Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan and Shashank Kumar Singh JJ. 1. This is not a matter which should have come to the High Court at all. It is basically a public issue which had virtually been resolved by the High Court when it passed an order dated 4 April, 2004 in this very petition. 2. The High Court had left the State Government free to restructure the Board strictly in accordance with law, the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 . Adhocism was continuing and instead of structuring the Board in accordance with Sec. 4 of the Act temporary arrangements were continuing, more than was necessary. In the circumstances, the Court required the State Government to put in an ex-officio representation forthwith and thereafter restructure the Board in accordance with sec. 4(a) and sec. 8. 3. The State Government apparently took the path of least resistance and made the Administrator the Chairman. This continues the issues. 4. In so far as the Court is concerned, the action of the State Government is a mediocrity of the first order. Whether it is disrespect to the orders of the Court or not that is entirely another matter. 5. Nothing stopped the State Government then, nor as of now to make appointments strictly in accordance with the Act. 6. The Court did not desire to record the circumstances when it passed its order of 9th April, 2002 but it will be constrained to do so now. 7. In so far as the Administrator is concerned, it was entirely up to the State Government to examine the matter at its end and come to an objective understanding whether this incumbent should be appointed as a Chairman or not. This is in fact public accountability. The Court was avoiding to record certain circumstances in the order of 9 April, 2002 and had left it to the State Government to examine the matter. 8. What the State Government did was to make the Administrator, the Chairman. Now how does the State Government answer the petition. The record shows that it does not answer the petition. It evades uncomfortable questions which have been asked by the petitioner, particularly paragraph 17 of the petition. The reply which the State Government has given is, in fact, no reply. There is no reply and the State Government has ran away from answering paragraph 17. This is a short shrift of whole matter. It evades uncomfortable questions which have been asked by the petitioner, particularly paragraph 17 of the petition. The reply which the State Government has given is, in fact, no reply. There is no reply and the State Government has ran away from answering paragraph 17. This is a short shrift of whole matter. There are serious allegations in paragraph 17" which are reproduced : "That several complaints of high handedness against respondents 4 and 5 have been brought to the notice of the government either through the legislative assembly or council or even directly by the legislature apart from the public person. On 28.9.2001 more than dozen legislature have written to the Hon ble the Chief Minister for immediate enquiry and removing of respondent No. 4 from the working of the Board. Several charges have been levelled against respondent No. 4 by the legislature of the State. All such charges are in writing and address to the Hon ble the Chief Minister of the State. Hon ble Minister (Home) Jail Department has requested to the Hon ble Chief Minister on 29.9.2001 on the written complaint of the legislature for immediate action on the application of the legislature. 9. The State Government had the freedom to deny every aspect on facts that the record to which the petitioner refers does not reflect the circumstances and is a figment of the petitioners imagination. This the State Government did not. A reply has been filed by respondents 4 and 5. Respondent No. 4 is the Administrator who is at present the Chairman. Respondent No. 5 is the Secretary. If the allegations were against the Chairman then it would have been only appropriate that he should have replied for himself on the allegations made against him. Instead he asked the Secretary to reply for him. The secretary can only speak for himself paragraph 17 remained unanswered. The embarrassment is entirely of the State Government. 10. While the Court refrains from giving a direction that the respondent against whom the allegations are on record be removed, it does certify that in the face of an unsatisfactory explanation and, in fact, an evasion by running away from the reality of record, if what is contained in paragraph 17 is correct, then the person who was the Administrator cannot become the Chairman. 11. The petition succeeds. 11. The petition succeeds. 29 The facts as are given by the State government to the High Court appear to have been edited, withheld and truncated. This is suppression. It is not expected that a Secretary to a government in a matter like the present one, which has seen a decision at the Supreme Court will withhold information. 30. The contradiction can be seen from the affidavit of the Secretary itself. Paragraph-15 is reproduced; "That the State Government owned 60 Primary Teachers Training Colleges are equipped with necessary infrastructure requirements of land, building, library etc. for functioning as Counselling Centres of Distance Mode Training Programmes of SCERT/IGNOU/Nalanda Open University on a rational basis. They are only short of Lecturers of requisite qualification." 31. First, the Secretary says that the State government possesses (owned) 60 primary teachers training colleges. The details and the names are not provided. The rest of the submissions go on to explain that necessary infrastructure requirements of lands, buildings, library etc. for functioning as counselling Centres of distance Mode Training Programmes of Nalanda Open University are available on rotational basis is obfuscation eyewash. Are these State owned institutions or non-government organisations? No details have been given which institution and in which district. The worst is the submission that they are only short of lecturers of requisite qualification. 