The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Mamta Kumari & Ors on 28 April, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 47]

Patna High Court - Orders

The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Mamta Kumari & Ors on 28 April, 2010

Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.28 of 2010

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
VAISHALI.
5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PATEPUR, DISTT-
VAISHALI.
6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PATEPUR,
DISTT-VAISHALI.
7. THE HEAD MASTER, NEWLY CREATED PRIMARY
SCHOOL, (BINDA RAI KA TOLA), BLOCK- PATEPUR, DISTT-
VAISHALI.
------------ Respondents in writ/Appellants
Versus
1. MAMTA KUMARI, D/O YOGENDRA SINGH & W/O BIBHAV
KUMAR PABHAKAR, R/O VILL- KHOARAHI, P.S- PATEPUR,
DISTT- VAISHALI.
------- Writ Petitioner/Respondent
2. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, LADAHON ,
BLOCK- PATEPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI.
3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ-
LADAHON, BLOCK- PATEPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI.
--------- Respondents in the writ petition/Respondents

With
LPA No.206 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR.
3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR.
4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIDUPUR, DISTT.-
VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BIDUPUR,
DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR.
6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ,
DAUDNAGAR, BLOCK- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT
HAZIPUR
7. THE HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL DAUDNAGAR
CHAK, GADHHO, BLOCK- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT
HAZIPUR.
-----------Respondents/Appellants
2

Versus
1. BABITA KUMARI, W/O SUDHIR KUMAR CHOUDHARY, R/O
VILL.- DAUDNAGAR CHAK, GADHHO, P.O.- DAUDNAGAR,
P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR.
---------- Petitioner/Respondent 1st Set
2. THE MUKIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DAUDNAGAR,
BLOCK BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR.
----------- Respondent/Respondent 2nd Set
With
LPA No.314 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR
PATNA.
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEOHAR.
5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
SHEOHAR.
6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TARIYANI, DISTT-
SHEOHAR.
7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER,
TARIYANI, DISTT- SHEOHAR.
------------ Respondents 1 to 7 in the Writ Petition/Appellants
Versus
1. KRISHNA KUMARI, W/O SHRI RAM JEEWAN RAM, R/O
VILL KINARU, VIA- TURKI, P.S- MANIYARI, DISTT-
MUZAFFARPUR.
2. GANESH RAM, S/O SHRI SAHDEV RAM, R/O VILL-BADEYA,
PO- SUSTA TOK, P.S- GAIGHAT, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR.
-----------Petitioner in the Writ Petition/Respondents
3. THE MUKHIYA, PANCHAYAT RAJ SHARIF NAGAR,
BLOCK- TARIYANI, SHEOHAR
4. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ SHARIF
NAGAR, BLOCK- TARIYANI, SHEOHAR.
5. THE MUKHIYA, PANCHYAT RAJ KUMHRAR, BLOCK-
TARIYANI, SHEOHAR.
6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ
KUMHRAR, BLOCK- TARIYANI, SHEOHAR.
------------- Respondents No. 8 to 11 of Writ Petition/Respondents
With
LPA No.353 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA
3

2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEOHAR.
5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
SHEOHAR.
6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TARIYANI,
SHEOHAR.
7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, TARIYANI,
SHEOHAR.
-------- Appellants (Respondents)
Versus
1. RAM JEEWAN RAM, S/O YOGENDRA RAM, R/O VILLAGE &
POST- KINARU, VIA- TURKI, P.S.- MANIYAR, DISTT.-
MUZAFFARPUR.
----------- Respondent (Petitioner)
2. THE MUKHIYA, PANCHAYAT RAJ SHARIF NAGAR
TARIYANI BLOCK, SHEOHAR.
3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ SHARIF
NAGAR, TARIYANI BLOCK, SHEOHAR.
----------- Performa Respondents (Respondents)

-----------

For the Appellants :- Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-III
For the Respondents :- Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. S.N. Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Harish Kumar, Adv.
------------

PRESENT: Hon'ble the Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha
ORDER
(28/04/2010)
As per Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned counsel
4

for the contesting respondent writ petitioner in all these four appeals.

2. All these appeals though arise out of different orders passed by

the learned single Judge in the respect connected writ petition but involve

identical question and therefore, they are being disposed of by this

common order.

3. At the outset, it needs to be recorded here that though the facts

of all the four writ petitions C.W.J.C. No. 10748 of 2008 giving rise to

L.P.A. No. 28 of 2010, C.W.J.C. No. 11667 of 2009 giving rise to L.P.A.

No. 206 of 2010, C.W.J.C. No. 6150 of 2009 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 314

of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 5878 of 2009 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 353 of

2010 differ only in respect of some of the dates relating to acquiring

qualification, appointment and termination of service of the Respondent

writ petitioners but the common thing binding in all these cases are that all

of them having obtained the degree of Madhyama (Visharad) from the

Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in between 2003-05 had filed

application for the post of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006 (barring

respondent writ petitioner, namely, Babita Kumari who appointed as a

Siksha Mitra on 26.7.2005 and absorbed as Panchayat Teacher with effect

from 1.7.2006) by claiming to be possessing the qualification for the post

of Panchayat Teacher and were subsequently removed from service on the

ground that they did not possess the qualification for the post of Panchayat

Teacher, inasmuch as, their degree of Shiksha Visharad from Hindi

Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was neither recognized nor an equivalent
5

qualification of Intermediate and as such, all of them were terminated

from service on different dates in the year 2007.

