Order (Per: Hon'ble the Chief Justice) These three Appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arise from the judgment and order dated 12th August, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 13955 of 2010. 2. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1597 of 2011 and 1691 of 2011 are preferred by the writ petitioners whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 1445 of 2011 is preferred by the Intervenors. 3. The matter at dispute is the appointment to the post of Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools under Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation. 4. It appears that pursuant to the Bihar Municipal Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2006 Rules"), some 11 persons (the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1445 of 2011) thereinafter referred to as "the Intervenors") were appointed as Elementary Teachers on 30th November, 2006 in the Municipal Schools in Muzaffarpur town. The Intervenors had secured certificate of Prathama awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Since their appointment, on further examination, the said Intervenors were held to be ineligible for appointment as Elementary Teachers. After issuing notice to show cause and considering their reply, their services were terminated on 21 st September, 2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the Intervenors filed CWJC No. 6266 of 2007. This Court (Coram: Navin Sinha, J.) by the judgment 'Ed.-Reported in 2009(3) PLJR 54 and order dated 26th June, 2008 allowed the said writ petition and held that the certificate of Prathama awarded, to the Intervenors by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad prior to 31st December 1987 was recognized by the State of Bihar as a qualification equivalent to Matriculation, The Intervenors were, therefore, eligible for appointment as Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools. The said judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 297 of 2009*, Pursuant to the said judgment, the Intervenors were reinstated in service on 7th September, 2009. The said judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 297 of 2009*, Pursuant to the said judgment, the Intervenors were reinstated in service on 7th September, 2009. 6, It further appears that since termination of the service of the Intervenors on 21st September, 2007, the respondent authorities operated the wait list and appointed some 11 persons (the writ petitioners in CWJC No, 13955 of 2010) against the resulting vacancies, Consequent to the order of the High Court in CVVJC No. 6266 of 2007 and reinstatement of the Intervenors in service on 7th September 2009; the respondent authorities stopped paying salary to the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 13955 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the writ petitioners"). 7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed CWJC No. 13955 of 2010. In the said writ petition, the Intervenors were allowed to intervene. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that once the original appointees (the Intervenors) were reinstated in service under the orders of the Court, the natural corollary would be removal of the writ petitioners as the appointment of the writ petitioners was contingent and not absolute In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to take imnediate steps for removal of the writ petitioners from service; but has also held that they were entitled to salary so long as they are allowed to work. 8. While disposing of 'the writ petition as aforesaid, the learned Single Judge also examined the claim of the Intervenors (appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1445 of 2011) to hold that the certificate of Prathama awarded to them by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Aliahabad was not recognized by the State of Bihar; not for the period prior to 31st December 1987 either. The Intervenors were, therefore, not eligible for appointment as Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools. In holding so, the learned single Judge relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the matter of Surendra Prasad Sahi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Letters Patent Appeal No. 654 of 2009 in CWJC No. 1681 of 2009, decided on 4th December, 2009) and in the matter of The State of Bihar & Ors. VS. Mamta Kumari [(2010)4 PLJR 318]. 9. In view of the said finding and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. VS. VS. Mamta Kumari [(2010)4 PLJR 318]. 9. In view of the said finding and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. VS. Union of India & Ors. [ (2010)12 SCC 609 ], the learned single Judge held, ".....there is no validity of their degree of Prathama obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as per law declared both by this High Court and Apex Court. This Court is quite concerned about the quality of appointments of such teachers as their teaching will have a bearing on the future generation of students who wil1 be the silent victims or sufferers in the case. To that extent the reinstatement of the interveners does not give them absolute right to continue on the post in the above stated circumstances." 10. In view of the above referred law declared by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge proceeded to issue direction to the respondent authorities to take action against the Intervenors. 11. Feeling aggrieved insofar as the respondent authorities are directed to take action against the Intervenors, the Intervenors have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1445 of 2011. Feeling aggrieved insofar as the termination of the service of the writ petitioners has been upheld, the writ petitioners have preferred Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1597 of 2011 and 1691 of 2011. 12. Learned Advocate Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary has appeared for the Intervenors. He has submitted that the certificate of Prathama was recognized by the State of Bihar as equivalent to Matriculation certificate up to 31st December, 1987. Each of the Intervenors had secured the certificate of Prathama prior to 31st December, 1987. They are, therefore, eligible for appointment as Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools. Reliance is placed on the Government order dated 7th January, 1987 and the accompaniment (pp 50 to 52). He has also submitted that insofar as the Intervenors are concerned, the matter in respect of legality of their appointment has become final. Once the learned Single Judge of this Court had held that their appointment was legal and valid and directed their reinstatement in service; the said order having been confirmed by the Division Bench, the decision in favour of the Intervenors has become final. Once the learned Single Judge of this Court had held that their appointment was legal and valid and directed their reinstatement in service; the said order having been confirmed by the Division Bench, the decision in favour of the Intervenors has become final. In absence of further challenge to the order of the Division Bench, the Intervenors have a right to be considered eligible for appointment as Elementary Teachers and have a right to continue as such. He has submitted that even if the decision of the learned Single Judge or of the Division Bench were wrong, it having attained finality is binding to the parties, the Intervenors and the respondent authorities. 