IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.28 of 2010 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PATEPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PATEPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI. 7. THE HEAD MASTER, NEWLY CREATED PRIMARY SCHOOL, (BINDA RAI KA TOLA), BLOCK- PATEPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI. ------------ Respondents in writ/Appellants Versus 1. MAMTA KUMARI, D/O YOGENDRA SINGH & W/O BIBHAV KUMAR PABHAKAR, R/O VILL- KHOARAHI, P.S- PATEPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI. ------- Writ Petitioner/Respondent 2. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, LADAHON , BLOCK- PATEPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI. 3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ- LADAHON, BLOCK- PATEPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI. --------- Respondents in the writ petition/Respondents With LPA No.206 of 2010 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, DAUDNAGAR, BLOCK- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 7. THE HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL DAUDNAGAR CHAK, GADHHO, BLOCK- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. -----------Respondents/Appellants 2 Versus 1. BABITA KUMARI, W/O SUDHIR KUMAR CHOUDHARY, R/O VILL.- DAUDNAGAR CHAK, GADHHO, P.O.- DAUDNAGAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. ---------- Petitioner/Respondent 1st Set 2. THE MUKIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DAUDNAGAR, BLOCK BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. ----------- Respondent/Respondent 2nd Set With LPA No.314 of 2010 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEOHAR. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SHEOHAR. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TARIYANI, DISTT- SHEOHAR. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, TARIYANI, DISTT- SHEOHAR. ------------ Respondents 1 to 7 in the Writ Petition/Appellants Versus 1. KRISHNA KUMARI, W/O SHRI RAM JEEWAN RAM, R/O VILL KINARU, VIA- TURKI, P.S- MANIYARI, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR. 2. GANESH RAM, S/O SHRI SAHDEV RAM, R/O VILL-BADEYA, PO- SUSTA TOK, P.S- GAIGHAT, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR. -----------Petitioner in the Writ Petition/Respondents 3. THE MUKHIYA, PANCHAYAT RAJ SHARIF NAGAR, BLOCK- TARIYANI, SHEOHAR 4. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ SHARIF NAGAR, BLOCK- TARIYANI, SHEOHAR. 5. THE MUKHIYA, PANCHYAT RAJ KUMHRAR, BLOCK- TARIYANI, SHEOHAR. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ KUMHRAR, BLOCK- TARIYANI, SHEOHAR. ------------- Respondents No. 8 to 11 of Writ Petition/Respondents With LPA No.353 of 2010 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEOHAR. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SHEOHAR. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TARIYANI, SHEOHAR. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, TARIYANI, SHEOHAR. -------- Appellants (Respondents) Versus 1. RAM JEEWAN RAM, S/O YOGENDRA RAM, R/O VILLAGE & POST- KINARU, VIA- TURKI, P.S.- MANIYAR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR. ----------- Respondent (Petitioner) 2. THE MUKHIYA, PANCHAYAT RAJ SHARIF NAGAR TARIYANI BLOCK, SHEOHAR. 3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ SHARIF NAGAR, TARIYANI BLOCK, SHEOHAR. ----------- Performa Respondents (Respondents) ----------- For the Appellants :- Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-III For the Respondents :- Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Pathak, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Harish Kumar, Adv. ------------ PRESENT: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha O R D E R (28/04/2010) As per Mihir Kumar Jha, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned counsel 4 for the contesting respondent writ petitioner in all these four appeals. 2. All these appeals though arise out of different orders passed by the learned single Judge in the respect connected writ petition but involve identical question and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. At the outset, it needs to be recorded here that though the facts of all the four writ petitions C.W.J.C. No. 10748 of 2008 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 28 of 2010, C.W.J.C. No. 11667 of 2009 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 206 of 2010, C.W.J.C. No. 6150 of 2009 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 314 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 5878 of 2009 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 353 of 2010 differ only in respect of some of the dates relating to acquiring qualification, appointment and termination of service of the Respondent writ petitioners but the common thing binding in all these cases are that all of them having obtained the degree of Madhyama (Visharad) from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in between 2003-05 had filed application for the post of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006 (barring respondent writ petitioner, namely, Babita Kumari who appointed as a Siksha Mitra on 26.7.2005 and absorbed as Panchayat Teacher with effect from 1.7.2006) by claiming to be possessing the qualification for the post of Panchayat Teacher and were subsequently removed from service on the ground that they did not possess the qualification for the post of Panchayat Teacher, inasmuch as, their degree of Shiksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was neither recognized nor an equivalent 5 qualification of Intermediate and as such, all of them were terminated from service on different dates in the year 2007. 