32. The court inquired from the State Counsel as to what sort of institutions the State government is running that it does not have lecturers of requisite qualification. This implies that unqualified lecturers have been put into teachers training institutions and they are supposed to confer qualifications on untrained teachers. It is stated that 21 institutions only have recognition, meaning thereby that 39 are without recognition. The statement in paragraph 15 acknowledges that the government is taking steps to equip these colleges (sic) with requisite manpower and thereby get N.C.T.Es approval. This means that these institutions do not have the full manpower of lecturers who are imparting training apart from the fact that they are unqualified. Conveniently, the Secretary has evaded the details. It has not been explained that the figures have been updated upto which year. The government official publication mentions that only 46 institutions were available in undivided Bihar. How does the Secretary get the number 60 and that also with recognized institutions and unqualified lecturers. The explanation is either irresponsible or callous. It is certainly not authenticated. It has not been explained that the figures have been updated upto which year. The government official publication mentions that only 46 institutions were available in undivided Bihar. How does the Secretary get the number 60 and that also with recognized institutions and unqualified lecturers. The explanation is either irresponsible or callous. It is certainly not authenticated. The Secretary was misleading the court. 33. That the recruitment of teachers has dwindled post 1991 or was never made as a routine in the normal course of administration is a fact that was suppressed, but it surfaces from the official publication, "Elementary Education in the State of Bihar". This official publication gives the picture between 1950 to 1993. The recruitment as was done between 1991-93 is perhaps even less than what was done during 1950. The highest was done between 1971 to 1980. Why are these hard realities not being acknowledged by the State government? The reality is that it has to cover up what it has not done for 14 years. Why was this material not placed before the High Court? This circumstance does effect the decision making within the government as well as of the court in deciding a case. A decision within the government is an act of responsibility. Wrong or suppressed facts will give the output of wrong policies. If facts are concealed from the court, the court will be hardly in a position to deliver a correct decision. 34. There is a note recorded by the Chief Secretary dated 27.12.1999. This note has been signed by the Chief Minister on 4 January 2000. The detailed notings are otherwise contained in CWJC. No. 1533 of 2004: Awadesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar. In. this noting the following questions are being tossed around between the then Secretary Education, the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister. Four questions have been asked; Local Langunge Paragraph 4 of the noting is placing on record that the recruitment process has been done and ought to be done by the Bihar Public Service Commission. Page after pages has been written that 45% marks obtained in a High School examination would be an adequate qualification to apply for the job of primary school teacher. This is subsequently being changed. The notings also record that prior to 1991 training to teachers had been abandoned. Page after pages has been written that 45% marks obtained in a High School examination would be an adequate qualification to apply for the job of primary school teacher. This is subsequently being changed. The notings also record that prior to 1991 training to teachers had been abandoned. Teachers training from a recognized institution is also contemplated in these notings. The minute of the meeting has been signed by four officers on 6 March 2000. It is thereafter the matter is placed before the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister. Originally, the file was coming from the Secretariat of the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister. If decisions were taken to begin the process of recruitment with a file which started from the Secretariat of the Chief Secretary through the Chief Minister for executing the plan by the Directorate of Education in early 2000 and the recruitment was to be done by the Bihar Public Service Commission, why were the modalities changed? The file seemed to be shuttling from the office of the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary, and the Directorate of Education and between the State Lawyers. Upto 2000 there was talk of following the decision of the Supreme Court. Right as late as April 2004 information was yet being collected as to how many persons had applied. When the examination was being contemplated by the Bihar Public Service Commission a reply was received by the State government, Director Primary Education, that 75,000 teachers had applied in which 65,000 took the examination. The communication mentions that by a letter of 2 January 2004 the successful candidates had been invited. All this is recorded in a letter from the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna dated 20 February 2004. A copy of this is being endorsed to the Law Secretary on 16 April 2004. This letter has been mentioned in the Law Secretarys report. What happened to the successful candidates who were notified? Result of an examination in 1998 was being notified in January 2004 after 6 years. Between 75,000 who had applied, 65,000 sat in the examination and only 1048 were taken in as successful. This implies that 65,000 trained teachers were or are available but eliminated with only 1048 retained. Instead it was now being contemplated to give in service training to untrained teachers. Untrained recruits will teach in preference to the trained, who had not been found fit. This implies that 65,000 trained teachers were or are available but eliminated with only 1048 retained. Instead it was now being contemplated to give in service training to untrained teachers. Untrained recruits will teach in preference to the trained, who had not been found fit. Why cannot the trained also receive in service but further training? Clearly, Bihar has yet to start a crash programme on primary education which has been a non-starter for the last 14 years. 