JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order as contained in Reference dated 30.07.2008 issued under the signature of Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, by which, the approval of the appointment of the petitioner has been determined w.e.f the date on which he obtained the degree of B.Ed and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of Resolution of the Government of Bihar dated 05.03.1991, wherein the compulsion of training for appointment of teacher was abolished and also for direction upon the respondents for payment of salary to the petitioner in prescribed pay-scale w.e.f the date of his appointment. 2. The facts, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Science Teacher, having qualification of B.Sc. (Hons) with Siksha Visarad, alleged to be equivalent to B.Ed, from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, by the Managing Committee of Saint Mary High School, Samtoli, Simdega on 01.03.1997. It has been averred that after appointment of the petitioner, the Managing Committee sent a proposal to respondents-authorities for grant of approval of the appointment of the petitioner, but, it remained pending for quite a long period. Being aggrieved, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3925 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2008 giving liberty to the petitioner to submit representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, who, in turn was directed to pass speaking order in accordance with law. With the liberty aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Director, Secondary Education with a prayer to grant of approval of his appointment and also to make payment of arrears of salary in the prescribed scale of Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f the date on which he was appointed. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-Director, Secondary Education passed impugned order dated 30.07.2008 whereby prayer for grant of approval of his appointment from his initial appointment i.e. 01.03.1997 was turned down and instead thereof, approval was granted w.e.f 10.04.2008 i.e. from the date, when he obtained the B.Ed degree from the recognized institution and accordingly, payment of his salary in the existing scale was allowed from the aforesaid cut of date. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far B.Ed degree submitted by the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment is concerned, the District Education Officer, Gumla in its letter dated 06.07.1999 while referring to the case of petitioner to Bihar School Service Board had categorically mentioned that the degree of Siksha Visarad being offered by Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad is equivalent to B.Ed degree, which the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar in its letter dated 29.03.2000 has also affirmed but the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination only on the basis of judgment rendered in L.P.A No. 235 of 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that even Resolution dated 05.03.1991 issued by the Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar has clarified that for appointment of teachers the compulsion of training is not necessary rather the same was abolished but misinterpreting the contents of the aforesaid resolution, respondent-Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a decision rendered in the case of Md. Abu Sama Ansari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 5639 of 2004 dated 28.03.2007, wherein the Hon’ble Court taking note of Resolution dated 05.03.1991 held that at least the petitioner is entitled to get his actual pay-scale of untrained teacher revised from time to time till the date of passing of B.Ed degree from recognized Institution. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner was possessing the degree of Shiksha Visarad, alleged to be equivalent to B.Ed, from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which was later on derecognized, hence, when the petitioner has no requisite qualification at the time of initial appointment, his prayer is untenable in law. Furthermore, this issue has abundantly been decided in L.P.A. No. 235 of 2004 vide order dated 30.03.2005, wherein it has been held that “…… The appellants/petitioners having no requisite qualification of Teacher Training as per Rule 2 (kh) of the Rules of 2002, many of them having obtained training qualification from unrecognized institution and the institution even found fake by the UGC and Degree/Diploma certificate obtained in other cases are not being equivalent to Trained Graduate/Teacher Training no relief can be granted to any of them…..”. Furthermore, in order dated 30.03.2005, the Hon’ble Division Bench has also dealt with the question of recommendation by the Deputy Director and held that the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar have distorted the fact and had sent wrong information to the Secretary, School Examination Board by its letter dated 29.03.2000. It has further been submitted that the respondents-authorities on humanitarian ground only approved the appointment of the petitioner from 10.04.2008 i.e. the date when he obtained B.Ed degree from recognized institution. So far as question of discrimination is concerned, the petitioner has not named any specific person rather made a bald statement that other persons have been granted approval even on fake certificate of teachers training, which is not sufficient to prove the factum of discrimination. So far resolution dated 05.03.1991, as referred by the petitioner, is concerned that is not applicable in the case of petitioner as the petitioner is a teacher in minority school and was appointed by Managing Committee. 5. Having perused the materials available on record and after giving my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons: (i).The petitioner was initially appointed as Science Teacher on 01.03.1997 by the Managing Committee of the school in a Government aided minority school-Saint Mary High School, Samtoli, Simdega, having possessed degree of B.Sc and Shiksha Visrad, alleged to be equivalent to B.Ed, from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Thereafter, the Managing Committee of the said school forwarded his case for approval before respondents-authorities but when no order of approval was passed by the respondents-authorities, the petitioner preferred W.P. (S) No. 3925 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2008. For better appreciation, order dated 02.04.2008 is reproduced herein below: “Heard the parties finally. Mr. K.K. Ojha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the appointment of other persons, who had also obtained B.Ed degree from the unrecognized institutions were confirmed. State counsel submitted that in view of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 235 of 2004 with analogous cases, disposed of on 30.03.2005, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He further