JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of his termination from service on the ground that within stipulated time he has not acquired the minimum qualification for appointment as a teacher, as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed on 22.09.2002 on the post of Para-Teacher. At the time of his appointment his qualification was Matriculation which according to him was prescribed by the State Government and with this educational qualification Para-Teachers were appointed at that time. In the year 2010 he has passed Sahityabhushan degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar which is equivalent to Intermediate. 3. Under Notification dated 04.09.2001 of NCTE minimum educational qualification for appointment of teacher has been fixed as Intermediate (Trained). 4. On 01.04.2010 the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into force, in terms thereof the teachers who did not possess the minimum educational qualification at the time of their appointment were required to attain such qualification within 5 years. Now it is stated that Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 has come into force w.e.f 01.04.2015 by which a proviso has been inserted in sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It reads: “provided further that every teacher appointed or in position as on 31.03.2015 who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of 4 years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017”. 5. Stand taken by the respondents is that in terms of Notification dated 04.09.2001 of the National Council for Teacher Education the teachers who did not possess the qualification of Intermediate were issued show-cause notices (paragraph 17) and they were offered opportunity to acquire requisite educational qualification in terms of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Copy of such show-cause notice, if at all issued to the petitioner, prior to 01.04.2010, has not been produced on record along with the counter-affidavit dated 09.02.2017. 6. Copy of such show-cause notice, if at all issued to the petitioner, prior to 01.04.2010, has not been produced on record along with the counter-affidavit dated 09.02.2017. 6. From the documents produced by the respondents in the present proceeding it appears that on 02.01.2004 and 30.01.2004 letters were written by the Jharkhand Education Project Council to the District Programme Co-ordinator and District Programme Officer of all the districts in the Jharkhand for sending Assistant Teachers/Para-Teachers to undergo course from National Institute of Open School or IGNOU. It is not in dispute that the teachers/Para-Teachers, or atleast the petitioner, were not communicated the aforesaid decision of the Jharkhand Education Project Council requiring them to acquire minimum qualification in terms of Resolution dated 04.09.2001 of NCTE. The first letter which was issued to the petitioner is dated 11.01.2016. By that time Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 was enforced. 7. The petitioner has asserted that he has attained qualification equivalent to Intermediate by acquiring Sahityabhushan degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. The learned State counsel has referred to decision in “Smt. Kiran Kumari and Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others” [W.P.(S) No. 6100 of 2003] whereunder it has been held that degree of Sahityalankar granted by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is not equivalent to Graduation or Bachelor in Arts, but at the same time this has to be kept in mind that the dispute in Smt. Kiran Kumari case pertained to promotion in service. In the said case also appointment of the teachers who possessed degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar was not interfered by the Court. The petitioner who was appointed on 22.09.2002 cannot be held ineligible on the ground that he possesses a degree equivalent to Intermediate, that is, Sahityabhushan from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. Moreover, in “Kiran Kumari” equivalence of Sahityabhushan awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth was not an issue before the Court. 8. Another aspect which is pertinent to be mentioned here is that the decision in “Kiran Kumari” came on 19.09.2014 and the judgement of Patna High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1326 of 2012 was rendered on 06.03.2013. Moreover, in “Kiran Kumari” equivalence of Sahityabhushan awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth was not an issue before the Court. 8. Another aspect which is pertinent to be mentioned here is that the decision in “Kiran Kumari” came on 19.09.2014 and the judgement of Patna High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1326 of 2012 was rendered on 06.03.2013. These judgements cannot be made applicable retrospectively to hold that the petitioner does not fulfill requisite educational qualification; all transactions completed prior to the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases must not be disturbed unless the Court holds that appointment of a candidate possessing Sahityabhushan degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is illegal. No such declaration has been rendered by the writ Court in Kiran Kumari case; the Court has held that those who hold the degree of Sahityalankar are not entitled for promotion. 9. In the aforesaid facts, impugned orders dated 11.01.2016, 23.07.2016 and 02.11.2016 are held illegal and accordingly, quashed. 10. The writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner shall be granted benefit of continuity in service and paid salary for the period he has actually worked.