4. Such orders of termination of their service were assailed in the

respective writ petitions filed by the respondent writ petitioners which

have been allowed by the learned single Judge by invoking the plea of

estoppel and holding that once the State Government and its authorities

had found the writ petitioner eligible, holding their degree of Madhyama

(Visharad) as equivalent to the Intermediate and had appointed them with

open eyes, it was not open to them to cancel their appointment on the

ground that such degree of Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Allahabad was not recognized as an equivalent qualification of

Intermediate at any point of time by the authorities of the State of Bihar

for appointment on the post of Teachers. It has to be noted that such

judgment in fact was first rendered by a learned single Judge in C.W.J.C.

No. 10748 of 2008 on the basis of which three others writ petitions have

been disposed of by three separate orders applying the ratio of the order

passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10748 of 2008.

5. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel in all these cases has

submitted that the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and

Service Condition) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as „the Rules)

lays down under Rule 8 the qualification for appointment to the post of

Teacher including Panchayat Teachers requiring that the candidate should

possesses the degree of Higher Secondary or Intermediate or equivalent
6

examination passed from education instituting recognized by the

Government and the qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) by Hindi

Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized to the equivalent

qualification of Intermediate. He has thus submitted that the writ

petitioners having obtained appointment on the basis of their possessing

the degree of Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,

Allahabad were not eligible for being appointed on the post of Panchayat

Shikshak and as such, their appointment on the post of Panchayat

Shikshak due to lack of prescribed educational qualification under the

Rule was void ab initio and as such, their order of termination of service

ought have not been interfered by the learned single Judge. In this context,

he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.

Ganga Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1995 Supl (1)

SCC 192, Subordinate Services Selection Board Vs.Bir Singh & Anr. reported in

1995 Supl (2) SCC 651 and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lata Arun reported in

2002(6) SCC 252.

6. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents writ petitioners

while supporting the impugned order of the learned single Judge have

submitted that first of all it was factually an incorrect stand taken by the

appellant State of Bihar and its officials that the qualification of

Madhyama (Visharad) was not a recognized qualification equivalent to

Intermediate and to support this aspect, they have referred to an order of

Division Bench in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Poonam Sharma
7

reported in 2009(3)PLJR 54. It has also been submitted that the press

communique issued by the Human Resources Development Department in

its letter no. 108 dated 23.2.2007 directing the subordinate officials to

cancel any and every appointment based on the qualification of Hindi

Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad being a subsequent order after an

appointment could not have been made applicable in the cases of the writ

petitioners as the same at best could have been given only a prospective

operation i.e. on or after 23.2.2007 whereas all the respondent writ

petitioners had been appointed in between 26.7.2005 to 20.2.2007.

7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be first

necessary to notice the statutory provision under the Rules. Rule 8 of the

aforesaid Rules provides for qualification for appointment to the post of

Teachers including Panchayat Teachers and the same reads as follows:-

"8. For employment. - (A) Eligibility : For Block Teacher:
XXX
For Panchayat Teachers:-
1. Should be citizen of India and habitant of Bihar.
2. Should be higher secondary or intermediate or equivalent
examination passed from educational institution recognized by
Government."
8. Though we are not strictly concerned with the amended Rules

which came into force in the year 2008 but for the sake of clarity, it has to

be recorded that later on, the State Government made certain amendment

in the Rule in the year 2008 and Rule 4 thereof substituted Rule 8(2)(ka)

of Rule 2006 in the following manner:-
8

"4. Amendment of Section 2 of sub-rule (a) of Rule 8:- Section 2 of
subrule (a) of Rule 8 will be substituted by the following:- Should
be passed higher secondary intermediate or equivalent
examination from a school/college/board recognized by the
Government but it does not include the degree in technical
education (Polytechnic, Unani education) physical education,
language Specific degree (Maulvi, Up-shastri) and the degree
provided by the voluntary institutions (decided by the
department) for employment on the post of general teachers."
9. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid Rule 8 of the Rules, it

becomes clear that at all point of time, the qualification for the post of

Teacher remained Intermediate or equivalent examination passed from

educational institution recognized by the Government.

10. Article 358 of the Bihar Education Code enumerates the different

examination conducted by different institutions and under the table

provided therein, though there are names of four institutions, namely,

Gurukul Kanjri, Haridwar, Viswavidyalaya, Hindi Viswavidyalaya,

Allahabad, Prayag Mahila Vidyapith, Allahabad and Gujarat Vidyapith,

Ahmadabad, the same does not record the name of Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Allahabad. It is only the examination of Madhyama of Hindi

Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad which was fitted to be an equivalent

qualification of Intermediate with a rider that the candidate has passed

equivalent English Examination from a University/or Board. In order to

clarify this aspect of the matter, it is necessary to quote Article 358 of the

Bihar Education Code in-extenso:-

358. Recognition of certificates from National Universities.- Examinations
conducted by National Universities enumerated in the following table
9

should be treated as equivalent to the degree granted by a recognized
University mentioned opposite each in column III and that candidates who
have passed any of examinations mentioned in column 1 upto the end of the
year 1965 or year mentioned against their names should be tested as
eligible for appointment to a post of service under Government (except to a
post of teacher. In case of teachers valid for promotion only) for which
success at any of the corresponding examination of a recognized University
is laid down as qualification for appointment to that post or service:-
Table-1

Sl. Name of Institution Name of Exam Equivalence Remarks
No.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. Gurukul Kanjri (a) Adhikari Secondary/Matric
Haridwar S. Exam
Viswavidyalaya b) Vidyavinit Intermediate

(d) Vidyavachaspati M.A.

