IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4854 of 2009 KUMARI SUSHILA MEHTA @ SUSHILA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 16.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for the Magadh University. The petitioner claims to have acquired qualification of B.Ed. degree from Sidharth Mahila teachers Training College under the Magadh University in the Session 1990-91. The examinations were held in 1994 and the result published in 1995. On 24.1.2009 the petitioner was called for counseling. She is aggrieved by a communication dated nil issued by the Block Education Extension Officer asking her inter alia if she was a petitioner in CWJC No. 14133 of 2006. It is her case that notwithstanding the fact that she has produced the aforesaid judgement before the authorities they are refusing to consider her candidature only for the reason that she was not a petitioner therein. Learned Counsel in this context invites attention of the Court to the communication of the authorities at Annexure 7 more particularly query no. (ii). This Court in CWJC No. 14133 of 2006 disposed on 29.11.2006 was considering the prayer with regard to those who had obtained the B.Ed. degree from Sidharth Mahila Teachers Training College inter alia in the academic session 1990-91 to which the petitioner also belongs. This Court noticed that during that period the recognition was valid. The course was completed during the period of recognition. The cancellation of the recognition was prospective. Only the examination was held 2 subsequently. This Court then decided the issue of law that once there was a valid recognition for an institution for a particular session or sessions and the students had been admitted to those sessions and that the examination may have been held subsequently when in the meantime the recognition had been withdrawn, shall not affect validity of their course or qualification acquired thereunder. Once an issue of law had been decided by this Court, all persons covered by that issue of law are required to be accorded similar treatment by the respondents. Of course, the respondents shall have the liberty to examine the facts of a particular case to satisfy themselves that an applicant was similarly situated and only thereafter shall the application of issue of law be relevant. However, the action of the respondents in asking if the petitioner was an applicant in CWJC no. 14133 of 2006 and on that ground alone refusing to examine the facts is an exercise in complete arbitrariness. It is nothing but an attempt to generate frivolous litigation by the authorities of the State. The state authorities have boundened duty to act under the orders of the Court. IN more than one judgement this Court and the Apex Court has already held that the authorities cannot act unreasonably in insisting that an order on issue of law shall be made applicable only to the petitioner thereunder and not to those who are not parties but are covered thereby. This Court in more than one order on the issue of appointment of teachers has referred to the judgements of the Supreme Court on this aspect. Nonetheless similar matters keep coming before the Court 3 multiplying the burden of the Court and putting the State Counsels in an embarrassing situation to defend the order. The respondents are under obligation to examine the the case of the petitioner on facts for the qualification of B.Ed. from the institution in question for the sessions covered in CWJC No. 14133 of 2006. Liberty is confined to examination of facts for applicability of the same. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar so that such writ applications are not filed before this Court burdening the Court. If the respondents insist on passing such orders and an individual writ petitioner has to come to this Court making statement on oath disclosing details of the authority as in the present case who insisted on passing such order, this Court may be left with no option but to proceed appropriately in such case. The writ application is disposed in terms of CWJC No. 14133/2006. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)