13. Learned Advocates Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma have appeared for the writ petitioners. Both of them have submitted that indisputably the writ petitioners are trained Matriculates and are eligible for appointment as Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools. The being eligible and having been drawn from 1e wait list, they have a right to continue in service on the available vacancies even after the Intervenors were reinstated in service. Order dt. 8.12.2011 14. In furtherance of the Right to Education conferred by the Constitution and for expansion and improvement of elementary education in the urban areas of the State of Bihar; the Government of Bihar has, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution and the Bihar Municipality Act, 1922, framed the 2006 Rules: The said Rules provide for recruitment and service conditions of the elementary teachers in urban areas. Rule 8 thereof provides for eligibility. Prior to its amendment in 2008, Rule 8 of the 2006 Rules provided, inter alia, that for appointment as Municipal Teacher (Trained), the candidate shall: (1) be the citizen of India and the resident of the State of Bihar; (2) have passed Higher Secondary/ Intermediate or equivalent examination from a school/a college recognized by the Government; (3) have the qualification of Two Years' Teachers Training Diploma or Two Years' Certificate or a Degree in Elementary Education or a Degree in Education with Graduation or equivalent qualification from a training institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education. 15. 15. However, in case of the first employment under the said Rules, Rule 8 permitted employment of such candidates, who had passed Matriculation or equivalent examination from a recognized school and had, prior to the National Council for Teacher Education Act, passed the Two Years' Teachers Training Examination or B.Ed. from a recognized training school or college. 16. Since its amendment in 2008, the said Rule 8 provides, inter alia, for a minimum qualification of Higher Secondary/Intermediate or equivalent examination from a school/college or Board recognized by the Government. It also provides that an equivalent degree awarded by the voluntary organization is not recognized for employment of teacher. Clause 3 thereof provides for a. Two Years' Teachers Training Diploma/Certificate or Two Years' Certificate or a Degree in Elementary Education or 8.Ed. from a training institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education. 17. Thus, it is apparent that a person seeking appointment as Elementary Teacher in Municipal School shall possess a minimum qualification of Higher Secondary or Intermediate or equivalent qualification. Such person shall also have a Two Years' Teachers Training Certificate/Diploma. It is only in exceptional cases where trained persons who have passed Intermediate/Higher Secondary/equivalent examination are not available; a trained person with lesser qualification of Matriculation can be employed as a teacher. In any case, Two Years'• Teachers Training Certificate/Diploma is a sine qua non. 18. In the present case, the Intervenors claim to have obtained certificates of Prathama awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, equivalent to Matriculation certificate. We may note here that the Rules of 2006 envisage a minimum qualification of Intermediate or Higher Secondary. It is not the case of the Intervenors that they do possess the qualification of Higher Secondary or Intermediate or an equivalent qualification. In our opinion, irrespective of the equivalence of Prathama with that of Matriculation Certificate, the Intervenors could not have been considered for appointment as Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools, unless it is shown that the trained candidates possessing Higher Secondary/Intermediate Certificate/equivalent qualification were not available. 19. As to the certificates awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad the Division Bench had, in the matter of Mamta Kumari (supra), the occasion to examine the equivalence of Madhyama awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Samr lelan, Allahabad to that of Intermediate orligher Secondary Examination in respect l)f appointment of Primary Teachers in Gram Panchayats. 19. As to the certificates awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad the Division Bench had, in the matter of Mamta Kumari (supra), the occasion to examine the equivalence of Madhyama awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Samr lelan, Allahabad to that of Intermediate orligher Secondary Examination in respect l)f appointment of Primary Teachers in Gram Panchayats. The Bench considered the provisions of the Bihar Education Code and examined the recognition certificate. The Bench observed that no certificate awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was ever recognized by the State of Bihar as equivalent to Matriculation or Higher Secondary or Intermediate, as the case may be. The Bench further observed that It was the Prathama awarded by the Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad that was considered to be equivalent to Matriculation or Secondary School Examination and the Madhyama awarded by the said Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad was considered equivalent to Intermediate examination, provided that the candidate had passed equivalent examination. in English from a recognized University or a Board. 20. We have examined Article 358 of the Bihar Education Code. The said Article deals with "Recognition of certificates from National Universities". The said Article reads as under:"358. Recognition of certificates from National Universities.-Examinations conducted by National Universities enumerated in the following table should be treated as equivalent to the degrees granted by a recognized University mentioned opposite each in column-III and that candidates who have passed any of examinations mentioned in column 1 upto the end of the year 1965 or year mentioned against their names should be tested as eligible for appointment to a post or service under Government (except to a post of teacher. In case of teachers valid for promotion only) for which success at any of the corresponding examination of a recognized University is laid down as qualification for appointment to that post or service:-" 21. The said certificate of recognition/ equivalence does not refer to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad at all. Hence, it is evident that at no point of time any of the certificates awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was considered equivalent to Matriculation or Higher Secondary or Intermediate examination as the case may be, by the State of Bihar. 