2. Hindi Viswavidyalaya (a) Prathama S.S. Exam or
Allahabad Matric

(b) Madhyama Intermediate Provided that the
candidate has passed
equivalent English
Exam. From a
University/or Board

3 Prayag Mahila (a) Vinodini S.S. Exam or -do-
Matriculation
Vidyapith Allahabad (b) Vidushi Intermediate

4. Gujarat Vidyapith, Veneet S.S. Exam. Or -do- Knowledge of
Ahmadabad. Matriculation writing in Devanagni
script is a must.
TABLE-2
Equivalence for Hindi only

1. Rashtrabhasha (a) Parichay S.S. Exam or
Pracharsamiti, Matric
Vardha (b) Kovid Intermediate
(c) Ratna B.A.

2. Assam Rashtrabhasha (a) Praboodh S. S. Exam or
Samiti, Gauhati Matriculation
(b) Vishard Intermediate

3. Hindi Prachar (a) Visharad S. S. Exam. Or
Sabha, Hyderabad Matriculation
(b) Bhushan Intermediate

4. Bombay Hindi (a) Uttama S. S. Exam or
Vidhyapity, Bombay Matriculation
10

(b) Bhasha-ratna. Intermediate
(c) Sahitya
Sudhakar B. A.

5. Maharashtra (a) Prabodh S. S. Exam or
Bhashasabha, Poona Matriculation
(b) Praveen Intermediate

6. Manipur Hindi, (a) Prabodh S. S. Exam. Or
Parishad, Imphal Matriculation
(b) Visharad Intermediate
(c) Parangat B. A.

7. Mysore Hindi (a) Parangat B.A.
Prasar Parishad,
Bangalore

8. Mysore Hindi (a) Pravesh S. S. Exam or
Prasar Parishad, Matriculation
Banglore (b) Uttama Intermediate

9 Dakshin Bharat Hindi (a) Praveshika S. S. Exam or
Prachar Sabha, Matriculation
Madras (b) Visharad Intermediate

10. Hindi Viswavidyalaya Uttama B. A.
Allahabad

11. Gujarat Vidyapith, (a) Snatak Intermediate
Ahamadabad (b) Sewak B. A.
(c) Parangal B. A. (Hons.) Only for those who
have passed by
writing answer in
Devanagni Script.

TABLE-3

Sl. Name of Institution Name of Exam Equivalence Remarks
No.
1 2 3 4 5

1. Mandar Vidyapith (a) Upadhyay S. S. Exam or
Mandar Matriculation
(b) Madhyama Intermediate
(c) Vidyabhushan B. A.

2. Hindi Vidyapith (a) Praveshika S. S. Exam or Provided the
Deoghar Matriculation candidate has passed
with English. (2) Has
(b) Sahityabhushan Intermediate passed English
Exam. From
Deogharvidyapith or
has passed
equivalent English
Exam. From a
statutory University
11

or a recognized
Board.

11. From reading of the aforesaid provisions of Bihar Education

Code, it would be absolutely clear that qualification of Madhyama of

Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized or treated to be

equivalent to Intermediate much less for the appointment on the post of

Teachers, inasmuch as, Article 358 itself provided that such equivalence

may make the candidate eligible for appointment to any post in the

Government except to a post of Teacher and for Teacher, such equivalence

was confined to only for the purposes of promotion. This aspect of the

matter in fact becomes more clear by reading of the Article 359 of the

Bihar Education Code which reads as follows:-

"359. Appointment to teacher's post forbidden on the basis of equivalence of
certificates.- In order to raise the quality of teaching in school, it has
been decided by the State Government that only those persons who have
passed examinations held by the Bihar School Examination Board,
Central Board of Education, Secondary Examination Boards of other
States or Degrees obtained from statutory Universities shall be
compulsory for appointment to the post of teachers in the Primary,
Middle and High schools.
(2) For appointment to the post of Urdu, Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit
teachers, for the first time, a candidate must have passed in respect
of Urdu, Arabic, Persian from the Madrasa Examination Board,
Bihar or from other recognized Institute by the Personnel
Department, Government of Bihar, and in respect of Sanskrit from
Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University or Sampurnanand Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (U.P.)
(Education Departments Resolution No. 394 dated 11-4-83)
(3) But if teachers of Primary, Middle and High Schools pass
examination equivalent to Intermediate, Graduate and Post-
Graduate Degrees whose equivalence is recognized by the
Personnel Department as mentioned in the preceding Article, may
12

be promoted to higher pay-scale beyond matriculation. This facility
shall not be given to Middle trained teachers for getting Matric
trained pay-scale on the basis of equivalence. For getting Matric
trained scale of pay, a Middle trained teacher must pass the
Secondary School Examination from the Bihar School Examination
Board.
(Letter No. K/Ml-138/75/2680, dated 5th August, 1976 and
Letter No. 9/M3-286/85E 2205, dated 24th August, 1985.)"
12. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the submission of Mr.