35. Now take the last paragraph of the Chief Secretarys last report. It is contended that information is being collected from the districts on the availability of primary school teachers. The submission itself is vague and the information which is being collected has not been disclosed to the court. If information has been received only from some of the districts, then, it is to be presumed that from most of the districts information is not available to the education department. It has not been divulged to the court which districts have given information. The acknowledgement now is apparent from the record that prior to the High Court making inquiries no effort was made to collect the information on the availability of teachers, trained or untrained and the institutions which are available and functional to impart training to teachers in pursuance of the Supreme Courts order. 36. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, seems to be explaining in Chambers that he had sworn the affidavit at 10 A.M. when the court gave an indulgence of a special sitting immediately on the start of summer recess on Monday (24.5.2004) expecting that, as assured to the court, the State of Bihar will present a composite plan to take care of the defaulting situation of the last 14 years and after following the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming judgment of the High Court, leaving no factor referred in the two judgments, continue the process of recruitment and assignment of teachers to elementary schools and if there be a shortfall make recruitments as already reflected in the judgments. 37. That was the last opportunity which the court gave to the State of Bihar to finish this mess of a recurring lapse and default to leave primary schools without teachers and students. The court gave a special sitting in the interest of a public plan and the grave situation that illiteracy was increasing at a galloping rate. 37. That was the last opportunity which the court gave to the State of Bihar to finish this mess of a recurring lapse and default to leave primary schools without teachers and students. The court gave a special sitting in the interest of a public plan and the grave situation that illiteracy was increasing at a galloping rate. It appears that with all the opportunities granted by the High Court for the last 4 months a slip shod affidavit was prepared on the date of the sitting. The affidavit does not even acknowledge the directions of the Supreme Court. Signing an affidavit on the day of the special sitting implies that clear cut precise decisions were evaded. The court cannot criticize the Chief Secretary when he acknowledges that he signed on an affidavit at 10 A.M. on the day of the sitting of the court. 38. A bare perusal of the affidavit reveals that information is yet being collected. How will a plan work if the blue print had not been made? A plan for education is a public plan. How will it be administered without inputs? 39. This takes the court to place on record another unusual feature, which was happening in the background of the case. The judgment of the High Court which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court refers to certain legislations. The officials of the education department perhaps may have been finding it difficult to locate this legislation, some of which dates back 1885. However, a request was made to the High Courts administration, if the High Courts library could be utilized. Anything which is connected with a public plan and about public information, the Registrar General readily agreed that any book desired may be had by the officials of the education department. On several days, the officials of the education department including the Law Secretary utilized the archives of the High Court and this assistance was readily supplied by the Registrar General. It is a bit difficult to believe that a Directorate of Education which owes its pedigree, being the foremost in the nation as it was part of the administration of undivided Bengal, has misplaced its record. In so far as the court is concerned, it needed the latest information which should have been readily supplied by the education department. It was not. In so far as the court is concerned, it needed the latest information which should have been readily supplied by the education department. It was not. The court made a request to the National Informatics Centre, Bihar State Unit, Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of India, to give an update information on the number of children available who will be put to elementary schools. The teachers available. The schools available. The students teacher ratio as of now and a public plan which has seen a budget allocation and allocation of fund both for the child who will go to the schools and the teachers who will teach. The Registrar General reported to the court that the Officer-in-Charge of the National Informatics Centre, Bihar State Unit, is being difficult in supplying the information. He gave out orally when he was under instructions from the top of the State Education Department not to give information to the High Court. This was unusual. The headquarters of the National Informatics Centre was informed. The information was available on the website of the Government of India. It was down loaded and brought to the High Court. Obstruction in access to public information is a horrible feature and for this no other phenomenon is to blame except bureaucracy. 40. The High Court directed the Registrar General to conduct an inquiry in this matter. The questions which were put to the National Informatics Centers officer confirms that he was under constraints by somebody high up in the education department not to part with information which the High Court was seeking. The inquiry of the Registrar General and his report lies on the record. 41. During the pendency of this case the officer who dealt with this all important matter and had interacted with the Law Secretary in assisting him to make a report was the Director of Education. When the court reopened after summer recess, the Director of Education was transferred out of the education department. In an all important matter of public education which has been in default for 14 years, the Secretary, Education Department, did not appear in the court. He was not unaware that this matter had engaged the attention of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had been critical of the State Government of Bihar in not implementing the plan for recruiting primary school teachers. He was not unaware that this matter had engaged the attention of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had been critical of the State Government of Bihar in not implementing the plan for recruiting primary school teachers. The Supreme Courts judgment was passed in 1997. It was seven years ago. There is much to that has not been explained. Even the stricture of the Supreme Court means nothing to the State bureaucracy. Manufacturing illiterates is not a matter of sensitivity to the education department. Otherwise, how does one explain the seven years since the Supreme Court gave its judgment in the same matter. 42. Assistance to the Court or the State Counsel is a public obligation. The Education Secretary, when the proceedings resumed after the summer recess was conspicuous by his absence. The court is not impressed by an explanation that he was attending conferences outside Patna. In that case, the Director of Education should not have been transferred. 43. The Law Secretary reported to the court that he was not welcome for writing the report which the Court had sought from him. He wrote it with the material provided by the Director of Education. The latter was transferred during the hearing of the case. As if to neutralize the report of the Law Secretary a meeting was called to make another report giving the semblance of a compromise decree. All the sounds the like of which make a compromise decree in a collusive suit generated a counter report to place it before the court as if to checkmate the Law Secretarys report, who simply advised that the decision of the Supreme Court be followed. The Education Secretary did not like the Law Secretarys report. The Law Secretary advised that as directed by the Supreme Court the recruitment be done through the Bihar Public Service Commission. The Governor of Bihar also directed the State government that as per the directions of the Supreme Court the recruitment process should be through the Bihar Public Service Commission. The State government seems to be insisting in avoiding the direction of the Supreme Court. The Governor of Bihar also directed the State government that as per the directions of the Supreme Court the recruitment process should be through the Bihar Public Service Commission. The State government seems to be insisting in avoiding the direction of the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court had given a direction, the Law Secretary had advised it ought to be followed and the Governor of Bihar has directed the State government that the recruitment be done as directed by the Supreme Court, the Chief Secretary had no business to submit in his report that it was decided at a meeting under his Chairmanship that the selection maybe made by the appropriate body as prescribed under law. This submission has been made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit sworn on 24 May 2004. The law is what the Supreme Court says. This Court cannot spell out any other alternative even if the State government has some other design. If the State government is an authority then it was obliged to follow the direction of the Supreme Court (Article 144). The meeting which was chaired by the Chief Secretary virtually sounds like a collusive compromise. It cannot evade the direction of the Supreme Court. Why is the State government so interested in making a recruitment by some other agency? If monies have been received on the applications which were invited by the advertisement of 10 December 2003, the entire deposited amount with the application forms can simply be transferred to the Bihar Public Service Commission. The Bihar Public Service Commission will examine if all the inputs are available to make the recruitment, for instance trained or qualified but not trained. 44. Why was all this useless activity done? On the one hand, the Government of India is serious about taking primary education to the grass root. On the other side, there is total obstruction in executing the primary education plan. Anybodys plan will work provided there is an element of dedication in it. The Education Secretary does not like the judgment of the High Court in re. Vinod Kumar (supra) ibid. The Education Secretary does not want to implement the Supreme Courts judgment, in re Ram Vijay Kumar (supra) ibid. He himself wanted to submit interjecting the State Counsel. Anybodys plan will work provided there is an element of dedication in it. The Education Secretary does not like the judgment of the High Court in re. Vinod Kumar (supra) ibid. The Education Secretary does not want to implement the Supreme Courts judgment, in re Ram Vijay Kumar (supra) ibid. He himself wanted to submit interjecting the State Counsel. When the court asked why would he not follow and implement the Supreme Courts judgment, he refused to respond or reply as if he had other plans. Likewise, when the State Counsel was asked why the Supreme Courts judgment will not be honoured and why had it been put in the cold storage for seven long years, he expressed his inability to offer an explanation except that he is not being instructed on it. 45. Now the record which explains why the Secretary in the Education Department was so reluctant to provide information to the court. What the Secretary would not provide, the information was down loaded from website of the Government of India. It shows that Bihar has not given even inputs on statistical data. For instance, all the three States which were split with three new States born, in November 2000 the data of primary education down loaded as late as 21 May 2004 reads thus: TEACHERS IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS Sl. No. State Full-time Teachers Para-teachers Part-time Teachers Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jharkhand 23534 5575 29109 361 712 1072 79 198 277 Source: NIC, Patna, Gov.ua.nic.in/aises/national TEACHERS IN UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOLS Sl. No. State Full-time Teachers Para-teachers Part-time Teachers Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jharkhand 18062 7978 26040 116 156 272 69 62 131 Source: ibid TEACHERS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS Sl. No. State Full-time Teachers Para-teachers Part-time Teachers Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jharkhand 7311 3052 10363 95 [78 173 96 63 159 Source: ibid PRIMARY SCHOOLS ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF TEACHERS Sl. No. State Full-time Teachers Para-teachers Part-time Teachers Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jharkhand 7311 3052 10363 95 [78 173 96 63 159 Source: ibid PRIMARY SCHOOLS ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF TEACHERS Sl. No. State Primary Schools According to Number of Teachers* 0 1 2 3 4 5 More Total Schools than Having 5 Female Teachers* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jharkhand 738 5421 8930 1445 363 95 59 17051 4242 Source: ibid ENROLMENT IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF SCHOOLS Sl. State Higher Secondary Schools Total No. Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total 1 2 12 13 14 15 16 17 4 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jharkhand 155209 85040 240249 2256136 1692438 3948574 Source: ibid ENROLMENT IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF SCHOOLS Sl. State Primary Schools Upper Primary Schools Secondary Schools No. Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jharkhand 981872 789865 1771737 853975 642832 1496807 265080 174701 439781 Source: ibid NUMBER OF SCHOOLS BELONGING TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES Sl. State Primary Upper Secondary Higher Total Degree colleges No. Schools Primary Schools Secondary numbers having Classes Schools Schools schools XI & XII 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jharkhand 17051 4279 1150 213 22693 130 Source : ibid CLASS-WISE ENROLMENT OF BOYS AND GIRLS IN CLASSES VI TO VIM Sl. No. State Enrolment in Classes 1 2 VI VII VIII B G T B G T B G T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jharkhand 155217 105754 260971 140812 95300 236112 121566 78289 199855 Source : ibid Additional enrolment required for universal primary education State/UT Enrolment 1997 Net Additional Enrolment (Provisional) Required Bihar 10266989 2949604 Source : Asia Development Research Institute, Patna (A.D.R.I) State-wise Enrolment and Teachers in Primary Schools State/UTs Total Total Teachers %of Trained %of Female Enrolment Teachers Pupil Ratio Teachers Teachers Bihar 10266989 130822 78 90.4 19.48 Source : ibid 46 Statistical data of other States is not relevant but it reveals by contrast that Bihar had not even collected information to work on a plan. A direct connection between the ratio of teachers and students calls off the bluff of the scandal which is a dormant plan on primary education in Bihar. Lack of teachers render the teacher-student ratio at 78. The highest in the nation. 47. The story continues and even the official publications (Teacher Education in Bihar & Educational Administration in Bihar) reveals that the last data which is being fed into these publications is out of date. It is either upto 1993 or 1997. Hiding data information from any authority, court not excluded, which is examining an issue is half way house to criminality. Data is public information. It is not secret. On the subject in context it is a public education dan for children to receive basic and primary education. 48. No plan will succeed unless the data to work the plan has been collected. Now the court repeats the statement on oath by the Chief Secretary which submits that information from some district has teen collected. What type of information has been collected has not been disclosed to the court. This further implies that information from most of the districts is not even available. Though, whether available or not available, the court is also not being intimated on what information has been gathered, the little which was, is only from some districts. This now may be seen in totality of a negative approach of the education department to hide information. The education department did not even have the inputs to work a plan. Though, whether available or not available, the court is also not being intimated on what information has been gathered, the little which was, is only from some districts. This now may be seen in totality of a negative approach of the education department to hide information. The education department did not even have the inputs to work a plan. Why did such an educated Chief Secretary join such a shabby exercise. This resistance in court and seeking concessions from the NCTE is itself an acknowledgement that nobody had done any home work to plan primary education. Concessions were for the inadequacies; of absents schools; of inadequate training infrastructure; of the student teacher ratio not available; of untrained teachers. Thus, the concessions sought and received is an acknowledegment that Bihar is not ready to execute the plan of primary education. 49. If this was not enough, the Education department did not even make available to the High Court the Education Code. The full name of the publication is the Bihar and Orissa Education Code. It was published by the Superintendent of Government Printing, Bihar and Orissa, Patna. It ran into several editions. After the passing of the Government of India Act it was updated. This was the 6th edition. They are lying in the High Court library. The publications were shown, to the State counsel. The Court inquired from the State counsel whether he ever had the occasion during the course of his consultations and preparation of his brief, been apprised of this government publication. He acknowledged that it had never been shown to him. Chapters 6 and 7 are on the subject "The Middle School Certificate Examination And Training School" and "Examination For Teachers". It is almost a complete answer on what an education plan for elementary education is about. The Court suggest that the Directorate of Education studies its own Education Code, which it conveniently consigned to the godown. No wonder that for the last two decades the plan on Elementary Education collapsed. A plan for public education is not the private preserve of the bureaucracy. There must be a dedicated plan. If there is no plan then it must be made. If there is a plan then it must be worked. But hiding records unless one is ignorant of them, is mediocrity. The Court had no desire to record what it has. A plan for public education is not the private preserve of the bureaucracy. There must be a dedicated plan. If there is no plan then it must be made. If there is a plan then it must be worked. But hiding records unless one is ignorant of them, is mediocrity. The Court had no desire to record what it has. But the Court is equally pained that even after the Supreme Court judgment in which the government of Bihar had to face adverse remarks, the approach to a plan on elementary education and the execution of it continues to be lackadaisical. The observation of the Supreme Court was thus: "This lackadaisical approach in the matter of imparting training to persons who are required to teach students is indefensible. It is, therefore, directed that the State Government shall take immediate steps to finalise the syllabus and that the training courses for training of the untrained teachers should commence from 1.10.1997. It must be ensured that all the untrained teachers who have been appointed as per the aforementioned selection are duly trained within two years time". 50. This situation continues. 51. Taking all the circumstances into account inasmuch as the Court could collect information and having considered every factor of which the Court was intimated and with the reservation that this is based on the data which was supplied on record and as much as the Court could gather from other official sources, than the Education Department, whose Secretary was uncooperative throughout, the Court is of the view that the following reliefs and orders be passed: (a) The respondents shall follow the judgment and direction as was given by the Supreme Court in re Ram Vijay Kumar vs. The state of Bihar & Ors. (supra) & the judgment of the High Court affirmed by the Supreme Court in re. Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra). (b) The advertisement issued by the State of Bihar dated 10 December 2003 annexure 1 to CWJC. No. 13246 of 2003 for recruitment of teachers is quashed. (c) The Bihar Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2003 are quashed. (d) All the trained teachers available are to be reckoned and considered for recruitment, by selection or otherwise, to teach elementary school, even taking into account the relaxation of age. No. 13246 of 2003 for recruitment of teachers is quashed. (c) The Bihar Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2003 are quashed. (d) All the trained teachers available are to be reckoned and considered for recruitment, by selection or otherwise, to teach elementary school, even taking into account the relaxation of age. (e) The concessions granted by the National Council for Teachers Education as a generality are quashed. The concessions may be considered upon application by the institutions concerned and/ or for specific teachers on a case to case basis whether considering the inadequacies of facilities in an institution or lack of qualifications of a teacher who may be put into in-service training. (f) The State government may now proceed by taking into account the totality of the circumstances and after having reckoned the availability of trained teachers, consider the recruitment of untrained teachers who will be given in-service training should the occasion so arise. (g) All applicants who applied in response to the advertisement dated 10 December 2003, which stands quashed, the applications and consequential monetary deposits shall stand transferred to the Bihar Public Service Commission, and the latter shall proceed with the recruitment of teachers as indicated by the Supreme Court judgment (supra) and by updating the statistical data required for recruitment of teachers, and these inputs be reflected in the advertisement which may now be issued, with the sole criteria in mind that the public plan for elementary education must be executed forthwith. (h) In the interests of public, for the execution of a public plan to eradicate illiteracy, and the larger interests of children in the State, the plan for basic and primary education be implemented forthwith and without delay. If the circumstances and the exigencies so require that the process of recruitment, selection of teachers or the shortfall be made up by teachers who will be given in-service training, the plan should be given a kick start by considering the service of retired teachers who will man the position of elementary school teachers until the full strength of teachers is available when the recruitment process is finalised. (i) While making recruitment of teachers, whether trained or untrained being put into in-service training, the State government will keep in mind the Bihar Education Code, particularly chapters 6 and 7 in the Bihar Education Code have been conveniently forgotten and the Code consigned to the godown. 52. (i) While making recruitment of teachers, whether trained or untrained being put into in-service training, the State government will keep in mind the Bihar Education Code, particularly chapters 6 and 7 in the Bihar Education Code have been conveniently forgotten and the Code consigned to the godown. 52. The petitions are allowed with the aforesaid directions or observations.