22. The reliance placed on Government order dated 7th January, 1987 and the accompaniments (pp 50 to 52 of the paper book) is totally misleading. 22. The reliance placed on Government order dated 7th January, 1987 and the accompaniments (pp 50 to 52 of the paper book) is totally misleading. The accompanying equivalence certificate refers, inter alia, to Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad and not to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. 23. We are at pains to note that though the aforesaid Government Order has made a specific exception in respect of appointment to the post of teacher, the said order is being cited by the learned Advocates time and again without reference to the aforesaid exception. Had that exception been brought to the notice of the Court, several proceedings and diverse orders/judgments could have been avoided. 24. We may also observe that the claim that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and the Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad are one and the same institution is highly questionable. The information imparted by tile Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in that respect (page 173 of the paper book) is of no consequence. 25. In our opinion, the Intervenors' claim for eligibility should fail on all counts. First, the certificate awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not recognized by the State of Bihar at all; second, the Certificate of Prathama is not considered equivalent to Higher Secondary or Intermediate examination, the required qualification. Third, the equivalence accepted by the State Government was not extended for employment as "teacher". 26. As we have recorded hereinabove, the minimum qualification required for appointment as Elementary Teacher in Municipal Schools is Higher Secondary or Intermediate or an equivalent examination. Indisputably, the intervenors do not possess the qualification of Higher Secondary or Intermediate nor do they claim hat the Certificate of Prathama obtained by them is equivalent to Higher Secondary or Intermediate Examination; nor it is the case of the respondent authorities that at the relevant time qualified trained, Higher Secondary or Intermediate pass candidates were not available. 27. We have examined the certificates of Prathama awarded to the Intervenors copies of which are produced on the record of the Appeal. A closer look to the said certificates creates doubt about the genuineness of the course allegedly conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The Certificates indicate that the concerned certificate has been issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (Hindi Viswavidyalaya). Each candidate is declared to have passed the examination in 1986/1987 in First Class. A closer look to the said certificates creates doubt about the genuineness of the course allegedly conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The Certificates indicate that the concerned certificate has been issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (Hindi Viswavidyalaya). Each candidate is declared to have passed the examination in 1986/1987 in First Class. The heading "Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, .Allahabad (Hindi Viswavidyalaya)" itself is misleading. Further, each candidate seems to have taken examination from different centers situated in the State of Bihar. In our view, no person can be appointed as a teacher on the basis of such certificate. 28. This brings us to the question whether the eligibility of the Intervenors having been upheld by this Court, the decision of the Court having attained finality; should this Court upset the finding. We do agree with Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary that the decision in CWJC No. 6266' of 2007 rendered in favour of the Intervenors has attained finality. The said judgment is, therefore, binding to the parties. Nevertheless, in the extraordinary circumstances we are pitted against; we are tempted to interfere as we share the anxiety about the quality of elementary education expressed by the learned Single Judge. The judgment in CWJC No. 6266 of 2007 is evidently erroneous. First, the provisions contained in the relevant rules (the Rules of 2006) regarding eligibility prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2006 were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The matter proceeded on the assumption that the required qualification was Matriculation or equivalent qualification instead of Higher Secondary or Intermediate examination or an equivalent qualification. Second, the above referred provisions contained in the Bihar Education Code and the certificate of equivalence referred to therein was also not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. It was. not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that the course/certificate recognized was the one conducted/awarded by the Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad. The Court was misled to believe that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad were one and the same institution on a bare statement made by the Intervenors. 29. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the Intervenors being not eligible for appointment as Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools, the respondent authorities shall take steps to remove the Intervenors or to cancel their appointments as being invalid. 30. 29. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the Intervenors being not eligible for appointment as Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools, the respondent authorities shall take steps to remove the Intervenors or to cancel their appointments as being invalid. 30. As to the writ petitioners, it is apparent that their appointments were fortuitous; the writ petitioners had no right to continue in service on reinstatement of the Intervenors in service. the removal of the writ petitioners from service was a natural consequence. A. though, so long as the writ petitioners are continued in service, they have a right to receive salary. The respondent authorities are, therefore, Fable to pay salary to the writ petitioners until and unless their service is terminated. If such salary is not paid as yet, the respondent authorities will pay the amount of arrears of salary to the writ petitioners within two months from today. 31. For the aforesaid reasons, subject to the observation made and direction issued in respect of the Intervenors and the writ petitioners, these Appeals are dismissed. Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 32. Registry will send copy of this judgment to the Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Human Resources Development Department, Patna to ensure that the proper instructions are issued to the selecting and appointing authorities.