IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1562 of 2007 1. ASHOK PANDIT ANJANA, S/O HARNANDAN PANDIT, R/O VILLAGE-NANDA BIGHA, P.S.-HARNAUT, DISTRICT-NALANDA AT PRESENT MOHALLA- SHEOPURI (RAMCHANDRAPUR) BIHARSHARIFF, P.S.-LAHERI, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 2. AJAY KISHORE PRASAD, S/O SHYAM KISHORE PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-AJNAURA, P.S.- NURSARAI, DISTRICT-NALANDA. …………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, ZILA PARISHAD BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA. 3. A MEMBER OF ZILA PARISHAD SIKCHHA SAMITI, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA. 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA. 6. THE HEADMASTER, SEODAH HIGH SCHOOL, HARNAUT, NALANDA. 7. THE HEADMASTER, BALIKA HIGH SCHOOL, PARBALPUR, NALANDA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 17.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letters to them for the post of teachers in the respective High Schools as per consent letter submitted by them in the office of respondent District Education Officer and have also prayed for consequential directions to respondent nos. 6 and 7, namely, the Headmasters of the concerned schools to accept their joining. Case of the petitioners is that general 2 notice was published in the newspaper inviting applications for appointment on the post of teachers in the different schools under Zila Parishad, Nalanda sometime in 2006. Petitioners submitted their applications in response to the said advertisement. Merit list was prepared of 951 candidates on provisional basis which included names of the petitioners also. Pursuant to the preparation of the merit list, candidates were required to submit their consent letters for appointment and posting under different schools. The petitioners also submitted their consent letter. It is stated that a final merit list was also prepared containing the names of 676 candidates which also included the names of the petitioners. After submission of the consent letter the candidates were called for interview and verification of their certificates and for issue of appointment letters. Petitioners also appeared and produced their certificates before the respondents. However, later on, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that other candidates from the merit list were appointed but they had been left out. They made enquiries and came to know that their training certificate 3 was not accepted by the respondents as equivalent to B.Ed. degree course and, therefore, they were not found eligible for the appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners had the certificate of training from an institution from West Bengal which was equivalent to B.Ed. He also submits that once having been included in final merit list the respondents were estopped from denying appointment to the petitioners. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which, it is stated that the training qualification which the petitioners produced was found equivalent to Diploma and not equivalent to B.Ed. degree course which was the minimum qualification required for appointment of candidates on the post of teachers in the schools. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Institute from which the petitioners claim to have acquired the training was not recognized by the NCTE. It is said that petitioners were therefore not found qualified for appointment in terms of Government memo no. 1227 dated 11.7.2006 and letter no. 2354 dated 4 12.11.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submits that the petitioners had acquired qualification in 1990-91 from All India Correspondence Coaching Society, Calcutta registered by the Govt. of West Bengal under Societies Act, 1961. The certificates have been annexed by the petitioners as Annexures-3 and 4. He also referred to two letters from the said Coaching Society dated 14.11.2006 and 8.1.2007 annexed as Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ application. These letters are certificate issued by the Society to the respective petitioners which shows that the Institute was registered by the Government of West Bengal under the Societies Act, 1961 and emblem of the Institute was registered and approved by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), Government of India. In the second certificate (Annexure-6) it is mentioned that the syllabus and course curriculum of Senior Teachers’ Training Diploma/Certificate Course conducted by this Institute is equivalent to B.Ed. Course of any reputed field of Academy. Therefore, learned 5 counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ qualification was equal to B.Ed. and, they were thus eligible for appointment. The claim of the Society in the certificate, annexed as Annexure-6, that the senior teacher’s training Diploma/Certificate Course conducted by this Institute is equivalent to the B.Ed. course of any reputed field of Academy, it is own claim. Even if the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted that in 1990-91 NCTE was not in existence and, therefore, recognition of the Institute by the NCTE could not be made a pre- condition for rejecting their case, this much is clear that there is no Government decision either of the Government of West Bengal or of the State of Bihar to show that this course of Senior Teachers Training Diploma/Certificate Course has been accepted as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree Course. On this count, the petitioners have completely failed to produce any materials on record. Apparently, the lack of qualification of the petitioners was detected only on verification and examination of certificates. Therefore, principle of estoppel does not apply 6 against respondents merely because names of the petitioners were included in the list earlier. In the circumstances, this court finds that the respondents had valid reasons for denying appointment to the petitioners on the ground of want of qualification for the post. In the result, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)