4. Such orders of termination of their service were assailed in the respective writ petitions filed by the respondent writ petitioners which have been allowed by the learned single Judge by invoking the plea of estoppel and holding that once the State Government and its authorities had found the writ petitioner eligible, holding their degree of Madhyama (Visharad) as equivalent to the Intermediate and had appointed them with open eyes, it was not open to them to cancel their appointment on the ground that such degree of Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was not recognized as an equivalent qualification of Intermediate at any point of time by the authorities of the State of Bihar for appointment on the post of Teachers. It has to be noted that such judgment in fact was first rendered by a learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10748 of 2008 on the basis of which three others writ petitions have been disposed of by three separate orders applying the ratio of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10748 of 2008. 5. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel in all these cases has submitted that the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as „the Rules) lays down under Rule 8 the qualification for appointment to the post of Teacher including Panchayat Teachers requiring that the candidate should possesses the degree of Higher Secondary or Intermediate or equivalent 6 examination passed from education instituting recognized by the Government and the qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized to the equivalent qualification of Intermediate. He has thus submitted that the writ petitioners having obtained appointment on the basis of their possessing the degree of Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad were not eligible for being appointed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak and as such, their appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak due to lack of prescribed educational qualification under the Rule was void ab initio and as such, their order of termination of service ought have not been interfered by the learned single Judge. In this context, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1995 Supl (1) SCC 192, Subordinate Services Selection Board Vs.Bir Singh & Anr. reported in 1995 Supl (2) SCC 651 and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lata Arun reported in 2002(6) SCC 252. 6. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents writ petitioners while supporting the impugned order of the learned single Judge have submitted that first of all it was factually an incorrect stand taken by the appellant State of Bihar and its officials that the qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) was not a recognized qualification equivalent to Intermediate and to support this aspect, they have referred to an order of Division Bench in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Poonam Sharma 7 reported in 2009(3)PLJR 54. It has also been submitted that the press communique issued by the Human Resources Development Department in its letter no. 108 dated 23.2.2007 directing the subordinate officials to cancel any and every appointment based on the qualification of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad being a subsequent order after an appointment could not have been made applicable in the cases of the writ petitioners as the same at best could have been given only a prospective operation i.e. on or after 23.2.2007 whereas all the respondent writ petitioners had been appointed in between 26.7.2005 to 20.2.2007. 7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be first necessary to notice the statutory provision under the Rules. Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules provides for qualification for appointment to the post of Teachers including Panchayat Teachers and the same reads as follows:- “8. For employment. – (A) Eligibility : For Block Teacher: X X X For Panchayat Teachers:- 1. Should be citizen of India and habitant of Bihar. 2. Should be higher secondary or intermediate or equivalent examination passed from educational institution recognized by Government.” 