IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.6692 of 2009 1. Prem Chandra Mishra, son of Gunand Mishra, Resident of village & PO – Bheja, P.S. Bheja, District Madhubani 2. Monu Kumari, daughter of Madan Prasad Singh, Resident of village & PO – Bheja, P.S. Bheja, District Madhubani 3. Dilip Kumar Paswan, son of Sri Chandradeo Paswan Resident of village Kakon, P.S. Kakon, district Jehanabad 4. Kiran Kumari, daughter of Sakaldeep Yadav, Resident of village Patepur, P.S. Paliganj, District Patna 5. Kumari Shishu Sinha, wife of Sujay Kumar Singh, Resident of village Titai Bigha, P.S. Paras Bigha District Jehanabad 6. Gaqnesh Kumar, son of late Pahalwan Gope, Resident of village Bedauli, P.S. Kako, district Jehanabad 7. Satendra Prasad Singh, sonof Sri Mosafir Singh, Resident of village Imaliya, P.S. Pali, district Jehanabad 8. Binay Kumar Singh, son of Tarni Prasad Singh, Resident of village & P.O. Bihari Bigha Megha Tola, P.S. Pandark, district Patna 9. Sudha Kumari, wife of Sri Amerendra Kumar, Resident of village Dedsaima, P.S. Kako, District Jehanabad 10. Sima Kumari, daughter of Sri Sita Ram Sharma, wife of Sri Ram Binay Sharma, resident of village Nonhim P.S. Kako, district Jehanabad 11. Akhilesh Sharma, son of Sri Uma Sharma, resident of Village Barwan, P.S. Pali, district Jehanabad 12. Shailendra Kumar, sonof Sri Uma Prasad Sharma, Resident of village Barawan, P.S. Pali Kako, District Jehanabad 13. Sri Krishna Sinha, son of Sri Surendra Singh, resident of Village Barwan, P.S. Pali Kako, district Jehanabad 14. Puspa Kumari, daughter of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh, wife of Sri Mishlesh Kumar, resident of village Dhamoul, P.S. Kurtha, District Arbal 15. Nibha Kumari, daughter of Bishwanath Sharma, wife of Kaushlendra Kumar, resident of village Baina, P.S. Ghoshi, 2 District Jehanabad 16. Bibha Kumari, daughter of late Rambali Sharma, wife of Sri Shailendra Kumar, resident of village Baina, P.S. Ghoshi, district Jehanabad 17. Rita Kumari, daughter of Sri Suryanath Sharma, wife of Sri Gopal Prasad Sahi, resident of village Arawan, P.S. Nalanda, district Nalanda \ 18. Bibha Kumari, daughter of Sri Yadunanadan Sinha, wife of Kumar Jailendra, resident of village Baina, P.S. Ghoshi, District Jehanabad 19. Raj Kumar Prasad, son of Ram Dayal Prasad, resident of Village Khanetha, P.S. Belaganj, district Gaya 20. Rajesh Kumar Arun, sonof Sri Guljar Singh, resident of Village Barai, P.S. Ishlampur, district Nalanda 21. Satendra Prakash, son of Sri Parmeshwar Das, resident of village Lokhobar, P.S. Ghoshi, district Jehanabad 22. Amarlata Sinha, wife of Kaushal Kishore Singh, daughter of Dinesh Prasad Singh, resident of village Mour Lane, Sultanganj, Mahendru, Patna 23. Dharmendra Kumar, son of Sheo Shankar Prasad, resident of Village Badhanpura, P.S. Hilsa, district Nalanda 24. Subhash Chandra Sharma, son of late Kamta Sharma, Resident of village Taretha, P.O. Naubatpur, district Patna 25. Ranu Kumari, daughter of late Suresh Sharma, wife of Sunil Kumar Sharma, resident of village Neemsar, P.S. Tekari, district Gaya 26. Shashi Kala Kumari, daughter of Lakhan Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla Hasanpur, P.O. Korwa, P.S. Hilsa District Nalanda .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director (Primary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Education Officer, Madhubani 5. The District Education Officer, Jehanabad 6. The District Education Officer, Patna 7. The District Education Officer, Arbal 8. The District Education Officer Nalanda 3 9. The District Education Officer, Gaya 10. The District Superintendent of Education Officer, Madhubani 11. The District Superintendent of Education Officer, Jehanabad 12. The District Superintendent of Education Officer, Patna 13. The District Superintendent of Education Officer, Arbal 14. The District Superintendent of Education Officer, Nalanda 15. The District Superintendent of Education Officer, Gaya .. Respondents **** /2/ 24.06.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners have filed this application for a direction to consider their candidature for appointment as Assistant Trained Teacher pursuant to Advertisement No. 3248, dated 25.08.2008. Petitioners’ claim to be a trained personnel on account of their Baby Teachers’ Training Course Certificate taken from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Paryag, Uttar Pradesh. Petitioners’ case is that considering their baby teachers’ their names were included in the provisional merit list of selected candidates, but, in the final selection list they were excluded from the list. Petitioners’ claim is that they completed their Baby Teachers’ Training Course from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Paryag, Uttar Pradesh, prior to coming into force of National Council for Teachers' Education Act, 1995. It has also been submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that in the similar matter this Court has 4 decided C.W.J.C. No. 469 of 2009 and analogous cases. In those cases also the petitioners were holding baby teachers’ training certificate from same institution. The writ applications were disposed off considering a letter issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kosi Division, Saharsa, dated 22.01.2009, whereby a specific direction was issued to treat the training qualification acquired from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Paryag, Uttar Pradesh, prior to 17.08.1995 as requisite qualification and eligible to be considered for appointment as trained teachers. 3. Present writ application is also disposed off in same terms and conditions as decided in C.W.J.C. No. 18701 of 2008 and analogous cases. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners on same terms and conditions. They have to first classify the institution as a fake institution of a genuine institution. In case the institution from which the petitioners have obtained their training degree is considered to be in the category of fake institution, then proper notices is required to be issued to the petitioners giving full details and reasoning due to which the institution has been considered to be a fake institution. The petitioners, thereafter, should be given opportunity to furnish their reply 5 including information availed by them in support of their claim. The respondents have to pass reasoned and speaking order assigning reason for considering the institution as a fake institution, in case the defence of the petitioners is not considered to be satisfactory. Who will be the authority to decide such matters is not being fixed by this Court but he should be the authority holding equivalent post, considering cases of petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 18071 of 2008 and analogous cases. All these exercise must be completed within six weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. Cp:2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)