N.C.T.E. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once a categorical certificate was issued by the Director of the institute, Jivajee University, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and the name of the institute in question also did not figure in the fake institutes of the State of Bihar, there was no reason for denying the petitioner’s appointment on the post of assistant teacher. Counsel for the State has filed no counter affidavit in this case but would definitely rely on the provisions of the N.C.T.E Act 1993. The N.C.T.E Act 1993 received the assent of the President on 29.12.1993 and 3 was published in the Gazette of India Extra Part-II, Section I dated 30.12.1993 and could become operational by Government decision, S.O. 620 (E), dated 1st July, 1995 which was the appointed day for the N.C.T.E Act 1993. Section 14 (1) of the Act clearly provides that every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. thus it becomes clear that the admission of the petitioner for 1995-96 session, which would mean in any event in between the month of June and July 1995. For 4 such institution, an application had to be filed within a period of six months and an order had to be passed by the N.C.T.E on such application. It is therefore, absolutely incorrect on the part of the Director of the Institute of Distant Education, Jivajee University, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh to certify as has been done by him on 02.04.2007 that 1995-96 session was not within the purview of N.C.T.E Act. Infact on or after 1.7.1995 all institutes imparting teachers training course was required to be recognized by the N.C.T.E. Thus the petitioner cannot be said to have passed his teachers training course from a recognized college. Counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the institute has been later on recognized by the N.C.T.E but he is not in a position to support his statement by any specific document. In that view of the matter, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to produce any document before the Competent Authority to show that the institute in question from which the petitioner is said 5 to have completed teachers training course had the recognition of N.C.T.E. for the Session in which he had passed the Teachers Training Examination. Once the petitioner does so, the Authorities would be duty bound to reconsider his case strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)