IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.163 of 2009 Rajneesh Kishore Madhup s/o Ram Chandra Sinha r/oChandra Bhawan Kacchi Pakki Road, Atardah, P.O. Ramna, P.S. – Bhagwanpur Sadar, District – Muzaffarpur ………….. Appellant Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Research and Training Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur 4. The District Education Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur 5. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Vaishali at Hajipur 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali 7. The Regional Director, National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Region, Bangalor …… ………………..Respondents --- For the Appellant: Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pramkod Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, SC – XXII Mr. Sailendra Kumar Singh, JC to SC XXII For the NCTE: Mr. S.N. Pathak, Advocate --- 8 6/7/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE). The appellant/writ petitioner approached the writ court for a direction to the respondents to issue joining letter on the post of teacher whose selection was admittedly to be under the provision of Bihar Zila Parishad Madhymik 2 Avam Uchchtar Madhyamik Shikchak (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 Neither the respondents nor the writ court accepted the claim of the petitioner/appellant that B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner under Distance Education Programme of Pondichery University pursuant to examination conducted after 17.2.1996 should be treated as a valid qualification of B.Ed. as prescribed under rule 4(a) (iii) of the aforesaid Rules. The rule in respect of requirement of B.Ed. degree as noticed above provides as one of the essential eligibility criteria that the applicant should have a B.Ed. degree from a recognized training institution prior to enforcement of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, which came into force on 17th August, 1995 and for a B.Ed. degree after the enforcement of the said Act, from any training institution recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education. The appellant/ writ petitioner claims that since he had taken admission in the Pondichery University Distance Education Programme for B.Ed. course for the 3 sessions 1995-96, at the time of admission the course was not barred by the provision of the NCTE Act, 1993 and only because the examination could not be held in time till the Act was enforced on 17.8.1995, the degree of B.Ed. obtained by the appellant should not be treated to be from an unrecognized institution. The simple issue falling for determination in this case is whether the authorities or the writ court have correctly appreciated the provision in the rules laying down qualification and whether the appellant meets the prescribed training qualification or not. The stand of the State in its counter affidavit is that at no point of time, that is, even before the NCTE Act, 1993 came into force, the State had ever recognized B.Ed. course of Pondichery University Distance Education Programme and, therefore, it was not a recognized training course so far the State of Bihar is concerned. Secondly, the stand of the State is that whenever be the session in which the petitioner/appellant claims to have taken admission, the degree which he wants to be accepted for employment is a B.Ed. degree which is of a date much after the NCTE 4 Act, 1993 came into force and, therefore, for such a B.Ed. degree, the institution awarding the degree is required under the rules to have the recognition of National Council for Teachers Education, otherwise the degree could not have been accepted as a recognized and valid degree for the purposes of rules in question. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Parimal & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2007(4) PLJR (SC) 163 and submitted that in that case for an earlier session special examination was ordered by the Supreme Court itself. The fact of that case was quite different and has nothing to do with the eligibility criteria laid down under the rules with which we are presently concerned in this case. In the facts of the case, we find that the writ court has committed no error of law or fact. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Neyaz/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) 5 Neyaz/ (J. B. Koshy, CJ.)