Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner, in this writ application, reads as follows: 3. “To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents in particular Respondent no.6, the Principal, Teachers Training College, Noorsarai, Nalanda to issue selection letter to petitioner on the post of Block Resources Person (B.R.P) under language category under Block Tharthari, District-Nalanda.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once National Council of Teacher Education, vide order dated 01.11.1999 had already given recognition to the degree or diploma in Primary Education (Distance Education, Two years Course) for the academic year 1999-2000 with annual intake of 1200 (Twelve Hundred) students the objection on the part of officials of Government of Bihar in not recognizing such decree as a sufficient compliance of the requirement for teachers training would be a great injustice to the petitioner who was otherwise selected for the post of Block Resource Person. Learned Counsel, in this regard, has also relied on an order of this Court dated 16.5.2012 passed in CWJC no. 450 of 2012 (Rabindra Nath Pandey & Ors Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and its analogous cases. 5. On the earlier date when such arguments were made that this Court had directed the Director, Research and Training to clarify the whole issue by filing a supplementary counter affidavit. Today, Mr. Manoj Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has not only filed such supplementary affidavit but has also explained that the afore mentioned order of N.C.T.E. dated 01.11.1999 heavily relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner was firstly for one academic year, i.e., 1999-2000 and secondly, it was limited for 1200 students only. He has also submitted that thereafter there is no order of N.C.T.E. giving recognition of Diploma in Primary Education by I.G.N.O.U. He has also submitted that the issue, which have been pressed in this writ application, being not subject matter of the case of Rabindra Nath Pandey (Supra), that judgment has no application of this case. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the State has to be accepted for more than one reason. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the State has to be accepted for more than one reason. The requirement in the Rules/Circular for filling up the post of Block Resource Person specifically lays down that the candidate must have completed a teachers training course which is recognized by N.C.T.E. The petitioner came out with a plea that his degree of Diploma in Primary Education from I.G.N.O.U was recognized by N.C.T.E. The Government, in this regard, has made enquiry and found that this degree has not yet been recognized by N.C.T.E. There being no contrary material on the record, this Court will have to accept the following stand of the respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit wherein it has been stated as follows:- “That it is stated that the DPE course of IGNOU has not been recognized by the NCTE, the Apex constitutional body in the country to grant recognition to the teachers training course and Institutions. The government is trying its best to get the course recognized by the NCTE, but the recognition has not been granted by the Apex body so far, and in a situation when the DPE course of training is not recognized by the NCTE, the government is bound to treat DPE course qualifications holders ‘Non Trained’. The situation is clear from the letter No. 3817 dt 04.06.2013 as issued by the State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Bihar, Patna. On this point of time the petitioner cannot be given benefit of being selected as coordinator on the ground of non recognition of the DPE Training Course by the NCTE.” 7. As a matter of fact, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the order of NCTE dated 01.11.1999 is also wholly misplaced. This would become from the order itself which, for the sake of convenience and clarity, is quoted below:- “Annexure 15/1 National Council For Teacher Education Northen Region Committee Note TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA PART III SECTION-4 F. NO. This would become from the order itself which, for the sake of convenience and clarity, is quoted below:- “Annexure 15/1 National Council For Teacher Education Northen Region Committee Note TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA PART III SECTION-4 F. NO. F-3/100/99 12838 Registered post with AD dated : 01.11.99 ORDER In exercise of the authority vested under section 15(3)(a) of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993, Northern Regional Committee grants permission to Indira Gandhi National Open University, Maidan Garhi, Delhi-110068 for Diploma in Primary Education (Distance Education, Two year course, for the academic year 1999-2000 with annual intake of 1200 Twelve Hundred) students with subject to the following conditions:- 1. University will appoint additional Academic and administrative staff for the course. 2. Laboratories will be equipped as per requirement of the course. 3. Course material, Audio equipment and study centres will be developed as per the requirement of the course. 4. University will open study centers in NCTE recognized permitted teacher training institutions only. 5. University will admit maximum one hundred students per study centre only. 6. Human resource and equipment related to child centre education should be made available at each study centre as per requirement of the course. By Order Regional Director The Manager, Publication, (Gazette Section) Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. C.C. 1. Education Secretary, M/O HRD Govt. of India, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Principal Education Secretary, Govt. of Delhi, Old Secretariat Delhi-54. 3. Registrar, Indra Gandhi National Open University, Maidan Garhi,Delhi-110068. 4. The Member Secretary National Council For Teacher Education, New Delhi-110016. 5. Office Order file. Regional director” 8. From the under lined portion of the order it would become clear that firstly it was for one academic session, that is, 1999-2000 and secondly it was limited for annual intake of 1200 students only. Admittedly the petitioner has neither completed his DPE course in 1999 nor he is within 1200 students for whom permission was given by NCTE. Today there being no separate order of NCTE after 01.11.1999 as with regard to extending recognition of DPE course, this Court has to accept that the respondents have not committed any error in not recognizing DPE course of IGNOU as equivalent course of B.Ed for appointment on the post of Block Resource Persons. 9. Today there being no separate order of NCTE after 01.11.1999 as with regard to extending recognition of DPE course, this Court has to accept that the respondents have not committed any error in not recognizing DPE course of IGNOU as equivalent course of B.Ed for appointment on the post of Block Resource Persons. 9. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Pandey (Supra) also is not well founded inasmuch as this issue of DPE Course from IGNOU was not the subject matter of those writ petitions. The issues that was gone into therein was with regard to continuance of a working Block Resource Person in view of his junior of three years. That issue is not at least present in this case inasmuch as the petitioner wants a direction for being appointed as Block Resource Person and infact has not yet been appointed as Block Resource Persons. Therefore, the judgment of Rabindra Nath Pandey (Supra) has no application in the facts of this case. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was initially engaged as Block Resource Person would also be of no avail. In as much as he had represented that he was a trained teacher with a degree of IGNOU and, therefore, once this aspect was found that the degree of IGNOU of the petitioner was not to be recognized, prayer made in the present writ application seeking a direction for his appointment at least cannot be allowed. 11. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the qualification of DPE from IGNOU was being recognized by the State of Bihar has also been explained in supplementary counter affidavit wherein it has stated:- “That it is stated that by the New Guidelines, 2013 (Memo No.87 dated 18.02.2013) all the previous guidelines, circulars and order with regard to the administration of Block Resource Centre, Cluster Resources Centre and selection of coordinators have been declared obsolete and abandoned. That it is stated that the New Guidelines, 2013 (Memo No.87 dated 18.02.2013) have been prepared and executed very carefully after taking in to account of old experiences and emerging urgent needs of Primary School Education System of the State. That it is stated that the New Guidelines, 2013 (Memo No.87 dated 18.02.2013) have been prepared and executed very carefully after taking in to account of old experiences and emerging urgent needs of Primary School Education System of the State. The in service teachers training of teachers to be managed frequently from time to time in tune with the learning needs of the children at the elementary schools has become very important for the government. The coordinators have to play significant role in management of training and in the whole Elementary School system as well for which their qualifications, tenure and role have been defined carefully in the New Guidelines. The New guidelines are in form of fresh Policy decisions taken by the competent authority. All this is in the interest of the children and people of the State.” 12. In fact, the said new policy having been put to a judicial scrutiny was affirmed by a Division Bench in the order dated 10.07.2012 in LPA no.941 of 2012 and that should be the end of the matter. 13. That being so, this application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.