8. Though we are not strictly concerned with the amended Rules which came into force in the year 2008 but for the sake of clarity, it has to be recorded that later on, the State Government made certain amendment in the Rule in the year 2008 and Rule 4 thereof substituted Rule 8(2)(ka) of Rule 2006 in the following manner:- 8 “4. Amendment of Section 2 of sub-rule (a) of Rule 8:- Section 2 of subrule (a) of Rule 8 will be substituted by the following:- Should be passed higher secondary intermediate or equivalent examination from a school/college/board recognized by the Government but it does not include the degree in technical education (Polytechnic, Unani education) physical education, language Specific degree (Maulvi, Up-shastri) and the degree provided by the voluntary institutions (decided by the department) for employment on the post of general teachers.” 9. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid Rule 8 of the Rules, it becomes clear that at all point of time, the qualification for the post of Teacher remained Intermediate or equivalent examination passed from educational institution recognized by the Government. 10. Article 358 of the Bihar Education Code enumerates the different examination conducted by different institutions and under the table provided therein, though there are names of four institutions, namely, Gurukul Kanjri, Haridwar, Viswavidyalaya, Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad, Prayag Mahila Vidyapith, Allahabad and Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmadabad, the same does not record the name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. It is only the examination of Madhyama of Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad which was fitted to be an equivalent qualification of Intermediate with a rider that the candidate has passed equivalent English Examination from a University/or Board. In order to clarify this aspect of the matter, it is necessary to quote Article 358 of the Bihar Education Code in-extenso:- 358. Recognition of certificates from National Universities.- Examinations conducted by National Universities enumerated in the following table 9 should be treated as equivalent to the degree granted by a recognized University mentioned opposite each in column III and that candidates who have passed any of examinations mentioned in column 1 upto the end of the year 1965 or year mentioned against their names should be tested as eligible for appointment to a post of service under Government (except to a post of teacher. In case of teachers valid for promotion only) for which success at any of the corresponding examination of a recognized University is laid down as qualification for appointment to that post or service:- Table-1 Sl. No. Name of Institution Name of Exam Equivalence Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. Gurukul Kanjri Haridwar Viswavidyalaya (a) Adhikari b) Vidyavinit (c) Vidyalankar and Vedalankar (d) Vidyavachaspati Secondary/Matric S. Exam Intermediate B. A. M.A. 2. Hindi Viswavidyalaya Allahabad (a) Prathama (b) Madhyama S.S. Exam or Matric Intermediate Provided that the candidate has passed equivalent English Exam. From a University/or Board 3 Prayag Mahila Vidyapith Allahabad (a) Vinodini (b) Vidushi S.S. Exam or Matriculation Intermediate -do- 4. Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmadabad. Veneet S.S. Exam. Or Matriculation -do- Knowledge of writing in Devanagni script is a must. TABLE-2 Equivalence for Hindi only 1. Rashtrabhasha Pracharsamiti, Vardha (a) Parichay (b) Kovid (c) Ratna S.S. Exam or Matric Intermediate B.A. 2. Assam Rashtrabhasha Samiti, Gauhati (a) Praboodh (b) Vishard S. S. Exam or Matriculation Intermediate 3. Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad (a) Visharad (b) Bhushan (c) Vidwan S. S. Exam. Or Matriculation Intermediate B.A. 4. Bombay Hindi Vidhyapity, Bombay (a) Uttama S. S. Exam or Matriculation 10 (b) Bhasha-ratna. (c) Sahitya Sudhakar Intermediate B. A. 5. Maharashtra Bhashasabha, Poona (a) Prabodh (b) Praveen (c) Pandit S. S. Exam or Matriculation Intermediate B. A. 6. Manipur Hindi, Parishad, Imphal (a) Prabodh (b) Visharad (c) Parangat S. S. Exam. Or Matriculation Intermediate B. A. 7. Mysore Hindi Prasar Parishad, Bangalore (a) Parangat B.A. 8. Mysore Hindi Prasar Parishad, Banglore (a) Pravesh (b) Uttama (c) Ratna S. S. Exam or Matriculation Intermediate B. A. 9 Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras (a) Praveshika (b) Visharad (c) Praveen S. S. Exam or Matriculation Intermediate B. A. 10. Hindi Viswavidyalaya Allahabad Uttama B. A. 11. Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahamadabad (a) Snatak (b) Sewak (c) Parangal Intermediate B. A. B. A. (Hons.) Only for those who have passed by writing answer in Devanagni Script. TABLE-3 Sl. No. 1 Name of Institution 2 Name of Exam 3 Equivalence 4 Remarks 5 1. Mandar Vidyapith Mandar (a) Upadhyay (b) Madhyama (c) Vidyabhushan S. S. Exam or Matriculation Intermediate B. A. 2. Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar (a) Praveshika (b) Sahityabhushan S. S. Exam or Matriculation Intermediate Provided the candidate has passed with English. (2) Has passed English Exam. From Deogharvidyapith or has passed equivalent English Exam. From a statutory University 11 or a recognized Board. 