submitted that if any illegality was done in ignorance of the said judgment, the same cannot be perpetuated by this Court. State counsel submitted that in view of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 235 of 2004 with analogous cases, disposed of on 30.03.2005, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He further submitted that if any illegality was done in ignorance of the said judgment, the same cannot be perpetuated by this Court. He further submitted that petitioner’s appointment based on the certificate in Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad being invalid, his appointment itself was void. On this, Mr. Ojha submitted that now petitioner has completed the course from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in December, 2004, which is a recognized institution and therefore now at least the respondents should consider his case for confirmation. In the circumstances, petitioner is given liberty to make a representation before the Director, Secondary School, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi (respondent no. 3), who will pass speaking order on the same in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.” (Own emphasis) Later on, order dated 02.04.2008 was modified vide order dated 30.04.2008 to the effect that in paragraph 4 in place of “December, 2004”, it shall be read as “December, 2007”. From plain reading of order dated 02.04.2008, it appears that on the submissions advanced by the parties, in particular the submission of respondents that “…petitioner’s appointment based on the certificate in Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad being invalid…” and submission of counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has now in the year 2007 has completed the course B.Ed from IGNOU, now at least the respondents should consider his case for confirmation”, the Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on his representation. (ii).On such direction, impugned order dated 30.07.2008 was passed, taking into consideration the order passed by this Court and Resolution dated 05.03.1991, whereby services of petitioner was approved from the date of obtaining of his B.Ed certificate from IGNOU. (iii). But, taking recourse of Resolution dated 05.03.1991, which says untrained teachers can be appointed subject to their training during service, the petitioner has approached this Court for approval of his services since his initial joining. (iii). But, taking recourse of Resolution dated 05.03.1991, which says untrained teachers can be appointed subject to their training during service, the petitioner has approached this Court for approval of his services since his initial joining. For better appreciation, before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of Resolution dated 05.03.1991: LkadYi la[;k & 103&56@88 ¼va'k½ f'k0&116 fcgkj ljdkj ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ladYi iVuk %& fnukad 5 ekpZ 1991 fo"k;%& vUrj lsok dkyhu izf'k{k.k dh O;oLFkkA ----------------------------------------------------------------- jktdh; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa ¼eSfVªd rFkk Lukrd½ esa es/kkdze ds vuqlkj ukekadu gksrk gS ijUrq vjktdh; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa esa ukekadu esa ;g izfdz;k ugha viuk;h tkrh gSA bl izdkj vjktdh; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa esa dnkpkj O;kIr gS vkSj ;g foRrh; ykHk dk ,d lzksr gks x;k gSA mi;qZDr fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, jkT; ljdkj )kjk vf/kfu;e Hkh iz[;kfir fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd dksbZ Hkh laLFkk ;k O;fDr fcuk jkT; ljdkj ds iwokZuqefr ds fdlh izdkj dk f'k{kd izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky; dh LFkkiuk ugha dj ldrk gSA lkFk gh ,slh laLFkkvksa ds izLohd`fr@lEcU/ku ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk 'krsZ Hkh foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k 1107 fnukad 25&11&87 ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh x;h gSA fQj Hkh bldk dksbZ [kkl vlj ugha iM+k gSA vr% mi;qZDr i`"BHkwfe esa vjktdh; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa esa dnkpkj nwj djus ds fy;s ,oa izf'k{k.k ds Lrj dks mUur djus ds mn~ns'; ls jkT; ljdkj n~okjk fuEukafdr fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA ¼d½ f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr esa izf'k{k.k dh vfuok;Zrk lekIr dh tkrh gSA ¼[k½ fu;qfDr ds i'pkr lsokdkyhu izf'k{k.k jktdh; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa esa fnyk;h tk;sxhA ¼x½ f'k{kd ds in ij fu;qfDr ds fy;s p;u dh izfdz;k lsok ij vk/kkfjr ¼esfjV½ gksxhA ¼?k½ lEcfU/kr f'k{kk fu;a=.k lEoxZ dh fu;qfDr lEc/kh fu;ekoyh esa vko';d la'kks/ku rqjar dj 'kklu dk vuqeksnu izkIr dj ysaxs tks bl ladYi ds fuxZr dh frfFk ls iwjs jkT; esa izHkkoh gksxkA (own emphasis) (iv). In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, now the only question that comes for consideration is whether Resolution dated 05.03.1991, comes to rescue the petitioner entitling him to get salary of at least untrained teacher till he obtained the valid certificate. (v). In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, now the only question that comes for consideration is whether Resolution dated 05.03.1991, comes to rescue the petitioner entitling him to get salary of at least untrained teacher till he obtained the valid certificate. (v). From plain reading of Resolution dated 05.03.1991 it appear that for the prevalent corruption in non-government teacher training institute, it was decided to take away the compulsion of teacher's training for appointment of teacher though in place thereof in-service training was substituted. But, in the said Resolution, at paragraph 3 (Gha), a direction was given to make necessary amendment in Teachers' Appointment Rules after obtaining necessary recommendation from Government. But, no chit of paper was shown to establish the fact that any amendment was made in consequence thereof. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner taking recourse of Resolution dated 05.03.1991. Even otherwise also, the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1997 among eligible candidates on the basis of his degree of B.Sc and Shiksha Visarad, alleged to be equivalent to B.Ed. But, the degree of Shiksha Visarad, obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was termed as invalid. But, in the circumstances of the case, the respondents-authorities have rightly decided to approve the services of the petitioner from the date when he obtained the valid degree of B.Ed, which needs no interference by this Court. (vi).So far the question of parity is concerned, the petitioner has neither given any figure nor any specific name, to whom, he is comparing himself and moreover, it is settled principle of law and if wrong is perpetuated no one can claim parity with it. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 30.07.2008 does not warrant any interference and accordingly, the writ petition, is dismissed being devoid of any merit.