JUDGEMENT 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed belatedly. 2. A Limitation petition, being I.A. No. 831/2009, has been filed for condoning the delay of 44 days in filing the present letters patent appeal. 3. Having considered the submissions made in the limitation petition, we are of the view that sufficient ground has been made out for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. Aforesaid interlocutory application is allowed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 5. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 24.2.2007 in Secondary School in the District of Jamui. It is the case of the petitioner-appellant that his certificates were duly verified at the time of his appointment as Assistant Teacher in the said School. He passed Matriculation Examination in the Year 1982, I.A. in the Year 1984 and B.A. (Pass Course) in the Year 1986. He also passed Senior Teachers Training Course from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata during the Session 1992-93. which is equivalent to B.Ed., but his services were terminated on 28.8.2007 on the ground that the aforesaid Institution, from where the petitioner obtained teacher training certificate is not mentioned in the list of the Institutions/Colleges, which have been validly identified to be affiliated to the National Council for Teachers Education for the purpose of imparting teachers training. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner passed Senior Teachers Training Course from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata, as a regular student and not through Correspondence Course. It is further stated that the petitioner passed the aforesaid examination on 12.6.1983, i.e., much before coming into force of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 and, in identical matter, the Jharkhana High Court has held that six months after coming into force the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 since 1st July, 1995, i.e. after 1st January, 1996, nobody, can run the Institute offering a course on training in teachers education, without prior recognition by the National Council for Teachers Education. The petitioner passed the teacher training course on 12.6.1983, that is, much before coming into force of the aforesaid Act, and in such circumstances, his certificate should have been recognized as a valid certificate. The petitioner passed the teacher training course on 12.6.1983, that is, much before coming into force of the aforesaid Act, and in such circumstances, his certificate should have been recognized as a valid certificate. Jharkhand High Court allowed a similar case of the candidate, who had obtained teacher training certificate from the same institution before 1st July, 1995. Above decision of the Jharkhand High Court is annexed as Annexure-3 to this appeal, which has been approved by the Division Bench, as per Annexure-4 order, against which an S.L.P. was also preferred before the Supreme Court, which too was dismissed, as per Annexure-5 order. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before terminating the services of the petitioner, an enquiry into the matter ought to have been conduced by the Department and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to be heard, and then only on the basis of the outcome of the departmental enquiry, appropriate action could have been taken. It has been further submitted that similarly situate persons, as that of the petitioner, who have also acquired teachers training from the same very institution, are working in Government Organization of the State of Jharkhand and, in that view of the matter the petitioner should also be continued in the services and the order of his termination from the services should be set aside. Learned Single Judge disposed of the petitioners case alongwith connected cases and did not consider specially the contentions of the petitioner, which are on different footing. His case has to be considered separately on the basis of the peculiar facts of the case. 8. We, therefore, allow the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal so far as the petitioner is concerned and remit back the records of CWJC No. 14846/2007 to be heard by the learned Single Judge afresh on merit and the same be disposed of after considering aforesaid decisions of the Jharkhand High Court and the Supreme Court and the order of this Court. We are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter in the appeal. 9. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.