IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9524 of 2007 MANAGING COMMITTEE OF BHAGWAN BUDH PRIMARY TEACHER’S Education College Bajrahia, Siwan, through its Secretary Sachchida Nand Upasak’ son of Late Ram Briksh Upasak, resident of village-Bajarahia, Police Station- Gautam Budh Nagar, District-Siwan. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary (Secondary Education) to the Government Education Commissioner, Department of Education New Secretariat Patna 2. The Director of Education (Research and Training) Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. Bihar School Examination Board through its Secretary, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Aditya Nr. Singh, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate, AAG XI Mr. Saroj Sharma, Advocate. For the BSEB:- Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. ------------ 4. 06.10.2010 Learned counsel representing the petitioner has very strenuously addressed the Court of his right to demand a direction upon the respondents State of Bihar to give recognition to the institution in question for the academic sessions 1989-91 as well as 1990-92. Prayer is not only for holding examination of the students of those two sessions but even confer degrees to the students who were admitted or purported to have been admitted for those two sessions. Many submissions have been made in support of such a direction. Reliance has been 2 placed in extenso on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the earlier case of the petitioner which has been annexed as Annexure-2 as well as the fact that recognition has come to be given to the institution by the State after many rounds of litigations and battle. Learned counsel has also demonstrated that the reason for rejection is not the reason which the State has indicated but for other considerations. One of his primary submission is that the infrastructure and other facilities provided by the institution, if it was good enough to beget recognition for the year 1988-90, there is no reason why recognition for subsequent years could not be granted. All the submissions and the debates in the opinion of this Court are only academic in view of certain facts and legal position which have emerged over the period of time in the last two decades. First that the grant of recognition to the institution was rejected out right by the State of Bihar which is evident from the communication dated 7.4.1993 and the same has not been challenged till date, by the petitioner. That by itself puts an embargo on the litigation or the prayer made by the petitioner in the present case. 3 The other aspect is that now the State has no role to play in the matter of grant of recognition to the institutions imparting B.Ed education. By virtue of a legislation enacted by parliament a specified body is vested with the said authority which came into existence way back in the year 1995. Significant aspect is that after coming of that legislation no other authority has any power to grant any kind of recognition in matter of establishment or imparting B. Ed education. In the above stated background any demand made by the petitioner that since the recognition requested in the present writ application relates to the period prior to coming into force of the enactment in question is a misplaced kind of submission because all rights, duties and the powers in this regard will be decided in terms of the law as it exists today and the past must rest as a past and it cannot be raked up in the present writ after almost two decades. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)