ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Though served, respondent no. 1 has not entered appearance. 2. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the respondent no. 3, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) against the order dated 22nd August 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 13891 of 2012. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti has appeared for the Board. Mr. Satyabir Bharti has submitted that under the impugned order the learned single Judge has directed that result of the writ petitioner be declared. He has submitted that the Board had conducted the qualifying examination for appointment to the post of teachers in the Secondary and Higher Secondary Government Schools in the State of Bihar. The maximum age prescribed for eligibility in the category of the writ petitioner was 37 years. Admittedly, the writ petitioner had crossed the maximum age of 37 years on the specified date, i.e. on 1st September 2011. The result of the writ petitioner was, therefore, not declared. He has further submitted that the writ petitioner possesses qualification of Sangeet Bhaskar awarded by Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigadh. He has submitted that the qualification of Sangeet Bhaskar obtained by the writ petitioner is considered equivalent to a Master’s Degree in Music. However, the writ petitioner claimed that he had acquired a Training Certificate; he was therefore entitled for relaxation in age limit by 10 years. 4. Mr. Satyabir Bharti has submitted that the aforesaid Pracheen Kala Kendra has, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Rajya N.S.E. S.K.K. Natyasangh, issued a circular indicating that the qualification of Sangeet Bhaskar is equivalent to Post Graduation in Music. The writ petitioner, therefore, at the best, can be said to have acquired the qualification equivalent to Post Graduate Degree in Music. By no stretch of imagination, he can be said to have a certificate in teachers training which requires a B.Ed. Degree. Unless he is a trained teacher, he cannot claim the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit by 10 years. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner not being within the age limit, he was not eligible for taking the aforesaid qualifying test. His result was, therefore, rightly withheld. 5. We have perused the records. Degree. Unless he is a trained teacher, he cannot claim the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit by 10 years. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner not being within the age limit, he was not eligible for taking the aforesaid qualifying test. His result was, therefore, rightly withheld. 5. We have perused the records. There is nothing on the records to suggest that the petitioner had acquired a Certificate in Training such as B.Ed. Degree or any equivalent qualification. He, therefore, cannot be said to be a trained candidate. According to the age prescribed in Clause 9 of the Brochure, the petitioner was not eligible for taking the qualifying test after having crossed the maximum age of 37 years. 6. Further, we have noticed that the impugned order was made in absence of the appellant. In other words, the appellant had neither been served advance copy of the Writ Petition; nor the notice was issued to the appellant. The impugned order, having been made ex parte against the appellant, is liable to be set aside. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. 8. The impugned order dated 22nd August 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 13891 of 2012 is set aside. 9. CWJC No. 13891 of 2012 is dismissed. 10. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.