IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1384 of 2008 UMA SHANKAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 06/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have the B.Ed. Teachers Training Qualification from the Sister Nivedita Institute, Kolkata, acquired in the year-1990 long before the coming into force of N.C.T.E. Act in August, 1995. The State Government published the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 on 1.7.2006. Rule- 8(3) proviso carved out an exception for the first appointments to be made on the post of primary teachers after the coming into force of the aforesaid Rules by accepting for consideration such applicants also who, inter alia, possessed the B.Ed. degree from a recognized institute prior to coming into force of the N.C.T.E. Act. Rule-18 requires any aggrieved applicant to submit an application within 30 days of the publication of the results. The petitioner contends that he applied in August, 2006 in the first round of appointments to be made for the post of primary teacher under the Rules. The college from which he 2 has passed is recognized, inter alia, by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), Government of India for which reliance is placed on a certificate of the institute dated 25.11.2006. It is his case that his name figured in the list of successful candidates, but he was denied appointment only for the reason that he did not possess the qualification from a N.C.T.E. recognized institute. This was contrary to the proviso under which he is eligible for appointment. Learned counsel for the State points out that the writ petition does not contain any date of the publication of the panel and whether the petitioner filed any objection under Rule-18 or not. The petitioner appears to have represented by post on 21.9.2007. The importance of Rule-18 pointed out by the learned State counsel cannot be lost sight of, as in absence of any objection being raised third party rights accrue in favour of those appointed and the consequent absence of any vacancy for consideration of any other applicant. Conversely, if the representation dated 21.9.2007 has been submitted within the period prescribed under Rule-18, the matter may have to be viewed differently. This shall all remain subject to verification of the fact as to 3 whether the petitioner had otherwise qualified and had been empanelled. In absence of necessary factual details with regard to date of publication of panel, no useful purpose is going to be served keeping the writ application pending. The writ application stands disposed with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid discussion in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before respondent No.6. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)