IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1589 of 2009 BABITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF UCHIT MAHTO WIFE OF SRI BALMIKI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – HEMJAPUR, P.O. SHEOKUND, P.S. DHARHARA, DISTRICT – LAKHISARAI. ………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY –CUM- COMMISSINER, EDUCATION DEPA RTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 6. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. 8. THE SECRETARY, MILLIA KANEEZ FATIMA WOMEN’S PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE, RAMBAG, PURNEA. 9. THE PRINCIPAL, MILLIA KANEEZ FATIMA WOMEN’S PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE, RAMBAG, PURNEA. ……….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 28.06.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for Bihar School Examination Board. No one appears for the State of Bihar neither any counter affidavit has been filed. Petitioner had completed his teachers training course as a regular student of Millia Kaneez Fatima Women’s Primary Teachers Training College, Rambag, Purnea in the Session 1985-87. The State Govt. has allowed recognition to this institution for imparting teachers training education for the Sessions 1983-85 to 1988-90. The examination of all these Sessions was held 2 jointly in January, 1991. Petitioner had also appeared in examination held in January 1991 for Session 1985-87. Petitioner’s grievance is that though teachers training certificate of all such students, including the petitioner is the degree from a recognized institution as they completed their course during the period when there was valid recognition in favour of the institution. But, on account of a letter issued by the Director, Secondary Education giving information to all D.S.E. and D.E.O. regarding list of non-recognized institution. The petitioner is being adversely affected. This information has been issued by the Respondent without specifying the Session from which the degree granted by this institution has become a degree issued by an unrecognized institution, despite the fact that the institution has been included in the list of unrecognized institution. In this background, the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of part of the intimation letter, whereby the institution, namely Millia Kaneez Fatima Women’s Primary Teachers Training College, Rambag, Purnea has been enlisted in the list of unrecognized institutions. It has also been prayed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to allow her 3 for participating in the counseling, if the same is going on for the appointment of teachers under second phase of appointment. In the counter affidavit of Bihar School Examination Board it is admitted that students from Millia Kaneez Fatima Women’s Primary Teachers Training College, Rambag, Purnea had appeared in the examination conducted by the Board for the Sessions for which there was temporary recognition in favour of this institution by the State Govt. It has also been stated that some of the examinees of this institution had earlier filed writ application for publication of the result of the teachers training held in the year, 1991 and a direction was issued for publication of result. There is no denial on the part of the State that period during which the petitioner as a regular student has completed her training course, there was no recognition in favour of the institution. I do not find any reason that simply because subsequently recognition of this institution was cancelled, students, who appeared during the recognition period, should suffer like the students who had completed their 4 course during the period when there was no recognition. I feel that there is no reason for quashing of the order or part of the letter, whereby this institution has been included in the list of unrecognized/illegal institution as this is for the present and future purposes. At present there is no recognition to this institution, but the period during which petitioner appeared, there was valid recognition to this institution. The case of petitioner is completely different, and her teacher’s training certificate cannot be considered as certificate from unrecognized institution. If she had applied for appointment as a trained teacher, on the basis of this certificate, it needs consideration for appointment as a trained teacher. At present the appointment process under 2008 Rules is not continuing, but as and when process for appointment will start, petitioner’s certificate of training must be given due weightage and her case for appointment must be considered. This application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)