Lalit Kishore, learned counsel for the State, seems to be correct that at

least the State of Bihar had never recognized the qualification of

Madhyama (Visharad) of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad to be an

equivalent qualification of Intermediate.

13. This Court, however, at this place must notice the submission

of the learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioners who have placed

reliance on the exhaustive counter affidavit filed in L.P.A. No. 28 of 2010

wherein reliance has been placed vide letter of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,

Prayag (Hindi Visvavidalaya) dated 15.6.1973 addressed to the Secretary

of the Secondary Education Board, Bihar claiming that the Government of

Bihar in its order no. 6/R-1-203/64 dated 16.8.1965 had treated the

Madhyama examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag

(Hindi Vishvavidalaya) to be an equivalent qualification of B.A. Part-I or

Intermediate. The difficulty, however, for this Court in placing reliance on

the said letter of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag (Hindi Visvavidalaya)

dated 15.6.1973 is that first of all the letter of the Bihar Government dated

16.8.1965 has not been produced and secondly it was found that in the
13

name of institution of Table-1 as also Table-2 though there is name of

Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad and Prayag Mahila Vidyapith,

Allahabad, there is no institution therein with the name of Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Allahabad.

14. In that view of the matter, at least the letter of Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Prayag (Hindi Vishvavidalaya) dated 15.6.1973 cannot be a

document to clinch the issue that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad at

all point of time including in the year 2003 to 2005 when the respondent

writ petitioner had passed their Madhyama (Visharad) examination from

Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was either a recognized institution or

its Madhyama examination was held to be equivalent to Intermediate by

the State of Bihar for appointment on the post of teacher. Moreover, the

provisions under Article 358 was extended only upto 30.12.1987 vide

personnel department letter no. 184 dated 7th of January, 1987 and

Educational Department‟s letter no. 9/M-3-0600/86E 261 dated 16th

February, 1988. Thus, adopting the line of least resistance, since there is

no document muchless an authenticated Government order to show that

the qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) examination from Hindi

Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was ever recognized by the State of Bihar

as equivalent to Intermediate, even if the plea of the counsel for the

respondent writ petitioner is accepted that their qualification of Madhyama

was recognized by the State Government as equivalent to Intermediate, the

same could be valid up to 31.12.1987 only. The respondent writ
14

petitioners however had admittedly passed such Madhyama (Visharad)

examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in the year 2003 to

2005 and as such atleast they cannot claim their Madhyama examination

had stood recognized on the date they had either applied for the post or

were appointed as Panchayat Shikshak in the year 2006.

15. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent

writ petitioners on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Poonam Sharma (supra) is also misplaced, inasmuch as, the

institution there named was Hindi Sahitya Sammelan .(Hindi University),

Allahabad and not Hindi Sahitya Samelan., Allahabad as mentioned in the

respective certificates of the respondent writ petitioners. Moreover, in the

case of Poonam Sharma (supra), as she had got such Madhyamik degree in

theyear1987 and therefore, the Division Bench treating that such degree

was recognized by the State of Bihar up to 31.12.1987 had refused to

interfere with the order of the learned single Judge holding that since

Poonam Sharma had got her degree in the year 1987 much before expiry

of the recognition of the period, therefore the order of her termination of

service on the ground that her Madhyamik examination was not

recognized degree for the purpose of qualification was correct.

16. Mr. Lalit Kishore, however, has rightly pointed out that

judgment of Poonam Sharma (supra) was later on explained by another

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Sahi Vs. The

State of Bihar & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 654 of 2009 disposed of on 4.12.2009.
15

17. We have carefully examined the said order of the Division

Bench dated 4.12.2009 in the case of Surendra Prasad Sahi (supra) and

have found that Mr. Lalit Kishore is correct in his aforementioned

submissions, inasmuch as, the Division Bench in the said order had

recorded as follows:-

"By the impugned order the writ court has dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant by observing that recognition and /or
equivalence of degrees is an executive function and it is difficult for this
Court to interfere with the same. A controversy had arisen whether the
writ petitioner/appellant's qualification of Prathama from Hindi Sahitya
Samelan, Allahabad could be recognized as equivalent to matriculation
examination or not for the purpose of engagement as Panchayat Shikshak
in Manjhauli Gram Panchayat, Block Bochaha, District Muzaffarpur.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant had passed
Prathama from Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad and obtained
certificate in 1986. The certificate has been annexed as annexure-1. He
has placed reliance upon Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit which
is an order passed by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, Government of Bihar dated 7th January, 1987 for submitting
that the State of Bihar has itself granted recognition to such qualification
as equivalent to matriculation but such recognition was only up to 31-12-
1987.
Learned counsel for the State has produced before us a complete
copy of annexure-7 which encloses appendix 1 and 2 referred in
annexures-7 also. The appendix 1 and 2 contain names of the concerned
institutions whose various degrees and certificates up to 31-12-1987 had
been granted recognition. That list does not contain the name of Hindi
Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad which is the body shown to have issued
appellant's certificate.
On careful perusal of the entire document contained in annexure-
7 whose copy has been provided to us by learned Additional Advocate
16

