IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17188 of 2010 1. PRAVINDRA KUMAR SINHA S/O SRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD R/O VILL. AND P.O.- TARARI, P.S.- TARARI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR AT ARA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR, ARA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHOJPUR AT ARA 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER TARARI BLOCK, P.S.- TARARI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR AT ARA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TARARI BLOCK, P.S.- TARARI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, ARA 7. THE PRAKHAND PRAMUKH, TARARI P.S.- TARARI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR AT ARA ----------- 02. 11.5.2011 Petitioner is aggrieved because respondent authorities refused to appoint him as a Prakhand teacher or a Nagar teacher on the basis of his certificate which he had obtained from I.T.I., Dehri-on-sone. This certificate issued by the Government of Bihar, Department of Labour and Employment is annexed as Annexure-2/3. Contention of the counsel is that this is a vocational training because the certificate indicates so and since this training has been obtained post matriculation, it has to be treated at par with intermediate and petitioner therefore had a right for consideration for appointment as Block or Prakhand teacher. Counsel for the petitioner is fortified by a so-called decision rendered in CWJC No. 4878 of 2007 and analogous cases, decided on 19.2.2008 where the learned single Judge held that an intermediate degree obtained in vocational course issued 2 by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, based on the governmental notification dated 4.9.1996, has to be treated as equivalent to an intermediate degree and persons holding such a degree in vocational course, issued by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council will also be eligible for appointment as a Panchayat teacher. This decision is Annexure-3/1, duly affirmed by a Division Bench and the said order is Annexure-3/2. The contention therefore of the petitioner is that since he had also obtained a vocational training under ITI scheme, he too should have been given an opening of Panchayat teacher. Merely because the word ‘vocational’ figures in the judgment of the learned single Judge and the certificate contained in Annexure-2/3 also says that it is a vocational training, it does not mean that a vocational training obtained under ITI becomes at par with a degree granted by the erstwhile Bihar Intermediate Education Council. The vocational training of ITI is under a scheme of things and there is no notification to show that any education or degree obtained by such a person is at par with a degree issued by the Intermediate Council and duly recognized by State of Bihar. These are degrees which are issued under the Apprenticeship Act and which in no manner can help the petitioner beget employment as a Panchayat teacher contrary to the eligibility laid down under 2006 Rules. All such 3 appointments have to be rationally interpreted and not any kind of degree can be declared to be equivalent or any vocational degree will become good enough for eligibility for appointment as a Panchayat teacher. The fallacy of the arguments of the petitioner is writ large on the face of it. He has no case. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)