IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6107 of 2009 BINTI DEVI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.6149 of 2009 KUMARI MANISHA &ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.6150 of 2009 KRISHNA KUMARI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 15.05.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. It is contended that the qualification for appointment of Shiksha Mitra was Matriculation. The petitioners in CWJC No. 7107 of 2009 held the qualification of Parhama equivalent to Matriculation, from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad were appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 30.1.2003. In CWJC No. 6149 of 2009 the qualification possessed is Madhyama Visharad (Intermediate), the only point of difference. In CWJC No. 6150 of 2009 also it is the issue of qualification of Madhyama Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Their services were renewed from time to time as permissible for three occasions for eleven months each and by virtue of which they acquired the status of Panchayat Shikshak on 1.7.2006. It is the further case of the petitioners in CWJC No. 7107 of 2009 that after 1.7.2006 within the time prescribed they also acquired the qualification of Intermediate from Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar and Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University respectively. The 2 petitioners came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 13260 of 2007 aggrieved by the subsequent decision of the respondents not to recognise their qualifications from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. This Court disposed off the writ application to examine the matter afresh in light of certain other orders in CWJC No. 4007 of 2007.The respondents have then passed a fresh order on 27.9.2008 that the qualifications of the petitioners from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad had not been accepted by the State Government. Learned Counsel from the impugned order dated 27.9.2008 submits that the respondents have placed reliance on a decision dated 25.8.2008 that the qualifications from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was not acceptable. He submits that this court in CWJC No. 4007 of 2007 held that there had been no decision by the State Government in this regard. Only thereafter it has been noticed in CWJC No. 10748 of 2008 that a policy decision has been taken by the State Government as noticed in CWJC No. 14222 of 2008 not to grant acceptability to the qualifications from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad by a State Government decision dated 20.11.2008. It has held that the decision has to be prospective from that date and cannot be given retrospective effect. The submission therefore is that the petitioners are entitled to similar treatment. Learned counsel for the State submits that if the petitioners are similarly situated on an issue they are required to be accorded similar treatment. Prima facie this Court is satisfied that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order dated 27.9.2008 are not 3 sustainable in view of the order of this court in CWJC No. 14222 of 2008. Since an issue has been decided by the Court, the respondent State is required to examine all cases where a person claims to be covered by that order. The state cannot insist on an individual for bringing individual orders from this Court. The effect of that is that the State authorities only seek to cast their own administrative burden on this Court and seek the easier way out that there is an order of this Court which must be complied with. The writ applications are disposed in light of the aforesaid observation to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the judgments in CWJC Nos. 14222 of 2008 and 10748 of 2008. If the respondents are satisfied that the petitioners are similarly situated they are required to accord them similar treatment. If they are of the opinion that the petitioners are not similarly situated, they are required to furnish grounds for the same to the petitioners giving them opportunity to meet the same and then pass a reasoned and speaking order displaying due application of mind by them to the issue why the petitioners are not covered by the earlier orders of this Court so that judicial review of the order be facilitated, if need arises. Let this exercise be done by the respondents and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 4