General-III, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a
Division Bench Judgment of this Court delivered on 22-4-2009 in the case
of State of Bihar Vrs. Punam Sharma reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 55, in
support of his submission that Prathama degree obtained from Hindi
Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad has been accepted to be equivalent to
matriculation if it was granted recognition prior to 31-12-1987. After
having seen the entire documents a part of which is contained in annexure-
7 we are of the firm view that the Division Bench order in that case appears
to have been rendered on mis-reading of the relevant documents and
probably the entire document was not made available to the court. It will be
for the State to look into the records and take appropriate action in respect of
judgment delivered in that case.
18. In view of the aforesaid clear order of the subsequent Division

Bench in the case of Surendra Prasad (supra) holding that the examination

conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized

much less treated to be equivalent by the State of Bihar, we can say with

sense of certainty that qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) from the

Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized to be

equivalent to the qualification of Intermediate by the State of Bihar and if

on that basis alone, the respondent writ petitioners had obtained their

appointment, the same will have to be held as void ab initio, inasmuch as,

it is well settled if the candidate did not possess the requisite qualification,

such appointments would liable to be set aside. To that extent, reliance

placed by the learned counsel for the State on the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma (supra) as also Bir Singh

(supra) seems to be apt and appropriate.

19. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent writ
17

petitioners that since the authority of the State of Bihar had themselves

treated the educational qualification of the Madhyama (Visharad) to be

equivalent to Intermediate at the time of their appointment, they would be

bound by the principle of promissory estoppel is also to be only noted for

its being rejected. It is well settled that since the principle of promissory

estoppels is based on equitable principles, a person who obtains

appointment by misrepresenting his educational qualification cannot be

permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel when his

appointment is cancelled because of such misrepresentation. Reliance in

this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Central Airmen Selection Board Vs. Surender Kumar Das reported in

2003(1)SCC 152.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioners had also

produced a letter of the Hindi Sahitya sammelan, Allahabad dated

24.7.2009 to contend that such institution registered under the Society

Registration Act is functional since 1910 and is conducted its examination

since 1914 which had at one point of time sought to be taken over by the

State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1956 but when it could not be taken over

by the State Legislature, it was ultimately declared to be an institution of

national importance by the Parliament by Act 13 of 1962, which was

however held to be ultra vires by the Apex Court and had to subsequently

delete the word Hindi Visvavidalaya from the year 1995-96 on the

objection raised by the University Grant Commission. On the basis of this
18

letter, history of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad traced therein,

while counsel for the respondent writ petitioners made a feeble attempt to

put the institution in the category of deemed university but then they had

ultimately conceded that it was not even a deemed university. In that view

of the matter, reliance placed by them on certain communication of the

Ministry of Home of the Government of India dated 6.5.1960 showing its

Prathma examination to be equivalent to Matric, Madhyama (Visharad) to

Intermediate, Uttama Sahitya Ratna to be higher than B.A. but not

equivalent to M.A. or the notification of the Human Resources

Development Department of the Government of India dated 5th of May,

1988 enclosing the name of the institutions including that of Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Allahabad showing its Madhyama (Visharad) equivalent to

Intermediate examination would be of little avail at least for the purposes

of appointment on the post of Panchayat Teachers for which such

equivalence has to be granted and/or acknowledged by the State

Government of Bihar.

21. Similarly, the reliance placed on certain communication by

the State of Orissa, Maharastra, Central Board of Secondary Education,

Reserve Bank of India, Election Commission of India, Jharkhand

Educational Council, Secondary Education Board of Madhya Pradesh

would be of little avail, inasmuch as, recognition of qualification by the

respective State Government either for the purposes of admission or

employment is not binding on the State of Bihar. As a matter of fact, the
19

communication of Pandit Ravishankar University, Raipur, Hemwati

Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, Utranchal, Dr. Vim Rao

Ambedkar University, Agra, Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Hardwar,

Kumau University, Nanital, Sukhadia University, Udaypur, Dr. Ram

Manohar Lohia Awadh University, Faizabad as produced by the

respondent writ petitioners in their counter affidavit would only go to

show that the examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,

Allahabad were treated to be equivalent qualification for the purposes of

pursuing further educational course in those universities. It is well settled

that the equivalence of qualification for the purposes of employment and

for the purposes of pursuing further studies operate in two different fields

and therefore, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that as these

universities had allowed the students passing those examination from

Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad to pursue their further education in

those universities, that would also mean that the State of Bihar had

recognized the qualification of Madhyama (Visharad) to be equivalent to

Intermediate for the purposes of employment on the post of Teacher.

22. It has also been indicated above that for appointment on the

post of Teacher, the Government of Bihar had never recognized the

equivalent of Madhyama (Visharad) to be equivalent to Intermediate.

Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards the order of the

Division Bench dated 17.3.1990 in the case of Bibha.Kumari Vs. State of

Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 223 of 1990). From reading of the text of the
20

order of the Bibha Kumari (supra), it would appear that the same was with

regard to the admission in teacher training course and the petitioner Bibha

Kumari had claimed to have possessed Prathama from Hindu University,

Allahabad though in the said order, the Division Bench had remitted the

matter back for reconsideration. This much therefore is clear that the

decision in Babita Kumari's case (supra) was not related to employment on

the basis of Madhyama (Visharad) of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.

23. Yet again reliance placed by the respondent writ petitioners

on the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.7.1991 in the

case of Gita Sinha & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. passed in

C.W.J.C. 2143 of 1991 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the

present case, inasmuch as, there also, the issue related to admission in

different primary teachers training college specially when the Division

Bench had not decided the issue and had left the matter to be considered

by the District Education Officer, Vaishali to examine as to whether the

qualification possessed was equivalent to the requisite qualification in

terms of the advertisement.

24. Thus, neither the provision of law nor the precedents, as

referred to and relied by the learned counsel for the respondent writ

petitioners, would enable this Court to come to an unequivocal conclusion

that for appointment on the post of Teacher, the qualification of

Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was ever

recognized by the State Government of Bihar to be equivalent to
21

Intermediate. The laying down of qualification for appointment on the post

is exclusively in the hands of the employer and the interference of the

Court by way of judicial review is very limited. As a matter of fact, this

very Rule-8 of the Rules had been subject matter of challenge in the case

of Parvez Alam & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009(2)PLJR 213

wherein the Division Bench repelling the challenge to the said Rule within

the limited parameter of judicial review had held as follows:-

"16. We are of the opinion that the basic qualification needed for
appointment, primarily needs to be decided by rule making
authority. While amending Rule 8 of Rules 2006 by Rule 4 of Rules
2008 the State Government in exercise of its rule making power
has excluded the qualification of degrees in language, including
Up-shastri or Maulvi. In such situation this Court in exercise of its
power of judicial review cannot term the same to be arbitrary. The
purported similarity in the curriculum of the Intermediate
examination and Up-Shastri/Maulvi examination is of no
consequence. It is well settled that qualification for appointment is
a matter within the domain of the body, which is competent to
make that legislation. Simply because in earlier years persons
holding the qualification of Maulvi and Up-shastri were
considered eligible in terms of the rule, later on, the plea that such
persons cannot be excluded from consideration by making
amendment in the rule in accordance with law does not commend
us. Here the rules have been amended in accordance with law and
the authority conferred with the power making rule has by the
offending rule, specifically excluded the qualification of Maulvi
and Up-Shastri, rendering persons holding such qualification
ineligible. The plea that contents of the teaching of Up-Shastri and
Maulvi is the same as that of Intermediate, we are of the opinion
that it is not within the scope of judicial review and is a matter of
legislative policy.
17. The view which we have taken finds support form a Division Bench
22

judgment of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Kumar Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Others [2008(1)PLJR 583] in which it
has been held as follows:-
Whether the rules governing recruitment for any
post, in eligibility criterion prescribed for the post must
include other equivalent qualification is a matter of
legislative policy and not for this Court to decide. Even
where rules provide for alternate to main and substantive
qualification by recognizing equivalent qualification to be
taken into consideration, the question of considering any
qualification, is a matter of expert body to decide.
Therefore, it is inept for this Court to enter into that
territory and decide upon equivalence. From a plain
reading of the provision contained in 1983 rules, it would
appear that various teacher' training courses referred
therein are training qualifications of different grades and
cannot by any means be equivalent with each other, a
priori. It hardly needs an argument that unless the matter is
examined by any expert body, ordinarily, a diploma course
is not equivalent for a degree. Likewise, a certificate by
itself is not equivalent to a degree or diploma in the
subject.
Learned counsel for the petitioners had taken pains
to explain the content of training of teaching under
different training courses for the purpose of impressing
upon the Court that there is hardly any distinction between
different courses of training imparted to a candidate. We
are afraid, this is not the scope for judicial review while
examining the validity of the legislation providing
eligibility criteria. Thus is a matter of legislative policy and
it is within the domain of the legislative body as to what
should be the policy to provide requisite qualification for
offering appointment to the intending incumbent."
25. Learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioners had also

made a desperate endeavour to demonstrate before us that the subjects
23

being taught in the Intermediate examination conducted by the State of

Bihar were absolutely at par with the syllabus and course of studies of

Madhyama (Visharad) examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Allahabad and therefore, this Court may itself declare that the

respondent writ petitioners had the requisite qualification for the post of

Panchayat Teachers in terms of the Rule 8 of the Rules. We however in

the given circumstances and specially in the light of the ratio laid down by

the Division Bench in the case of Parvez Alam (supra), we would refrain

from comparison of the Intermediate syllabus of the Intermediate

examination conducted in the State of Bihar vis-à-vis the examination of

Madhyama (Visharad) conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad

for holding that examination of Madhyama (Visharad) conducted by Hindi

Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent to the Intermediate

examination.

26. In the opinion of this Court, the equivalence of qualification

on the basis of course of studies and the examination cannot be made by

this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Reliance in this connection may be made to the Division Bench

Judgment of this Court in the case of Satyendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Sanjay

