JUDGEMENT Jayanandan Singh, J. 1. The present writ application was earlier disposed of by a common order passed on 21.11.2008 by a Single Bench of this Court alongwith a batch of cases. Before the Single Bench, the admissibility of certificates of completion of training course from different institutions of Kolkata for the purposes of employment in the State of Bihar was a common question arising in all the writ applications. Two cases, namely, CWJC No. 14846 of 2007 and the present writ application related to certificates issued to the petitioners from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Calcutta (in short, the College). The court did not find the certificates inspiring confidence and did not find the same fulfilling the requirements of 2006 Rules. Therefore, the writ applications were dismissed. Whereas, in the body of the order there was specific reference of CWJC No. 14846 of 2007 but, except for mentioning the case number of the present case in the cause title, there was no mention of it in the body of the order. The petitioner, therefore, moved in appeal before a Division Bench of this Court through L.P.A. No. 126 of 2009 against the said order. 2. The Division Bench, while hearing the appeal of the petitioner, noticed sub-missions advanced on his behalf that the petitioner had passed the examination of the Senior Teachers Training Course from the said institution on 12.6.1983 and much before the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 came into force. It also noticed the submission advanced that in identical matters, Jharkhand High Court held that institutions which were running from before did not need any recognition from the N.C.T.E. as it came into existence only consequent to promulgation of 1993 Act and, therefore, writ application of the candidates before Jharkhand High Court, who were similarly circumstanced, was allowed. The State of Jharkhand had moved in appeal against the said order which was dismissed and S.L.P. against the same before the Supreme Court had also failed. The three said orders were produced by the petitioner with memo of appeal before this Court as Annexures-3, 4 and 5, respectively. The Division Bench also noticed submissions that an enquiry in the matter ought to have been conducted by the Department and the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to be heard and then only, on the basis of the outcome of the enquiry, appropriate action could have been taken. The Division Bench also noticed submissions that an enquiry in the matter ought to have been conducted by the Department and the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to be heard and then only, on the basis of the outcome of the enquiry, appropriate action could have been taken. It also noticed the submissions that similarly situated persons as that of the petitioner were working in Government organizations of the State of Jharkhand. It also noticed the grievance of the petitioner that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the petitioners case alongwith connected cases, did not consider specifically the contentions of the petitioners which were on different footing. In view of these submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench allowed the appeal by order dated 24.3.2009, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in respect of the writ application of the petitioner and remitted the matter back, to be heard by a Single Bench afresh, and it was required to be disposed of after considering the aforesaid decisions of Jharkhand High Court and the Supreme Court and orders of this Court. 3. Accordingly, the matter got revived, listed for fresh hearing, and, in due course, has been taken up by this Bench, and heard. 4. So far as the first grievance of the writ petitioner raised before the Division Bench, that in identical matter, Jharkhand High Court allowed the writ application which was confirmed in appeal and given a seal of approval by the Apex Court by dismissing the S.L.P. is concerned, this Court perused the writ application and pleadings filed by the petitioner in the case. This Court has found that there was no whisper in the writ petition or in any pleadings of the petitioner in respect of the said judgment of Jharkhand High Court in any identical matters and even till the last date of hearing by this Court, petitioner has not filed any supplementary affidavit and has not brought on record the said judgment of the Jharkhand High Court and orders passed in L.P.A. and in the S.L.P. Therefore, the said stand of the petitioner advanced before the Division Bench was altogether a new stand and does not appear to have been advanced in any manner before the Single Bench when this matter was heard earlier and disposed of by a common order. However, since the Division Bench, while remitting the matter back, has directed the writ application of the petitioner to be considered on merits after considering the said decisions of Jharkhand High Court and Supreme Court, this Court has to consider the same first. 5. Since copies of the orders have not been placed on the records of this writ application till the last date of final hearing, this Court has referred to the memorandum of appeal of the petitioner before the Division Bench and has looked to the orders annexed therewith. After looking to Annexure-3 to the memo of appeal, photo copy of the said judgment of the learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court, this Court has found that the said photocopy is not at all legible and readable. This Court also found that the typed copy of the said Annexure which has also been placed, side by side on the record of the appeal, is also so defectively typed and contains numerous errors and omissions making it very difficult to make out head and tail of it. 6. However, whatever this Court could appreciate from the typed copy of the judgment, it appeared that cancellation of appointment of the writ petitioner before Jharkhand High Court, which had been cancelled by the respondents in view of the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Dilip Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand [reported in 2005 (2) JCR 293 ] [: 2005(2) JLJR 313 ], was under challenge. The learned Single Judge held that the said Division Bench judgment, which held certificate issued from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education of as invalid on account of the said institution not being recognized by N.C.T.E., could not be given retrospective effect. The petitioner of the case, having been appointed in Government service much before the N.C.T.E Act came into force, and his services having been approved in 1994 itself by the District Superintendent of Education, could not be held to be affected by the operation of the said judgment of the Division Bench. This view of the learned Single Judge was approved by the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court and the SLP before the Apex Court also failed. 7. However, the case of the present petitioner is entirely under different fact situation. This view of the learned Single Judge was approved by the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court and the SLP before the Apex Court also failed. 7. However, the case of the present petitioner is entirely under different fact situation. It has not been denied or challenged by the writ petitioner at any point of time till its final hearing by this Court that his appointment under the State of Bihar was to be governed by the provisions of Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik Avam Uchchttar Madhyamik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Shartein) Rules, 2006 (in short, 2006 Rules). 2006 Rules contain specific provisions for eligibility of the candidates for their appointment. A copy of 2006 Rules is annexed as Annexure-3 with the present writ application. Clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the said Rules clearly stipulates that an applicant for his appointment must possess B.Ed. degree from any recognized institution, and after coming into force of N.C.T.E. Act, he must possess B.Ed. degree from an institution recognized by the N.C.T.E. Therefore, petitioner had to satisfy this condition as per rules before he could be appointed by the respondents. 8. It is true that before the N.C.T.E. Act came into force, the institutions which were imparting teachers training were not required to get recognition from any statutory body at national level. But this did not absolve them from a legal duty cast upon them to get recognition from the concerned State Government where it was functioning, for the purposes of recognition of its certificate by the concerned Government for the purpose of appointment in Government service etc. If a certificate issued by an institution running in a particular State was required to be relied upon in another State for appointment in Government service, it was necessary to establish that the institution was recognized by the concerned State also for granting equivalence to its certificate with that of the institutions functioned in the State and recognized. There is no claim of the petitioner that Dr. B.C. Roy College was recognized by the State of Bihar to bestow equivalence to its certificate with that of the certificates granted by the recognized training institutions running in the State of Bihar. This was exactly the problem due to which, ultimately, petitioner was found not eligible by the respondents for his appointment under the State Government. B.C. Roy College was recognized by the State of Bihar to bestow equivalence to its certificate with that of the certificates granted by the recognized training institutions running in the State of Bihar. This was exactly the problem due to which, ultimately, petitioner was found not eligible by the respondents for his appointment under the State Government. The petitioner has not even shown or claimed that the said College was recognized by the State of West Bengal, at least, prior to 1995. As per pleading in paragraph 21 of the writ application, and as appearing from a certificate annexed as Annexure-7, Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education is, till now, affiliated to one All India Education Society having Affiliation Nos. ES/87/8/3 dated 10.8.1987 and ES-87/6/1 dated 4.6.87, which Society is registered by the Government of West Bengal under the Cooperative Societies Act bearing Registration No. 13824 dated 8.8.1985. It is stated that the College is approved and registered by the Ministry of Human Resources Development Department, Government of India and amalgamated on and with effect from 10.10.2002 with Oxford College of Education, Kolkata, which is decades after petitioner completed training in 1983. 9. Thus, upon his own showing, petitioners College was not recognized by the State of West Bengal also prior to coming into force of N.C.T.E Act. This clearly shows that the College did not enjoy any recognition whatsoever by any State much less the State of Bihar when the petitioner had acquired training there. 10. Petitioner, alongwith his writ application, has annexed a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court as Annexure-8 and as per the order of the Division Bench in the appeal, orders of this Court relied upon by the petitioner should also be considered for deciding this writ application of the petitioner on merits. 11. The issue exactly before the said Division Bench was as to whether in absence of any stipulation in the advertisement specifying duration of course of teachers training, could the State of Bihar deny the validity of a certificate of training obtained outside the State, particularly, from a institution in Calcutta which conducted course of teachers training of one year only and not of two years as is being done in the State of Bihar. The Bench held that in absence of such condition in the advertisement, persons acquiring teachers training for lesser period by a recognized institution are also eligible for appointment in the State of Bihar. The writ application, therefore, was allowed by the Division Bench. This judgment has no bearing in the case of the petitioner as the Division Bench held that the duration of training was immaterial if there was no stipulation in the advertisement but it did mention that the training had to be obtained from a recognized institution. 12. Petitioner also filed a supplementary affidavit in his appeal. alongwith the same, he annexed two orders of a learned Single Judge of this Court. Therefore, it is appropriate to take notice of the same also. In the first order dated 8.5.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12460 of 2006, the institution concerned was AH India Correspondence Coaching Society, Calcutta. Petitioners of that case had taken a stand that a good number of teachers having obtained teachers training certificates from that institution were appointed pursuant to the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. 9508 of 1989. Therefore, petitioner could not be denied appointment on the ground that the said institution was not recognized between the years 1991 to 1993 when the petitioner had obtained the training. The learned Single Judge found that in successive counter affidavits filed by the respondents, the respondents have taken different stand. Therefore, it allowed the petitioner to file a representation pointing out to the respondents that many other teachers were appointed by them having obtained certificates of teachers training from the said institution between 1991 to 1993. The said representation was directed to be considered and disposed of within three months. Clearly, the learned Single Judge did not give any finding on the merit of the issue in respect of admissibility of the said certificate issued to the petitioners for the purpose of their appointment under the State Government. 13. Another order dated 18.7.2007 passed by the same learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7462 of 2007 which has been produced by the petitioner with the said supplementary affidavit relates to Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education at Calcutta and Sister Nivedita College of Education, West Bengal. 13. Another order dated 18.7.2007 passed by the same learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7462 of 2007 which has been produced by the petitioner with the said supplementary affidavit relates to Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education at Calcutta and Sister Nivedita College of Education, West Bengal. Petitioners of that case relied upon earlier order passed by the same learned Single Judge, as referred to above and, in view of such reliance, this writ application was also disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the respondents. Thus, none of these two orders are of any help to the present petitioner for a decision on the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ application. 14. In the circumstances, this Court finds that none of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, either at the level of consideration of his case at the writ stage or relied upon by him at the stage of his appeal before the Division Bench are of any help to the present petitioner. It is clear that as per 2006 Rules, the petitioner had to establish his eligibility which he has failed to do so. 15. Before the Division Bench, petitioner raised the issue that no notice was issued to him and he was not given any opportunity before the order was passed cancelling his appointment and no enquiry was held before his appointment was cancelled. The said contention of the petitioner, raised before the Division Bench, is apparently contrary to the records produced by the petitioner himself alongwith the present writ application. Admittedly, petitioners appointment was made by Annexure-1. His appointment under 2006 Rules was temporary with certain conditions. One of the conditions was that if certificates of appointment of the teacher in respect of his training or qualification are found forged or wrong, his appointment shall be cancelled and action as per law may be taken against him. This order of appointment of the petitioner was issued on 24.2.2007. Annexure-5 is a letter dated 20.6.2007 i.e. barely four months after his appointment, which was issued to the petitioner and many other candidates. It is specifically mentioned in that letter that the institution, of which certificates of teachers training had been produced by them, was not found as a recognized institution as per the CD. of the list of recognized institutions made available by the Department. It is specifically mentioned in that letter that the institution, of which certificates of teachers training had been produced by them, was not found as a recognized institution as per the CD. of the list of recognized institutions made available by the Department. Therefore, petitioner as well as others were specifically directed to file show cause within 15 days as to whether the institution, wherefrom they claimed to have completed teachers training course and obtained certificates, was recognized by N.C.T.E. or by the State Government, or not, and they were also required to produce evidence in support of the same, so that necessary decision could be taken in respect of their appointment. Apparently, this was a specific notice issued to the petitioner as well as many other candidates in respect of the admissibility of the certificates of teachers training produced by them issued by the respective institutions. 16. Reply of the petitioner to the said notice is Annexure-6. Petitioner discloses that the said training college of the petitioner i.e. Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education at Kolkata has submitted an application to the Department of Education, Government of Bihar for recognition of its degree on 2.11.2006. He also discloses that the said institution is recognized by All India Education Society. The fact appearing from Annexure-7 is being reiterated in this reply and the said certificate issued by the said Society appears to have been enclosed with the said reply. This representation of the petitioner also shows that said Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education or the said Society with which he claims its affiliation is neither recognized from N.C.T.E. after 1995 nor was recognized by the State of Bihar or even by the State of West Bengal at any point of time prior to it. Annexure-5 clearly shows that an enquiry was held and a clear cut show cause notice was issued to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to produce evidence in support of his case. In his reply as contained in Annexure-6, he did not produce any material to satisfy the respondents that the College concerned was enjoying any recognition during the period of 1991 to 1993 by any of the State Government. 17. In his reply as contained in Annexure-6, he did not produce any material to satisfy the respondents that the College concerned was enjoying any recognition during the period of 1991 to 1993 by any of the State Government. 17. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the appointment of the petitioner was conditional and the respondents have found it invalid upon an enquiry and after properly complying with the Principles of Natural Justice, they have issued Annexure-1, cancelling his appointment, which this Court has found perfectly, justified and valid. 18. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed.