Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It may be reiterated here that the qualification of Sahitya Alankar is not mentioned in the preceding article, Article 358.

It is thus clear that the qualification of Sahitya Alankar secured from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is not recognized for the purpose of appointment and promotion of the teachers.

In above view of the matter, we hold that in the State of Bihar the certificate of Sahitya Alankar conferred by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is not recognized for the purpose of appointment or promotion of a teacher. The same view has been expressed by this Court in the matters of State of Bihar and Ors. V. Mamta Kumari [2010(4) PLJR 318]; and of Poonam Sharma V. State of Bihar [2012(1) PLJR 226].

33. Having discussed the various case laws on the subject, we are of the considered opinion that both line of the decisions of this Court have been rendered in different facts and circumstances. We do not find any conflict even in both the sets of judgment. As noticed above, in the case of Mamta Kumari (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court found that the Madhyama (Visharad) passed by the writ petitioners from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized as equivalent by the Government of Bihar, therefore, the said certificate cannot be treated to be equivalent of Intermediate Examination as prescribed under the Rules of 2006 read with Rule 9 and Article 358 of the Bihar Education Code. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the citation of Sahityaalankar had been recognized as equivalent to graduation level vide notification dated 11.01.1991. This is a distinguishable feature of this case. Patna High Court CWJC No.11255 of 2016 dt.22-08-2019