11. From reading of the aforesaid provisions of Bihar Education Code, it would be absolutely clear that qualification of Madhyama of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized or treated to be equivalent to Intermediate much less for the appointment on the post of Teachers, inasmuch as, Article 358 itself provided that such equivalence may make the candidate eligible for appointment to any post in the Government except to a post of Teacher and for Teacher, such equivalence was confined to only for the purposes of promotion. This aspect of the matter in fact becomes more clear by reading of the Article 359 of the Bihar Education Code which reads as follows:- “359. Appointment to teacher’s post forbidden on the basis of equivalence of certificates.- In order to raise the quality of teaching in school, it has been decided by the State Government that only those persons who have passed examinations held by the Bihar School Examination Board, Central Board of Education, Secondary Examination Boards of other States or Degrees obtained from statutory Universities shall be compulsory for appointment to the post of teachers in the Primary, Middle and High schools. (2) For appointment to the post of Urdu, Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit teachers, for the first time, a candidate must have passed in respect of Urdu, Arabic, Persian from the Madrasa Examination Board, Bihar or from other recognized Institute by the Personnel Department, Government of Bihar, and in respect of Sanskrit from Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University or Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (U.P.) (Education Departments Resolution No. 394 dated 11-4-83) (3) But if teachers of Primary, Middle and High Schools pass examination equivalent to Intermediate, Graduate and Post- Graduate Degrees whose equivalence is recognized by the Personnel Department as mentioned in the preceding Article, may 12 be promoted to higher pay-scale beyond matriculation. This facility shall not be given to Middle trained teachers for getting Matric trained pay-scale on the basis of equivalence. For getting Matric trained scale of pay, a Middle trained teacher must pass the Secondary School Examination from the Bihar School Examination Board. (Letter No. K/Ml-138/75/2680, dated 5th August, 1976 and Letter No. 9/M3-286/85E 2205, dated 24th August, 1985.)” 12. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the submission of Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel for the State, seems to be correct that at least the State of Bihar had never recognized the qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad to be an equivalent qualification of Intermediate. 13. This Court, however, at this place must notice the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioners who have placed reliance on the exhaustive counter affidavit filed in L.P.A. No. 28 of 2010 wherein reliance has been placed vide letter of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag (Hindi Visvavidalaya) dated 15.6.1973 addressed to the Secretary of the Secondary Education Board, Bihar claiming that the Government of Bihar in its order no. 6/R-1-203/64 dated 16.8.1965 had treated the Madhyama examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag (Hindi Vishvavidalaya) to be an equivalent qualification of B.A. Part-I or Intermediate. The difficulty, however, for this Court in placing reliance on the said letter of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag (Hindi Visvavidalaya) dated 15.6.1973 is that first of all the letter of the Bihar Government dated 16.8.1965 has not been produced and secondly it was found that in the 13 name of institution of Table-1 as also Table-2 though there is name of Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad and Prayag Mahila Vidyapith, Allahabad, there is no institution therein with the name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. 14. In that view of the matter, at least the letter of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag (Hindi Vishvavidalaya) dated 15.6.1973 cannot be a document to clinch the issue that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad at all point of time including in the year 2003 to 2005 when the respondent writ petitioner had passed their Madhyama (Visharad) examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was either a recognized institution or its Madhyama examination was held to be equivalent to Intermediate by the State of Bihar for appointment on the post of teacher. Moreover, the provisions under Article 358 was extended only upto 30.12.1987 vide personnel department letter no. 184 dated 7th of January, 1987 and Educational Department‟s letter no. 9/M-3-0600/86E 261 dated 16th February, 1988. Thus, adopting the line of least resistance, since there is no document muchless an authenticated Government order to show that the qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was ever recognized by the State of Bihar as equivalent to Intermediate, even if the plea of the counsel for the respondent writ petitioner is accepted that their qualification of Madhyama was recognized by the State Government as equivalent to Intermediate, the same could be valid up to 31.12.1987 only. The respondent writ 14 petitioners however had admittedly passed such Madhyama (Visharad) examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in the year 2003 to 2005 and as such atleast they cannot claim their Madhyama examination had stood recognized on the date they had either applied for the post or were appointed as Panchayat Shikshak in the year 2006. 15. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioners on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Poonam Sharma (supra) is also misplaced, inasmuch as, the institution there named was Hindi Sahitya Sammelan .(Hindi University), Allahabad and not Hindi Sahitya Samelan., Allahabad as mentioned in the respective certificates of the respondent writ petitioners. Moreover, in the case of Poonam Sharma (supra), as she had got such Madhyamik degree in theyear1987 and therefore, the Division Bench treating that such degree was recognized by the State of Bihar up to 31.12.1987 had refused to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge holding that since Poonam Sharma had got her degree in the year 1987 much before expiry of the recognition of the period, therefore the order of her termination of service on the ground that her Madhyamik examination was not recognized degree for the purpose of qualification was correct. 16. Mr. Lalit Kishore, however, has rightly pointed out that judgment of Poonam Sharma (supra) was later on explained by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Sahi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 654 of 2009 disposed of on 4.12.2009. 15 17. We have carefully examined the said order of the Division Bench dated 4.12.2009 in the case of Surendra Prasad Sahi (supra) and have found that Mr. Lalit Kishore is correct in his aforementioned submissions, inasmuch as, the Division Bench in the said order had recorded as follows:- “By the impugned order the writ court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant by observing that recognition and /or equivalence of degrees is an executive function and it is difficult for this Court to interfere with the same. A controversy had arisen whether the writ petitioner/appellant’s qualification of Prathama from Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad could be recognized as equivalent to matriculation examination or not for the purpose of engagement as Panchayat Shikshak in Manjhauli Gram Panchayat, Block Bochaha, District Muzaffarpur. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant had passed Prathama from Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad and obtained certificate in 1986. The certificate has been annexed as annexure-1. He has placed reliance upon Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit which is an order passed by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar dated 7th January, 1987 for submitting that the State of Bihar has itself granted recognition to such qualification as equivalent to matriculation but such recognition was only up to 31-12- 1987. Learned counsel for the State has produced before us a complete copy of annexure-7 which encloses appendix 1 and 2 referred in annexures-7 also. The appendix 1 and 2 contain names of the concerned institutions whose various degrees and certificates up to 31-12-1987 had been granted recognition. That list does not contain the name of Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad which is the body shown to have issued appellant’s certificate. On careful perusal of the entire document contained in annexure- 7 whose copy has been provided to us by learned Additional Advocate 16 General-III, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court delivered on 22-4-2009 in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Punam Sharma reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 55, in support of his submission that Prathama degree obtained from Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad has been accepted to be equivalent to matriculation if it was granted recognition prior to 31-12-1987. After having seen the entire documents a part of which is contained in annexure- 7 we are of the firm view that the Division Bench order in that case appears to have been rendered on mis-reading of the relevant documents and probably the entire document was not made available to the court. It will be for the State to look into the records and take appropriate action in respect of judgment delivered in that case. 18. In view of the aforesaid clear order of the subsequent Division Bench in the case of Surendra Prasad (supra) holding that the examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized much less treated to be equivalent by the State of Bihar, we can say with sense of certainty that qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized to be equivalent to the qualification of Intermediate by the State of Bihar and if on that basis alone, the respondent writ petitioners had obtained their appointment, the same will