IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5572 of 2011 NIRU SINGH, wife of Sudhir Kumar Singh, resident of village – Manserpur, P S – Paharpur, District - Begusarai Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director (Primary Education), Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Block Development Officer, Balia. 5. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna. 6. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Paharpur, Begusarai. ----------- 02. 19.04.2011 Petitioner is dissatisfied with the adjudication made by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai in Appeal No. 922/2009. Appointment of the petitioner is at stake in the sense that the tribunal after hearing the parties came to a considered opinion that in terms of the Bihar Primary Teachers Employment Service Conditions 2006 Rules mandates a two years training for creating eligibility for appointment whereas petitioner has only one year training which she had obtained years ago in the year 1982-83. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority made a communication with the Bihar School Examination Board on the issue and that communication has been brought on record as Annexure-11 series. The communication in question is annexed at page 36. Emphasis is placed by the petitioner on the observation made in that communication that the examination conducted by the Board then is equivalent to two years training because it was a 2 comprehensive education which was imparted during those days. The stand of the petitioner taken is that in view of the clear communication made by the Bihar School Examination Board the decision of the appellate authority holding that the petitioner’s appointment was not valid based on a training obtained years ago is erroneous. The Court takes judicial notice of the rule which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in para 11 of the writ application, in the sense that reliance is sought to be placed in support of one year training. An abstract of Rule-2 of the Primary School Teachers Promotion Rule 1993 talks in terms of one year training during the service period of appointed teachers. Submission of the petitioner is fit to be rejected on the face of it because the rule in question deals with promotion of teachers and not appointment of primary teachers. The relevant rule which governs the issue of appointment of primary teachers is 2006 Rule and 2006 Rule categorically has laid down a minimum requirement of two years of training. In addition to that the appellate authority has also taken note of the direction issued by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, which is letter No.1455 dated 3.9.2009 where it has been clarified that one year’s training is not a valid training for appointment as a Panchayat teacher in a Panchayat and any appointment made would be contrary to the rules laid down in this regard. 3 In the opinion of the Court, therefore, tribunal has not committed any illegality whatsoever in declaring that one year’s training obtained by the petitioner in any manner is not equivalent or akin to two years training specially when Rule does not talk about any situation nor any notification issued by the State in this regard accepts that position. The writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)