Kumar & Ors. reported in 2001(1) PLJR 104 wherein this Court had held as

follows:-

12. Prescribing qualification for a particular post by the competent authority is
a policy decision. The Government frames a policy after taking into
consideration the number of facts and circumstances, expert opinion and
24

other relevant considerations. The power of judicial review in such matters
is limited. The Court can interfere only when the authorities have acted
arbitrarily or in violation of the statutory or constitutional provisions. The
Court does not sit as an appellate forum in disguise over the policy matter.
It has no power to re-frame the policy matter and in case the policy matter
is found suffering from any legal infirmities as indicted above, then the
same is to be struck down and the matter is sent to the authority to consider
the policy matter in accordance with law laid down. If the rules have been
framed prescribing the qualification for a particular post, the Court has no
power to re-frame the rules or supplement the rule by adding additional
qualification for the simple reason that this is a function of the appointing
and in the case of any legal lacuna the Court can only direct the appointing
authority to consider the matter on the basis of the expert opinion and other
relevant consideration. The Court cannot on the basis of the documents
appended with the affidavit determine the equivalence or addition of
qualification in the recruitment rules.
15. Thus, the law is settled that when the recruitment rules provide for a
requisite qualification and the question arises as to whether any other
qualification is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the recruitment
rules or not, then that question has to be decided by the competent authority
and the Court cannot amend the rule or reframe it and the Court can only
direct the concerned authority to re-examine the matter specially in a
technical matter, like this, after obtaining the expert's opinion. The Court
cannot take a final decision on the basis of affidavit and the opinion of the
expert and decide such matter. The power of judicial review in such a
matter is very limited and in case if the State Government decides the
matter and the same is found to be arbitrary, mala fide then the Court will
consider the same keeping in view the scope of judicial review in such
matter.
18. The question involved in the case relates to filing up technical posts and as
such it cannot be decided on the basis of certain documents appended with
the affidavit by the Court in view of the settled law regarding the power of
judicial review by the Apex Court in such matter. In that view of the matter,
the learned Single Judge was not justified in deciding the question that
qualification possessed by respondent no. 1 was equivalent to the
qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules inasmuch as that amounts
to amending the rules and re-framing the rules which is not permissible in
law..."
27. At this place, it is also very significant to note here that similar
25

question with regard to the equivalence of qualification of Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Allahabad for the purposes of admission in nursing courses in

the State of Rajasthan has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of

State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lata Arun reported in 2002(6)SCC 252 wherein a

Madhyama Certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in

the year 1984 was pressed for the purposes of seeking admission by one

Lata Arun was rejected by the Apex Court after recording the stand of the

Deputy Secretary, Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi to the

effect that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is one of the voluntary

Hindi institutions set up for promotion of Hindi and its examinations are

not to be equated with the regular examinations of secondary

boards/universities and only the standard of Hindi, of its examinations is

accepted. The Apex Court had accordingly held Lata Arun to be

disqualified for being admitted in a nursing course by recording the

following reasons:-

"10. The points involved in the case are twofold: one relating to
prescription of minimum educational qualification for admission to
the course and the other relating to recognition of the Madhyama
Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as
equivalent to or higher than +2 or Ist year of TDC for the purpose of
admission. Both these points relate to matters in the realm of policy
decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested
with power under any statute. It is not for courts to determine
whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a
candidate should or should not be recognized as equivalent to the
prescribed qualification in the case. That is not to say that such
matters are not justiciable. In an appropriate case the court can
26

examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order
dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rational and reasonable
ground: whether the decision has been taken on consideration of
relevant aspects of the matter; whether exercise of the power is
obtained with mala fide intention; whether the decision serves the
purpose of giving proper training to the candidates admitted or it is
based on irrelevant and irrational considerations or intended to
benefit an individual or a group of candidates.
11. This court in Delhi Pradeh Registered Medical Practitioners v.
Director of Health, Delhi Admn. Services rejecting the contention
that proper consideration had not been given to the standard of
education imparted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag and
expertise acquired by the holders of the degrees awarded by the said
institution, made the following observations: (SCC p. 691, para 5)
"it is not necessary for this court to consider such
submissions because the same remains in the realm of policy
decision of other constitutional functionaries. We may also
indicate here that what constitutes proper education and
requisite expertise for a practitioner in Indian medicine, must
be left to the proper authority having requisite knowledge in
the subject. As the decision of the Delhi High Court is
justified on the face of legal position flowing from the said
Central Act of 1970, we do not think that any interfere by
this Court is called for."
12. In the case of Ravinder Nath (Dr) vs. State of H. P. this Court
considered the question whether a diploma/degree of Vaidya
Visharad or Ayurveda Ratna obtained from the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Allahabad, which institution was recognized for the
period from 1931 to 1967 only, could be accepted as educational
qualification fulfilling the eligibility conditions for promotion to the
post of Ayuervedic Chikitsa Adhikari (Vaidya) under the State of
Himachal Pradesh. This Court held that the Second Schedule to the
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 came into force in the
State of Himachal Pradesh on 15.8.1971 which clearly mentioned
the period for which diploma/degrees awarded by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan were recognized. The respondents obtained qualification
27

after this period for which there was no recognition, and they were
aware of the fact, which itself disentitled them from claiming
promotion. Their contention that the condition regarding degree
from a recognized body is prescribed for direct recruitment only in
Rule 7 of the 1974 Recruitment Rules while there is no such
condition in Rule 11 which governs promotion, was rejected by this
Court holding that the Recruitment Rules have to be read
consistently with the 1970 Act and the 1968 Act as well as the
government notification dated 21.2.1978 which recognizes
diplomas/degrees awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan during
the period 1931 to 1967only. This Court declared that the
qualifications acquired by the respondents for the HSS, which were
admittedly after 1967, did not entitle them to be considered from
promotion to the post of Vaidya.
13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the
prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for
recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered
by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a
particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted
as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.
14. Testing the facts of the case in hand on the touchstone of the
principles, it is clear that on the date of submission of the
application for joining the course the respondent did not possess the
prescribed qualification of 10+2 or Ist year TDC from a recognized
institution. The Madhyama Certificate from the Hindi Sahitya
qualification by the notification dated 28.6.1985. The respondent
submitted the application for admission to the course in December
1989. In the circumstances the High Court was in error in issuing a
direction to the appellants to treat the respondent as a candidate
possessed of the prescribed educational qualification and to declare
her result on that basis."
28. Thus in our considered opinion, the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of Lata Arun (supra) is a complete answer in all respect

that examination of Madhyama (Visharad) passed by the writ petitions
28

from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad by itself cannot be treated to be

equivalent of Intermediate examination as prescribed under the Rules

specially when its equivalence was never recognized by the State

Government of Bihar.

29. Consequently, the termination of appointments obtained by

the respondent writ petitioners on the post of Panchayat Shikshak

containing a specific Clause in terms of their letters of appointment of

such appointment being provisional in nature and capable of being

terminated on discovery of its being found to contrary to the Rules cannot

be faulted with.

30. This Court is also not impressed with the submissions of the

learned counsel for the respondents writ petitioners that it was only on

25.8.2008 that the State Government had issued an order naming the

institutions and a degree which were not to be taken into consideration for

appointment on the post of Teachers in Panchayat/Prakhand/Nagar

Panchayat in terms of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan

& Seva Sart) Sanshodhan, 2008 and Bihar Nagar Nikaya Prarambhik

Shikshak (Niyojan & Seva Sart) Sanshodhan Niamawali, 2008. It is true

that the Government by the aforementioned order dated 25.8.2008 had

circulated names of 28 institutions and their qualifications to be not

equivalent to Matriculation/Intermediate including Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Allahabad but then that was in keeping with a forged letter

circulated earlier on 23.2.2007 describing the certificate of
29

Prathma/Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad

to be equivalent to Matriculation and Intermediate, whereafter, it was

thought necessary to give exhaustive list of such institutions and their

qualification which were not to be taken into account for appointment on

the post of Teachers in Panchayat, Prakhand and Nagar Panchayat.

Prescription of such qualification in order to remove confusion created by

act of forgery cannot be said to be only prospective in nature and at least

the respondent writ petitioners cannot draw any advantage on the basis of

the same specially when they have failed to produce a chit of paper to

show that any point of time, the Madhyama (Visharad) examination

conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was recognized as

an equivalent qualification of the Intermediate for the purposes of

appointment of Teachers in the State of Bihar.

31. Thus, in our considered opinion, the learned single Judge who

had not the benefit of looking into the provisions of Bihar Education Code

as also the alleged decision of the year 1965 and 1973 (as they did not

form part of the pleadings in any of the four writ petitions), has fallen in

error while deciding the main case by an order dated 7.4.2009 in C.W.J.C.

No. 0748 of 2008.

32. We accordingly set aside the order dated 7.4.2009 in C.W.J.C.

No. 10748 of 2008 as also the subsequent orders passed on the aforesaid

orders in C.W.J.C. No. 6150 of 2009, C.W.J.C. No. 5878 of 2009 and also

dismiss the connected writ petitions while allowing the connected L.P.A.
30

No. 28 of 2010, L.P.A. No. 314 of 2010 and L.P.A. No. 353 of 2010..

33. As with regard to the L.P.A. No. 206 of 2010 arising out of

C.W.J.C. No. 11667 of 2009, we must notice the additional submission

made by the learned counsel for the respondents writ petitioners in defence

of the appointment of Babita Kumari who had taken plea that her

appointment was made prior to coming into force of 2006 Rules and as

such, when she was appointed on 26.7.2005 as a Siksha Mitra and later on

was absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher with effect from 1.7.2006,

her case would not be covered by Rule 8 of the Rules has to be also noted

for its being rejected. It has to be however taken into consideration that

even for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra, there was requirement

of passing the Intermediate Examination and admittedly, the respondent

writ petitioner Babita Kumari was not having any other qualification

except that of Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,

Allahabad of the year 2003 so as to claim to have Intermediate

examination and therefore, even her appointment on Shiksha Mitra itself

was illegal and consequently, her absorption on the basis of an invalid

qualification on the post of Panchayat Shikshak was equally illegal. Her

such cancellation of appointment on 2.5.2007, therefore, cannot be held to

be bad, inasmuch as, she had also not possessed the requisite qualification.

34. Consequently, the impugned order of the writ application of

Babita Kumar in C.W.J.C. No. 11667 of 2009 is also set aside and the

C.W.J.C. No. 11667 of 2009 is also dismissed and L.P.A. No. 206 of 2010
31

is allowed.

35. Before parting with, we would, however, make it clear that

on the strength of the order of termination or its being approved by this

Court, the appellants will not be entitled to recover any salary or any other

financial benefit already paid to the respondent writ petitioners for the

period the they have worked on the post of Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat

Shikshak and any action of recovery sought to be initiated must be stopped

forthwith.

36. With the aforementioned observations and directions, all

these four appeals are allowed and the connected writ petitions as

indicated above are hereby dismissed. There would be, however, no order

as to costs.

I Agree.

(Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)

Patna High Court, Patna
Dated, the 28th April, 2010

AFR/(Rishi)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders