JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. Petitioners in this writ application have sought for a direction upon the respondents, particularlyRespondent No. 6, to consider the case of the petitioners for their appointment to the post of teachers in the primary schools in view of the fact that they have been selected by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission which has also made a recommendation in their favour. 3. The controversy raised by the respondent State Government is based upon their contention that the institutefrom where the petitioners had obtained their B.Ed. Certificates, was declared as a fake institute. 4. Reference in this context has been made by the counsel for the respondent State to Annexure-A, purportedto be a list of universities declared by the U.G.C. as fake universities/institutions. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the institution from where the present petitioners have obtained their respective certificates is Bhartiya Shiksha Praishad, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow which, at Sl. No. 19 of the list, has been declared as a fake university and as such, the candidature of the petitioners, notwithstanding the recommendation made by the J.P.S.C., could not be accepted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, would inform by reference to the observations madein the list (Annexure-A) that in the case of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, the U.G.C. itself has decided to exclude the name of said institute, albeit pursuant to the orders of the High Court. The matter, on being adjudicated upon by the Civil Court, a permanent injunction was issued against the authorities concerned including the U.G.C., restraining them from declaring the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad as a fake institute. Learned counsel adds further that the only ground on which the case of the petitioners was rejected being that the institute from where they have passed was earlier said to be fake, being now clarified, there could be no reason why the respondent State should refuse the candidature of the petitioner No. 1 who had obtained his certificate in Indian Kanoon August, 1995, which is much before the cut off date prescribed by the N.C.T.E. As regards the petitioner No. 2, learned counsel concedes that the certificate which the petitioner No. 2 had obtained, was after the cut of date when admittedly, the institute did not obtain recognition from the N.C.T.E. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, there appears no further controversy surviving as far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned. Recommendation in favour of the petitioner No. 1 having already been obtained from the J.P.S.C., the respondent State Government shall consider the candidature of petitioner No. 1 after being satisfied by the petitioner No. 1 that the institute from where he had obtained the certificate was recognized at least by the State/Union Government or by statutory bodies/organizations, maintained and controlled by either State or Central Government or recognized universities or affiliated by recognized universities for imparting teachers training education. The decision in this context in respect of petitioner No. 1 shall be taken by the concerned authorities of the respondents within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and accordingly communicated to the petitioner effectively. 7. As regards the petitioner No. 2, considering the facts and circumstances of his case, the respondent authorities cannot be compelled to accept his candidature. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner No. 2 cannot therefore be allowed. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.