JUDGMENT : Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. These two writ applications have been placed before this Full Bench to resolve the issues raised by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 20.03.2017 passed in C.W.J.C,. No. 11255 of 2016. In order to appreciate the reference, we think it just and proper to re-produce the order dated 20.03.2017 as under : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have moved the Court being aggrieved by non-consideration of their case for promotion to B.A. Trained Scale. The petitioners have the degree of Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deogarh which is claimed to be equivalent to graduate degree. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that being equivalent, such degree has to be recognized for the purposes of promotion also, since based on such degree, they havegot post graduate degree from Nalanda Open University which is the University of the State Government. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 11.01.1991 by which Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deogarh has been made at par with B.A. degree with the rider that it should be with English. Learned counsel submitted that even a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 11 of 2014 (Dr. Amresh Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) dated 27.01.2016 as well as L.P.A. No. 460 of 2014 (Binod Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) dated 19.08.2016 has held that a person having Sahitya Alankar degree on the basis of which he had achieved higher qualification, shall be considered for the purpose of giving promotion to B.A./Graduate Trained Scale. Learned counsel also referred to a coordinate Bench judgment dated 03.05.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4401 of 2013 (Chandra Bhushan Pd. Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) for the same proposition. Learned counsel for the State submitted that all the orders passed, including that by the Division Benches, have not taken into consideration the earlier order passed by a Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 13836 of 2012 (Murlidhar Singh and Ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.) dated 27.11.2012, where it has been held that for the purposes of employment or promotion the qualification of Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deogarh cannot be taken into consideration. Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.) dated 27.11.2012, where it has been held that for the purposes of employment or promotion the qualification of Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deogarh cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel submitted that the said view was also expressed by this Court in earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Bihar vs. Mamta Kumari, (2010) 4 PLJR 318 and Poonam Sharma vs. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 PLJR 226 . It was submitted that the Court in the said decision has referred to various articles of the Bihar Education Code as well as provisions of the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers' Promotion Rules, 1993, which subsequent judgments have not considered. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the subsequent judgments of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, having not considered/noticed the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Murlidhar Singh and Ors. (supra), and also taking into account the fact that subsequently the Government has also clarified the situation by categorically holding that Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deogarh shall not be recognized as equivalent to graduate degree in Notification No. 5267 dated 08.04.2016 of the General Administration Department, the matter is referred to a Larger Bench for considering the issue. Accordingly, the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for being heard by a Full Bench." 2. The petitioners in these cases were appointed as Assistant Teachers against Matric Trained Posts and were posted in different elementary schools in the District of Begusarai. They had obtained their certificate of Sahityaalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar that was at the relevant time of their appointment taken as equivalent to a graduation degree. It appears that some disputes with regard to promotion of the elementary school teachers were under consideration in L.P.A. No. 985 of 1996 and its analogous cases which were ultimately disposed of on 21.04.2009 (Ramnath Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar, (2009) 3 PLJR 384 ) by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court with a direction to fill all the vacancies in light of the observations made. The State of Bihar, (2009) 3 PLJR 384 ) by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court with a direction to fill all the vacancies in light of the observations made. The relevant paragraph no.8 and 9 of the judgment of Ramnath Prasad Singh (Supra) are quoted hereunder for a ready reference : "The learned Advocate General pointed out that in view of the direction of the Division Bench, a consolidated list was prepared without any distinction between Arts and Science teachers and fresh rules were framed (but not implemented) only because of the directions of the Division Bench in Naresh Jha's case (supra) and due to urgency of the matter but subject to the orders of the Court in these cases. In view of the interim order, it has not been finalised. We are of the view that the direction of the Division Bench in Naresh Jha's case (supra), without setting aside the valid Promotion Rules 1993 was not correct. We overrule the same. It is for the Government to make separate lists of qualified teachers for both Science and Arts subjects as per the quota/unit fixed for promotion to Grade 4 and promotions can be made separately depending upon quota fixed for promotion among the Arts and Science teachers. But, after Grade 4, a common seniority list is to be prepared for promotion, so that both Arts and Science teachers could become Headmasters based on such common seniority list as prescribed in the Promotion Rules, 1993. 9. In the light of the above, we are of the view that a fresh seniority list has to be prepared in accordance with the Promotion Rules 1993 and the joint seniority list prepared in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench in Naresh Jha's case (supra) and the draft Rules created in 2006 subject to the approval of this Court with regard to promotions cannot be acted upon. We direct the Government to prepare a fresh list and make consequential promotions and transfers according to law. No separate orders are necessary. In view of the interim order of status quo granted, promotions were not made for the last 10 years. In the above circumstances, we direct the Government to make separate seniority lists for promotion to Grade 4 for Arts and Science teachers afresh and thereafter to prepare a consolidated list for promotion as expeditiously as possible. In view of the interim order of status quo granted, promotions were not made for the last 10 years. In the above circumstances, we direct the Government to make separate seniority lists for promotion to Grade 4 for Arts and Science teachers afresh and thereafter to prepare a consolidated list for promotion as expeditiously as possible. The draft list should be published within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the final seniority list shall be thereafter published and promotions and transfers made in accordance with law." 3. The State Government, thereafter, promulgated Bihar Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rule 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 201') and proceeded to prepare the seniority list of Matric Trained Teachers in the district in which the petitioners were posted. Name of these petitioners found place in their respective position and to this extent they had no grievance. The petitioners got aggrieved when they found that their names were not included in the final seniority list which was prepared for promotion to the B.A. (Trained) posts. Respondent no. 5 and 6 prepared a separate seniority list of the persons having degrees of Sahityaalankar obtained from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar and then without publication of the final seniority list the respondent no. 5 and 6 promoted persons who were junior to the petitioners. Name of these petitioners were not considered for promotion on the post of B.A. (Trained) posts. A statutory appeal said to have been preferred before respondent no. 4 remained pending. 4. It is the case of the petitioners no. 1 to 7 that they had passed out and were declared successful in the Sahityaalankar examination in the year 2002, 2006, 2003, 2002, 1999, 2002 and 2000 respectively. They also completed their post graduation from Nalanda Open University after obtaining due permission from the competent authority. Their results were published in the year 2009, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2002 and 2003 respectively. It is stated that all the petitioners have done their post graduation in History subject except petitioner no. 2 who has done M. A. in Political Science. 5. Petitioners have relied upon notification No. 541 dated 11.01.1999 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure 5') by which the Govt. It is stated that all the petitioners have done their post graduation in History subject except petitioner no. 2 who has done M. A. in Political Science. 5. Petitioners have relied upon notification No. 541 dated 11.01.1999 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure 5') by which the Govt. of Bihar declared and granted permanent equivalence to the degree of Sahityaalankar awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar as equivalent to graduation in Arts. They also sought to rely upon the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 11 of 2014 (Dr. Amaresh Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors) and L.P.A. No. 1027 of 2014 (Ganesh Prasad Singh and Ors. V. The State of Bihar and Ors) to submit that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had in similar circumstances taken a view that Sahityaalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar was granted equivalence with graduation for the purpose of joining as Teacher and it is only by virtue of that Rules of the year 2011, effectively, the equivalence has been taken away. Prior to 2011 Rules, first time on 27.08.2008 the State Government had issued circular by which equivalence /validity have been withdrawn. Therefore, it pre-supposes that at least up to 2008, the State was recommending Sahityaalankar as equivalent to graduation and therefore, any person who had earned the citation, cannot be denied benefit but any person who got it thereafter cannot claim equivalence. Facts in C.W.J.C. No. 3828 of 2015 6. Altogether 15 persons have joined in this writ application seeking a writ of Mandamus that the Sahityaalankar degree acquired by the petitioners be treated as equivalent to a graduation degree and by virtue of that the petitioners be granted promotion as per stipulated Rules and Regulations and to pay them the arrears from the date of their eligibility for the promotion. 7. In the writ application in a tabular chart the petitioners have provided the date of their initial appointment and the year in which they acquired Sahityaalankar degree. For ready reference this Court is placing the same hereinbelow in a tabular chart by combining them as under: Petitioner no. 7. In the writ application in a tabular chart the petitioners have provided the date of their initial appointment and the year in which they acquired Sahityaalankar degree. For ready reference this Court is placing the same hereinbelow in a tabular chart by combining them as under: Petitioner no. Date of Initial Appointment Sahityaalankar Degree Acquired in Year 1 06.12.1999 2002 2 06.12.1999 1998 3 30.06.1987 2000 4 06.12.1999 2010 5 06.12.1999 2002 6 06.12.1999 2002 7 20.11.1999 8 29.09.1994 2001 9 07.01.2000 2003 10 06.12.1999 2000 11 06.12.1999 2003 12 23.12.1999 2002 13 06.12.1999 2003 14 29.09.1994 2008 15 01.02.1993 2008 8. In course of hearing of the writ application learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners informed us that some of the petitioners had also acquired post graduation degree. As regards petitioner no. 7 there was no information in the tabular chart in the writ application with regard to the year in which he had obtained Sahityaalankar degree. We had thus, permitted learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners to place the said information on record through an affidavit. An affidavit in the form of second supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in this writ application. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that out of 15 petitioners, seven petitioners namely, petitioner no. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 11 have improved their educational qualifications. Petitioners no. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 have done their post graduation from Nalanda Open University and Indira Gandhi National Open University. Petitioner no. 3 and 6 have done M.A. (Setu) from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar. 10. It is further stated that petitioners no. 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are only Sahityaalankar. Petitioner no. 4 has passed his Sahityaalankar in the year 2010, however, the petitioner no. 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 all have acquired Sahityaalankar degree in between the year 2001 and 2008. 11. It is submitted that the promotion of the petitioners who are teachers of Elementary Schools is governed by Bihar Taken Over Elementary Schools Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 which came into effect on 09.07.1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Rule 2 (3) and Rule 2 (10) of the Rules provide the grades of Elementary Schools Teachers. There are presently 8 grade scales in existence for the government teachers in the State of Bihar. Rule 2 (3) and Rule 2 (10) of the Rules provide the grades of Elementary Schools Teachers. There are presently 8 grade scales in existence for the government teachers in the State of Bihar. The grades as per their qualification are mentioned hereunder for sake of convenience: Grade Classification Grade 1 Matric trained Basic Scale Grade 2 Matric trained Senior Scale Grade 3 Matric trained Selection Scale Grade 4 Trained Arts Graduate/Trained Science Graduate Grade 5 Trained Graduate Senior Scale Grade 6 Trained Selection Scale Grade 7 Middle School Headmasters Basic Scale Grade 8 Middle Schools Headmaster Senior Scale 12. It is stated that on 07.05.2012 when the gradation list was prepared, the name of the petitioners was in the list but subsequently in the gradation list dated 16.06.2012 their names were removed on the ground that the Sahityaalankar degree possessed by them is not recognized. It is submitted that Rule 7(2) of the Rules which governs the promotion of the petitioners, Grade- 4, requires a trained graduate and minimum 8 years of service in Grade 1, which the petitioners fulfill. According to Rule 4(2) of the Rules, the candidates should possess the minimum prescribed educational qualification with reference to Rule 2(6) of the Rules i.e. Trained Arts graduate. It is their submission that all languages are considered 'Arts' subject and almost all the Universities of India offer degrees in Hindi and other languages which are 'Arts' degree. 13. By filing a supplementary affidavit the petitioners have brought on record a notification contained in Letter No. 3- 5267 dated 08.04.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar. This notification is said to have been issued keeping in view the observations made by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13343 of 2011 (Reeta Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors, (2012) 3 PLJR 353 ). The notification states that by the judgment and order dated 07.05.2012 this Court held, that from the date of order, the different degrees awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar were declared not to be valid but the order categorically held that all degrees issued prior to 07.05.2012 by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar would not affect the appointment and promotions already made. The notification states that by the judgment and order dated 07.05.2012 this Court held, that from the date of order, the different degrees awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar were declared not to be valid but the order categorically held that all degrees issued prior to 07.05.2012 by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar would not affect the appointment and promotions already made. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the notification dated 08.04.2016 (Annexure 2' to the supplementary affidavit) all the petitioners who have obtained their Sahityaalankar degree prior to date of notification shall be entitled to have their degree of Sahityaalankar acknowledged for consideration to the promotion in the scale of B.A. (Trained) Scale. Stand of the State 14. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in C.W.J.C. No. 11255 of 2016 a stand has been taken that the State Government made a Rule with respect to promotions in Government Elementary Schools. Copy of the notification no. 940 dated 06.09.2011 has been placed on record to submit that the Promotion Committee called for applications from eligible teachers and after considering the Rules and norms in the light of the notifications of the State Government and adjudications of this Court found, that those candidates who do not fulfil the conditions under rules and regulations of the State Government their candidatures are to be rejected. 15. Respondents have also referred to Memo No. 225 (Law) Patna dated 07.06.2012 issued to all the District Education Officers of Bihar directing them that for promotion, Sahityaalankar degree is not sustainable/equivalent and are therefore not to be treated as equivalent. They have also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Reeta Srivastava (Supra) and have submitted that in similar circumstances when the teachers belonging to the District of Banka filed writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 13836 of 2012 (Mulrlidhar Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) the same was referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench and then the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that a certificate of Sahityaalankar conferred by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar is not recognized for the purpose of appointment or promotion of teachers. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) the same was referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench and then the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that a certificate of Sahityaalankar conferred by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar is not recognized for the purpose of appointment or promotion of teachers. It is their submission that the petitioners who have got Sahityaalankar degree during their service tenure are not possessing an equivalent citation to a graduation degree, hence, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Murlidhar Singh (supra), the notification and the guidelines the petitioners have no case. 16. In C.W.J.C. No. 3828 of 2015 a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Programme officer (Establishment), Banka. It is his submission that in a case where minimum qualification is prescribed as Bachelor degree, a person cannot claim promotion or their benefits by virtue of acquiring a qualification of Sahityaalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohghar. This counter affidavit reiterates the judgment of this Court in the case of Reeta Srivastava (supra) and some of the Hon'ble Division Bench Judgments on the same line. He has brought on record the notification bearing Letter No. 10878 dated 24.08.2017 issued by the General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar to submit that the departmental order as contained in Memo No. 541 dated 11th January,1991 has been cancelled with effect from 07.05.2012 i.e. the date of the judgment in the case of Reeta Srivastava (supra) but then after obtaining opinion from the learned Advocate General a decision has been taken that the appointments made and promotions given in between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 on the basis of Sahityaalankar degree obtained prior to 07.05.2012 shall remain unaffected but no appointment/promotion shall be granted after 08.04.2016 on the basis of those certificates. Consideration Developments during pendency of Reference 17. In the aforementioned background of the facts, before we proceed to take a view in these matters, it would be important to note that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court comprising two of us (Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra) had occasion to consider C.W.J.C. No. 5129 of 2009 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. In the aforementioned background of the facts, before we proceed to take a view in these matters, it would be important to note that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court comprising two of us (Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra) had occasion to consider C.W.J.C. No. 5129 of 2009 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) and its analogous matters which were pending for consideration in view of the order of remand by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed on 6th January, 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 4273 of 2014 and Civil Appeal No. 4274 of 2014. 18. In those writ applications a dispute had arisen with regard to selection and appointment on the post of Librarian in an institution governed by the provisions of the Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik Evam Uchchtar Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Evam Seva Sharten Niyamavali, 2006. The petitioners were claiming their entitlement for employment on the ground that they possessed an equivalent qualification of Sahityaalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohar. Earlier the Hon'ble Division Bench had allowed the writ application vide a decision (Sanjay Kumar and Or. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors, (2009) 4 PLJR 1038 .) Questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court the State of Bihar moved in Civil Appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court where the Hon'ble Apex Court had been pleased to note that an advertisement bearing no. 11 dated 25.08.2008 was issued by Government of Bihar, Human Resources and Development Department for appointment to the post of Librarian and Teacher in different schools under Zila Parishad and Nagar Nikaya in the State of Bihar. The respondents applied for the post of Librarian. After the advertisement was issued, the department came out with order no. 11 /Ma.1-01/2008 on 27.08.2008 containing exhaustive list of twenty eight colleges/universities /degrees that were not then recognized by the Government of Bihar for the purpose of the Recruitment Rules 2006 and the Advertisement dated 25.08.2008 and such degrees were not valid for employment of teachers. Another order no. 11/M-44/2008-1968 was issued on 25.11.2008 declaring that the degree of Sahityaalankar awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohghar is not valid for employment. 19. Having taken note of the aforesaid facts, in paragraph 8, 9, 10 and 11 the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the issues and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration. Another order no. 11/M-44/2008-1968 was issued on 25.11.2008 declaring that the degree of Sahityaalankar awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohghar is not valid for employment. 19. Having taken note of the aforesaid facts, in paragraph 8, 9, 10 and 11 the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the issues and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration. Those paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 are quoted hereunder for a ready reference: 8. The issue involved in these appeals is concerned with the interpretation of provisions in Rule 4 (k) (vii) (a) of Bihar District Council, Secondary and Higher Secondary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Manual 2006 as amended in 2008. As noticed earlier, Rule 4(k)(vii)(a) prescribes that the candidate must have passed graduation examination with minimum 45% marks from any recognized university. It is the contention of the State that the respondents do not fulfill the eligibility criteria as they possessed graduation degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth Deoghar which is not a recognized university. As noticed above, as per the direction of the Patna High Court in CWJC No.15237/2007, the State of Bihar examined the matter and by an order dated 25.11.2008 held that degree of Sahityaalankar cannot be a valid degree for appointment as teacher. Para 6 of the said order reads as under:- "In Bihar District Council/Urban Body Secondary/Higher Secondary (Employment and Service Conditions) Manual, 2006, there is no provision to employing on any equivalent degree. Besides it, for employment, after deciding the all phases, the degree of "Sahityaalankar" given by Deoghar Vidyapeeth and other many degrees have not been decided recognized." Mainly, the holder of Sahityaalankar Degree appear only at exam of some Sahitya papers while general B.A. pass the exam of graduation in many papers, which is more useful for education, due to this reason the degree of Sahityaalankar from Deoghar Vidyapeeth is not valid for employment." Contention of the appellants is that pursuant to the above, the State sent instructions to all the districts vide Order dated 13.12.2008 directing them to have appointment of teachers and librarians in accordance with Recruitment Rules 2006 as amended in 2008 and notification governing the validity of degrees. 9. 9. On behalf of the State, it is further submitted that the validity of Sahityaalankar degree from the Hindi Vidyapeeth Deoghar and its equivalence with the graduation degree has been considered in detail by the Patna High Court in subsequent decisions filed by the State of Bihar in CWJC No.13343/2011 and several other connected matters. It is submitted that in the above batch matters, High Court has rejected the claim of the petitioners thereon that the Degree of Sahityaalankar is equivalent to graduation degree and the State of Bihar heavily relies upon the said judgment in CWJC No.13343/2011 and batch matters. It was also submitted that the letter dated 11.01.1991 should be read in consonance with earlier circular with respect to Hindi Vidyapeeth Deoghar wherein it has been mentioned that any recognition given to such degrees including Sahityaalankar is only for the purpose of Hindi examination and not at par with graduation or equivalence and in this regard reliance is placed upon Press Note dated 05.05.1988 issued by the Central Government. 10. Having regard to the stand of the appellants and reliance placed upon order dated 25.11.2008 and the Press Note dated 05.05.1988 and the subsequent decision in CWJC 13343/2011 etc. and in the interest of justice without commenting on the merit of the case, we deem it necessary to remit the matter back to the High Court for consideration afresh. 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the same is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties. Liberty granted to the parties to file additional documents/pleadings. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, intervention application stands disposed of granting liberty to the interveners to approach the High Court in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs." 20. While considering the writ applications of Sanjay Kumar and Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench took note of the developments which took place during the pendency of the writ petitions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs." 20. While considering the writ applications of Sanjay Kumar and Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench took note of the developments which took place during the pendency of the writ petitions. The notification dated 08.04.2016 and 24.08.2017 came to be considered and those are re-produced hereunder:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx vf/klwpuk iVuk&15] fnukad 8-4-2016 i=kad&3@,eŒ&15@2015 lkŒÁŒ 5267@lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx ¼rRdkyhu dkfeZd ,oa Áf'k{k.k foHkkx½ ds vkns'k Kkikad&8@vkjŒ&1&303@84 dkŒ&541 fnukad 11 tuojh] 1991 }kjk ljdkjh lsokvksa esa fu;qfDr gsrq fgUnh fo|kihB] nso/kj }kjk nh tkus okyh mikf/k;ksa] ;Fkk&Áosf'kdk] lkfgR;Hkw"k.k ,oa lkfgR;yadkj ¼Lukrd ds led{k½ dks Øe'k eSfVªd] vkbZŒ,Œ ,oa chŒ,Œ ds led{k dfri; 'krksZ ds v/khu ekU;rk Ánku dh x;h FkhA 2- fgUnh fo|kihB nso/kj }kjk ÁnRr ^^lkfgR;yadkj** dh mikf/k dh ekU;rk ds laca/k esa lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ la[;k 13343@2011 esa fnukad 7-5-2012 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ikfjr U;k;kns'k ds voyksdu ls Kkr gksrk gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us u dsoy lkfgR;yadkj dh mikf/k dh ekU;rk ds laca/k esa viuk fopkj j[kk gS] cfYd dsUæh; fgUnh funs'kky; }kjk fuxZr fnukad 5-5-1998 ds Ásl uksV ds vk/kkj ij LoSfPNd laLFkkuksa }kjk ÁnRr Áek.ki=] fMxzh ,oa fMIyksek dh mikf/k dks gkbZ Ldwy] bUVjehfM,V vFkok chŒ,Œ ds led{k ugha ekuk gSA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh mi;qZDr U;k;kns'k dk lkfgR;yadkj dh mikf/k ds lkFk&lkFk Áosf'kdk ,oa lkfgR;Hkw"k.k dh mikf/k ds vk/kkj ij ÁkIr ukSdjh ,oa ÁksUufr ij iM+us okys ÁHkko ,oa Hkfo"; esa blds vk/kkj ij jkT; esa ljdkjh lsok esa fu;qfDr vFkok ÁksUufr dk Á'u ljdkj ds le{k fopkjk/khu FkkA 3- f'k{kk foHkkx ¼rRdkyhu ekuo lalk/ku foHkkx½ }kjk fcgkj jkT; ds ÁkjafHkd ,oa ek/;fed@ mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu gsrq fMxzh@mikf/k;ksa dh ekU;rk rFkk led{krk ds laca/k esa fuxZr vkns'k Kkikad Øe'k% 3152 fnukad 25-8-2008 ,oa 1346 fnukad 27-8-2008 }kjk fgUnh fo|kihB] nso/kj }kjk ÁnRr Áosf'kdk] lkfgR;Hkw"k.k ,oa lkfgR;yadkj dh mikf/k;ksa dks ÁkjafHkd@ek/;fed ,oa mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kd fu;kstu gsrq iwoZ esa gh vekU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA 4- mi;qZDr of.kZr rF;ksa ,oa lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ uEcj 13343@2011 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ikfjr fnukad 7-5-2012 ds leqfDr;ksa ,oa U;k;kns'k ds vkyksd esa leqfpr fopkjksijkar fgUnh fo|kihB] nso/kj }kjk ÁnRr fofHkUu mikf/k;ksa dh ekU;rk laca/kh foHkkxh; vkns'k Kkikad&8@vkjŒ 01&303@84 dkŒ&541 fnukad 11 tuojh] 1991 dks mDr U;k;kns'k dh frfFk vFkkZr~ fnukad 7-5-2012 ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr frfFk ls iwoZ fgUnh fo|kihB] nso/kj }kjk ÁnRr fofHkUu mikf/k;ksa ds vk/kkj ij dh x;h fu;qfDr@ÁksUufr ij bldk dksbZ ÁHkko ugha iM+sxkA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls ¼vf'ouh nRrk=s; Bkdjs] HkkŒÁŒlsŒ½ ljdkj ds vij lfpo Kki la[;k&3@,eŒ&15@2015 lkŒÁŒ 5267@iVuk&15] fnukad 8-4-2016 Áfrfyfi & v/kh{kd] lfpoky; eqæ.kky;] xqytkjckx] iVuk@bZ&xtV dks"kkax] foRr foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dks fcgkj jkti= ds vlk/kkj.k vad esa Ádk'kukFkZ Ásf"krA ¼vf'ouh nRrk=s; Bkdjs] HkkŒÁŒlsŒ½ ljdkj ds vij lfpo Kki la[;k&3@,eŒ&15@2015 lkŒÁŒ 5267@iVuk&15] fnukad 8-4-2016 Áfrfyfi & lHkh foHkkx@lHkh foHkkxk/;{k@lHkh ÁeaMyh; vk;qDr@lHkh ftyk inkf/kdkjh@fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx@fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx@fcikMZ] ckfYe] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq Ásf"kr ¼vf'ouh nRrk=s; Bkdjs] HkkŒÁŒlsŒ½ ljdkj ds vij lfpo fcgkj ljdkj lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx vf/klwpuk iVuk&15] fnukad 24-8-2017 i=kad&3@,eŒ&15@2015 lkŒÁŒ 10878@lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx ¼rRdkyhu dkfeZd ,oa Áf'k{k.k foHkkx½ ds vkns'k Kkikad&8@vkjŒ&1&303@84 dkŒ&541 fnukad 11 tuojh] 1991 }kjk ljdkjh lsokvksa esa fu;qfDr gsrq fgUnh fo|kihB] nso/kj }kjk nh tkus okyh mikf/k;ksa] ;Fkk&Áosf'kdk] lkfgR;Hkw"k.k ,oa lkfgR;yadkj ¼Lukrd ds led{k½ dks Øe'k eSfVªd] vkbZŒ,Œ ,oa chŒ,Œ ds led{k dfri; 'krksZ ds v/khu ekU;rk Ánku dh x;h FkhA 2- fgUnh fo|kihB nso/kj }kjk ÁnRr ^^lkfgR;yadkj** dh mikf/k dh ekU;rk ds laca/k esa lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ la[;k 13343@2011 esa fnukad 7-5-2012 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ikfjr U;k;kns'k ds vuqikyu esa foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk Kkikad 5267 fnukad 8-4-2016 }kjk fuEukafdr fu.kZ; vf/klwfpr fd;k x;kA lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ uEcj 13343@2011 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ikfjr fnukad 7-5-2012 ds leqfDr;ksa ,oa U;k;kns'k ds vkyksd esa leqfpr fopkjksijkar fgUnh fo|kihB] nso/kj }kjk ÁnRr fofHkUu mikf/k;ksa dh ekU;rk laca/kh foHkkxh; vkns'k Kkikad&8@vkjŒ 01&303@84 dkŒ&541 fnukad 11 tuojh] 1991 dks mDr U;k;kns'k dh frfFk vFkkZr~ fnukad 7-5-2012 ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr frfFk ls iwoZ fgUnh fo|kihB] nso/kj }kjk ÁnRr fofHkUu mikf/k;ksa ds vk/kkj ij dh x;h fu;qfDr@ÁksUufr ij bldk dksbZ ÁHkko ugha iM+sxkA 3- mDr fu.kZ; ds laca/k esa dfri; foHkkxksa ls fnukad 7-5-2012 ds iwoZ fgUnh fo|kihB] nso/kj }kjk ÁnRr fofHkUu mikf/k;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 7-5-2012 ls vf/klwpuk fuxZr fd;s tkus dh frfFk 8-4-2016 ds chp dh x;h fu;qfDr@ÁksUufr ds laca/k esa Li"V fn'kk funs'k miyC/k djkus dk vuqjks/k ÁkIr gqvkA 4- Áklafxd ekeys esa fo}ku egkf/koDrk }kjk fn;s x;s ijke'kZ dk dk;Zdkjh va'k fuEuor gS% "Thus in my opinion, the clause simply means that appointments/promotions made/given on the basis of certificates issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar prior to 07.05.2012 until the issuance of the notification by the G.A.D. dated 08.04.2016 shall not be affected. This also makes clear that no further appointments/promotions can be given on the basis of certificates granted by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar treating it equivalent to Matric, I.A. and B.A." 5- vr% lE;d fopkjksijkar Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd fgUnh fo|kihB] nso/kj }kjk fnukad 7-5-2012 ls iwoZ ÁnRr mikf/k;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 7-5-2012 ls vf/klwpuk Kkikad&5207 fnukad 8-4-2016 fuxZr gksus ds chp ¼vFkkZr~ fnukad 8-4-2016 rd½ dh x;h fu;qfDr@ÁksUufr mDr vf/klwpuk ls vÁHkkfor jgsxhA ijUrq fnukad 8-4-2016 ds i'pkr mDr mikf/k;ksa ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ fu;qfDr@ÁksUufr ugha dh tk ldsxhA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls ¼jktsUæ jke½ ljdkj ds voj lfpo Kki la[;k&3@,eŒ 15@2015 lkŒÁŒ 10878@iVuk&15] fnukad 24-8-2017 Áfrfyfi & ÁHkkjh inkf/kdkjh] bZ&xtV dks"kkax] foRr foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dks fcgkj jkti= ds vlk/kkj.k vad esa Ádk'kukFkZ Ásf"krA ¼jktsUæ jke½ ljdkj ds voj lfpo Kki la[;k&3@,eŒ 15@2015 lkŒÁŒ 10878@iVuk&15] fnukad 24-8-2017 Áfrfyfi & lHkh foHkkx@lHkh foHkkxk/;{k@lHkh ÁeaMyh; vk;qDr@lHkh ftyk inkf/kdkjh@fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx@fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx@fcikMZ@ckfYe] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq Ásf"krA ¼jktsUæ jke½ ljdkj ds voj lfpoA** 21. At this stage the Hon'ble Division Bench noticed the notification dated 08.04.2016 which in the last sentence stated that any appointment or promotion made on the basis of degree awarded prior to 07.05.2012 shall not be affected. The subsequent notification dated 24.08.2017 which was by way of a clarification was also taken note of by the Hon'ble Division Bench for the reason that the said notification specifically clarified that any appointments made on the basis of a degree obtained prior to 07.05.2012 between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 shall remain unaffected. The contention of the learned Advocate General as regards the notification dated 08.04.2016 and 24.08.2017 were that these were the notifications of the State Government through the General Administration Department, thus the same would not apply in relation to appointment of teachers who are under the control of the Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar. It was submitted that those notifications would not apply either in respect of these writ petitioners or any similarly situated claimant. It was submitted that the notification dated 27.08.2008 cannot be said to have been affected in any manner so as to render any relief to the writ petitioners. of Bihar. It was submitted that those notifications would not apply either in respect of these writ petitioners or any similarly situated claimant. It was submitted that the notification dated 27.08.2008 cannot be said to have been affected in any manner so as to render any relief to the writ petitioners. The Hon'ble Division Bench, however, did not agree with the submissions of learned Advocate General and held that the notification issued by one Department or the other in the name of the Governor is a notification by the Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Division Bench refused to split up the applicability of the notifications and held that the State itself had fortified the stand of the petitioners by issuing a clarification which clearly contradicted the arguments advanced on behalf of the State. The Hon'ble Division Bench in its concluding paragraph held as under: "…..we find no reason to accept any of the submissions on behalf of the State to the effect that the notifications dated 08.04.2016 and 24.08.2017 do not apply to the Education/Human Resources Department. The clarificatory notification also in its last note again mentions the effect that the same is being sent to all the Departments for information and appropriate action." 22. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the writ petitioner namely, Sanjay Kumar shall be reinstated in service forthwith and both the writ petitioners shall be treated to have been validly appointed with their entitlement of consequential reliefs. 23. As regards C.W.J.C. No. 16483 of 2012, which was referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench by a learned Single Judge and L.P.A. No. 894 of 2016 are concerned, the writ petitioners and the appellants in those cases were denied promotional pay-scales and benefits on the ground that they did not possess the minimum eligibility qualification and were claiming the benefits on the strength of the degree of Sahityaalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar. The Hon'ble Division Bench allowed both the writ applications as well as the appeal when it was found that both were in possession of the degree of Sahityaalankar obtained prior to the year 2008. Case-Laws Discussed 24. Now coming to the conflicts pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the order of reference, we find on facts it is quite evident that by notification bearing no. Case-Laws Discussed 24. Now coming to the conflicts pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the order of reference, we find on facts it is quite evident that by notification bearing no. 541 dated 11.01.1991 the degree of Sahityaalankar was treated to be equivalent to graduation degree provided the same has been obtained along with English. The State Government issued a letter dated 27.07.2007 taking a stand that the degree of Sahityaalankar awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar was not equivalent to degree of graduation for purpose of appointment under the Bihar Education District Council, Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment and Services) Rules, 2006. The letter dated 27.07.2007 was the subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 15237 of 2007 (Pramod Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.). In the said writ application the Sate was directed to take a fresh decision and then the Government examined the matter and vide Memo No. 11/M-44/2008/1968 dated 25.11.2008 the Government of Bihar, Human Resources Development Department issued letter No.11(Na.1-9/2008-2053 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the degree of Sahityaalankar awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar cannot be attached to the merit list of the candidates. 25. In the case of The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Mamta Kumari and Ors, (2010) 4 PLJR 318, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court considered the cases of the writ petitioners who had obtained degree of Madhyama (Visharatd) from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad between 2003 and 2005 and had applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006 (except one Babita Kumari) they were subsequently removed from the service on the ground that they did not possess the qualification for the post of Panchayat Teacher inasmuch as their degree of Shiksha Visarad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was neither recognized nor equivalent qualification of Intermediate. The Hon'ble Division Bench heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. versus Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252 and held that the said judgment is a complete answer in all respect that examination of Madhyama (Visharad) passed by the writ petitioners from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad cannot be treated equivalent to Intermediate Examination as prescribed under the Rules specially when it's equivalence was never recognized by the State of Bihar. versus Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252 and held that the said judgment is a complete answer in all respect that examination of Madhyama (Visharad) passed by the writ petitioners from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad cannot be treated equivalent to Intermediate Examination as prescribed under the Rules specially when it's equivalence was never recognized by the State of Bihar. From a reading of this judgment it appears that in the said case the Government of Bihar had not come out with any notification granting equivalence to the Madhyama (Visharad) passed from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent of Intermediate Examination prescribed under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. The Hon'ble Division Bench also distinguished the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Poonam Sharma, (2009) 3 PLJR 84 . 26. The Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Poonam Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar, (2012) 1 PLJR 226 and its analogous matters considered the case of the elementary teachers who were appointed in the Municipal Schools governed by the Bihar Municipal Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions ) Rules 2006. The writ petitioners had obtained their certificate of 'Prathama' awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 26th January, 2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6266 of 2007 allowed the writ petition and held that the certificate of 'Prathama' awarded to the intervenors by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad prior to 31st December, 1997 was recognized by the State of Bihar as a qualification equivalent to the matriculation therefore, they were eligible for appointment as Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 297 of 2009 and pursuant thereto the intervenors were reinstated in service on 7 th September, 2009. In the facts of the said case it was found that since termination of the service of the intervenors on 21th September, 2007 the respondent authorities had operated the wait list and appointed some 11 persons against the resulting vacancies. In the facts of the said case it was found that since termination of the service of the intervenors on 21th September, 2007 the respondent authorities had operated the wait list and appointed some 11 persons against the resulting vacancies. But consequent to the order of the High Court in C.W.J.C. 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 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 13955 of 2010. 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 order of the Court, the writ petitioners were liable to be removed. But at this stage while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has also examined the claim of the intervenors and came to the conclusion that the certificate of 'Prathama' awarded to them by Hindi Shahitya Sammellan, Allahabd was not recognized by the State of Bihar and therefore, the intervenors were not eligible for appointment as an Elementary Teachers in Municipal Schools. The learned Single Judge had relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Sahi Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. decided on 4th December, 2009 in L.P.A. No. 654 of 2009 and in the matter of Mamta Kumari (supra). 27. In this background the Hon'ble Division Bench proceeded to consider the matter and held that as a matter of fact that at no pint of time any of the certificate awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was considered equivalent to matriculation or higher Secondary Intermediate Examination as the case may be, by the State of Bihar. The reliance placed on the Government Order dated 7th January, 1987 was held to be totally misleading and the accompanying equivalence certificate refers, iner alia, to Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Allahabad and not to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The Hon'ble Division Bench observed that the claim that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and the Hindi Vishwavidalaya, Allahabad are one and the same institution is highly questionable. 28. The Hon'ble Division Bench observed that the claim that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and the Hindi Vishwavidalaya, Allahabad are one and the same institution is highly questionable. 28. In the case of Murlidhar Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was considering a writ application which was referred to the Division Bench to consider as to whether the qualification of Sahityalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is equivalent to graduation in service and promotion in the State of Bihar more particularly in the light of the Education Code of the decision of the State Government dated 11.01.1991 and what may be contained in Letter No. 1346 dated 27.08.2008. 29. In the said case the petitioners had obtained qualification of Sahityalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, they were claiming qualification equivalent to graduate and being trained graduate were looking for promotion to Grade 6. The Hon'ble Division Bench referred Article 359 of the Bihar Education Code and held that in the State of Bihar the certificate of Sahityalankar conferred by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is not recognized for the purpose of appointments or promotion of a teacher. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mamta Kumari (supra) and Poonam Sharma (supra). Article 359 of the Bihar Education Code which has been referred by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Murlidhar Singh (supra) is quoted hereunder for a ready reference: "Article 359 of the Bihar Education Code makes the intention of the State Government not to engage any teacher who does not posses a Secondary School Examination certificate from a recognized Board or a degree from a statutory University. It reads thus: "Article 359. Appointment to teacher's post forbidden on the basis of equivalence of Certificates.-In order to raise the quality of teaching in school, it has been decided by the State Government that only those persons who have passed examinations held by the Bihar School Examination Board, Central Board of Education, Secondary Examination Boards of other States or Degrees obtained from statutory Universities shall be compulsory for appointment to the post of teachers in the Primary, Middle and High Schools. 2. x x x x x x------ 3. 2. x x x x x x------ 3. But if teachers of Primary, Middle and High Schools pass examination equivalent to Intermediate, Graduate, and Post-Graduate Degrees whose equivalence is recognized by the Personnel Department as mentioned in the preceding Article, may be promoted to higher pay-scale beyond matriculation. This facility shall not be given to Middle trained teachers for getting Matric trained pay-scale on the basis of equivalence. For getting Matric trained scale of pay, a Middle trained teacher must pass the Secondary School Examination from the Bihar School Examination Board" It may be reiterated here that the qualification of Sahitya Alankar is not mentioned in the preceding article, Article 358. It is thus clear that the qualification of Sahitya Alankar secured from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is not recognized for the purpose of appointment and promotion of the teachers. In above view of the matter, we hold that in the State of Bihar the certificate of Sahitya Alankar conferred by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is not recognized for the purpose of appointment or promotion of a teacher. The same view has been expressed by this Court in the matters of State of Bihar and Ors. V. Mamta Kumari, (2010) 4 PLJR 318; and of Poonam Sharma V. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 PLJR 226 . For the aforesaid reasons, we see no merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed in limine." 30. During this period a learned Single Judge of this Court delivered a judgment in the case of Reeta Srivastava (supra) on 07.05.2012 and held therein that the degree of Sahityalankar issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar cannot be taken as a recognized degree. 31. There is another case which came before this Court in the case of Dr. Amaresh Thakur (supra) where the writ petitioner had done their Intermediate from Bihar Intermediate Education Council and then joined as Assistant Teacher in the year 1994, he was granted Matric Trained Scale. Subsequently in the year 1999 he obtained the citation of Sahityalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar and in the year 2005 he completed his master of Arts from Nalanda Open University. The petitioner thereafter, got his Ph.D. from Lalit Narayan Mishra University in the year 2010 and certificate whereof were granted in the year 2011. Subsequently in the year 1999 he obtained the citation of Sahityalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar and in the year 2005 he completed his master of Arts from Nalanda Open University. The petitioner thereafter, got his Ph.D. from Lalit Narayan Mishra University in the year 2010 and certificate whereof were granted in the year 2011. Based on this he was granted graduate trained scale but then the District Programme Officer cancelled the graduate trained scale on the ground that in terms of Bihar Elementary Teachers Promotion Rules, 2011 a graduate means a degree at graduate level granted by recognized university and Sahityalankar citation granted by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar not being a recognized college and a recognized university it could not be treated as a valid degree. The Hon'ble Division Bench did not go into the question of recognition of Sahityaalankar as legally equivalent to graduation certificate on the ground that the judgment in the case of Ganesh Prasad Srivastav and Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors., (2004) 1 PLJR 387 . was passed on a different sets of facts. The facts being disimilar and quite different the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that in the undisputed facts where the petitioner has a doctorate degree from the recognized university of Bihar if it is held that his graduation was irrelevant or illegal or not equivalent to the graduation then, this Court would have to held that his post graduation and doctorate are also invalid. The Hon'ble Division Bench found that prior to the Rules of 2011 the equivalence has been taken away for the first time on 27.08.2008 which pre-supposes that at least up to 2008 the State was recognizing Shahityalankar as equivalent to graduation and if a person who had earned his citation before 27.08.2008 he cannot be denied benefit but a person who gets it thereafter cannot claim equivalence. 32. In the case of Binod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (L.P.A. No. 460 of 2014 decide don 19.08.2016) another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Amaresh Thakur (supra) and held that the case would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and hence, the order of the learned Single Judge was not sustainable. 33. Amaresh Thakur (supra) and held that the case would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and hence, the order of the learned Single Judge was not sustainable. 33. Having discussed the various case laws on the subject, we are of the considered opinion that both line of the decisions of this Court have been rendered in different facts and circumstances. We do not find any conflict even in both the sets of judgment. As noticed above, in the case of Mamta Kumari (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court found that the Madhyama (Visharad) passed by the writ petitioners from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never recognized as equivalent by the Government of Bihar, therefore, the said certificate cannot be treated to be equivalent of Intermediate Examination as prescribed under the Rules of 2006 read with Rule 9 and Article 358 of the Bihar Education Code. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the citation of Sahityaalankar had been recognized as equivalent to graduation level vide notification dated 11.01.1991. This is a distinguishable feature of this case. 34. Similarly in the case of Poonam Sharma and Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court found that the 'Prathama' certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was not considered equivalent to Matriculation or higher secondary examination or Intermediate by the State of Bihar and the reliance placed on the Government's order dated 7th January 1987 was totally misleading. It was found that equivalence certificate refers to 'Hindi Viswavidayalya', Allahabad and not to the 'Hindi Sahitya Sammelan', Allahabad. 35. In the case of Reeta Srivastava (supra) decided on 07.05.2012 a learned Single Judge of this Court had declared that the Sahityaalankar certificate issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar would not be taken as a valid and recognized degree for appointment of Panchayat teachers but prior to that for the first time on 27.08.2008 itself the State Government had issued a circular by which equivalence/validity of Sahityaalankar as equivalent to graduation had been taken away. 36. So far as Murlidhar Singh's case (supra) is concerned, this Court has taken note of the facts of the said case. There seems to be no pleading before the Hon'ble Division Bench that the petitioners there had obtained post graduation degree or any other higher degree from a recognized college and university in the State of Bihar. 36. So far as Murlidhar Singh's case (supra) is concerned, this Court has taken note of the facts of the said case. There seems to be no pleading before the Hon'ble Division Bench that the petitioners there had obtained post graduation degree or any other higher degree from a recognized college and university in the State of Bihar. The judgment in Murlidhar Singh's case (supra) was rendered on 09.08.2016 but we do not find any reference to the judgment of the earlier Division Bench of this court in the case of Dr. Amaresh Thakur (supra). It is evident from a bare reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Murlidhar singh's case (supra) that in the said case there was no pleading before the Hon'ble Division Bench that the petitioners had obtained post graduation degree or any other higher degree on the basis of Sahityaalankar degree taking the same as a graduation level certificate. Murlidhar Singh's case (supra) therefore, did not refer the facts similar to Dr. Amaresh Thakur's case (supra). Further another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad (L.P.A. No. 273 of 2015 decided on 09.08.2016) referred Ganesh Prasad Srivastav (supra) and Reeta Srivastava (supra) affirmed in L.P.A. No. 1303 of 2012 (Smt. Usha Prasad Bhakta Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.). In this case also the judgment does not refer to any facts showing that the petitioner had obtained post graduate degree on the basis of Sahityaalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. 37. Thus, to this Court, there would be no hesitation in recording that the line of cases such as Mamta Kumari (supra), Poonam Sharma (supra), Murlidhar Singh (supra) and Rajesh Prasad (supra) are of those line of cases in which the Hon'ble Division Bench had no occasion to consider a case similar to the facts of Dr. Amaresh Thakur (supra) and Binod Kumar (supra). In fact the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Binod Kumar (supra) has been rendered only ten days after the judgment in the case of Rajesh Prasad (supra) by the same Hon'ble Division Bench. In case of Binod Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench has followed Dr. Amaresh Thakur's case (supra) and finding that the said decision clearly covers the facts of the said case the order of learned Single Judge was setaside. 38. In case of Binod Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench has followed Dr. Amaresh Thakur's case (supra) and finding that the said decision clearly covers the facts of the said case the order of learned Single Judge was setaside. 38. We are also of the view that by virtue of the two notifications which we have reproduced hereinabove issued on 08.04.2016 and 24.08.2017 the Government of Bihar has in fact created an anomalous situation. The notification dated 08.04.2016 has been issued referring to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Reeta Srivastava (supra) on 07.05.2014. This clearly states that the Education Department (the then Human Resources Department) has already declared the 'Praveshika' 'Sahitya Bhushan' and Sahityaalankar certificates of Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar invalid vide memo No. 3152 dated 5.08.2008 and 1346 dated 27.08.2008 for the purpose of appointment in the Elementary and Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools in the matter of appointment of Teachers. Vide notification dated 08.04.2016 the earlier departmental order contained in memo dated 11th January, 1991 was cancelled with effect from the date of judgment i.e. 07.05.2012 and it was declared that the appointments made on the basis of different certificates awarded by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar prior to the said date shall remain unaffected. Thus, it appears to us that the appointments made till 07.05.2012 on the basis of certificates awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar before 25.08.2008 were saved. 39. The subsequent notification dated 24.08.2017 has been issued with an intention to save the appointments/promotions granted between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 on the basis of the degree awarded by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar prior to 07.05.2012. 40. In our opinion, the notification dated 08.04.2016 clearly provided that the appointments made prior to 07.05.2012 on the basis of the certificates granted by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar shall not get affected. The notification dated 08.04.2016 did not extend the validity of the certificates granted after 25.08.2008. The notification vide Memo No. 3152 dated 25.08.2008 and Memo No. 1346 dated 27.08.2008 had already declared the certificates granted by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar invalid for the purpose of teachers appointment but when the notification dated 24.08.2017 was issued, paragraph 3' of the said notification was couched in different words without referring to the Memo No. 3152 dated 25.08.2008 and 1346 dated 27.08.2008. The reference seems to have been purposely avoided. The reference seems to have been purposely avoided. As both the notifications are of the same General Administration Department, Government of Bihar. In this background the notification dated 24.08.2017 has been issued saying that the appointments made and promotions granted between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 on the basis of the certificates granted by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar prior to 07.05.2012 shall remain unaffected. The last notification of the General Administration Department has, thus, done two things by ignoring the order as contained in Memo No. 3152 dated 25.08.2008 and 1346 dated 27.08.2008 issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar. The first consequence of it is that now they have granted validity to the certificates issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar from 25.08.2008 till 06.05.2012 and secondly they have validated the appointments made on the basis of those certificates after 07.05.2012 till 08.04.2016. 41. It is because of those two notifications the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) has declared that the notifications issued by the Education Department as well as the Administration Department cannot be taken differently because the notifications issued by one Department or the other in the name of Governor is a notification by the Government. We, therefore, find that the subsequent notification dated 08.04.2017 has in fact undone the effect of the memo dated 25.08.2008 and 27.08.2008 issued by the Human Resources Development Department. The respondent State and its authorities have to hold themselves responsible for this anomalous situation. We find that in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) in fact the writ petitioners had obtained degree of Sahityaalankar prior to the year 2008 but was offered appointment on 26.12.2015 and then Sanjay Kumar and others were given benefits of the notification dated 08.04.2016 and 24.08.2017 as those were not under challenge before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) and its analogous matters are thus, in relation to a third kind of fact situation. Mr. Raghwanand, learned Government Counsel has reiterated the stand of learned Advocate General in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra). No other issue or argument has been raised. 42. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, we conclude that there is no conflict of opinion in the two sets of cases which have been referred by the learned Single Judge. Raghwanand, learned Government Counsel has reiterated the stand of learned Advocate General in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra). No other issue or argument has been raised. 42. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, we conclude that there is no conflict of opinion in the two sets of cases which have been referred by the learned Single Judge. The judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Kumari (supra), Poonam Sharma (supra) and Murlidhar Singh (supra) were rendered in a totally different fact situation. The judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Amaresh Thakur (supra) and Binod Kumar (supra) even though does not refer the earlier judgments of the learned co-ordinate Bench, they have been rendered in respect of the petitioners who had acquired higher qualification. These two judgments are, therefore, not in conflict with the earlier judgments on the subject. We answer the reference accordingly. 43. We would have referred the matters back to the learned Single Judge at this stage, but as recorded in our order dated 07.08.2019, learned counsel for both the parties have given their consent and have requested this Court to finally dispose of both the writ applications after resolving the legal issues. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of both the writ applications. 44. So far as the present case is concerned, we find that the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11255 of 2016 would be fully covered by the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Dr. Amaresh Thakur (supra) and Binod Kumar (supra) as the petitioners have done their post graduation from Nalanda Open University with due permission of competent authority. They are, thus, entitled to be considered for the benefit of B.A. (Trained) scale from the date on which the juniors to them have been granted the same benefits. We accordingly, direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners and grant them the same benefits with effect from the date the benefits have been granted to the juniors to the petitioners. 45. In C.W.J.C. No. 3838 of 2015 we find that some of the petitioners have obtained post graduation degree from Nalanda Open University and Indira Gandhi National Open University, therefore, their cases are squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Case of Dr. 45. In C.W.J.C. No. 3838 of 2015 we find that some of the petitioners have obtained post graduation degree from Nalanda Open University and Indira Gandhi National Open University, therefore, their cases are squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Case of Dr. Amaresh Thakur (supra). Some of the petitioners have done M.A. (Setu) from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar and some of them have done Sahityaalankar. Except petitioner no. 4 all other petitioners have acquired their Sahityaalankar degree/citation up to the year 2008. Petitioner no. 4 has, however, acquired his Sahityaalankar citation in the year 2010. 46. In terms of the notification of the General Administration Department as contained in Memo No. 541 dated 11th January, 1991 the Sahityaalankar certificate had got equivalence to the graduation at least prior to 25.08.2008, therefore, those writ petitioners who obtained their Sahityalankar degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar prior to 25.08.2008 would come within the framework of the notification dated 11th January, 1991 and shall be entitled for consideration for promotion to B.A. (Trained) Scale. By virtue of the notification dated 08.04.2016, the promotions granted between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 have been saved. Further by notification dated 17.04.2017 now even the degree obtained prior to 07.05.2012 and the appointment/promotion granted between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 have been saved. In these circumstances the petitioners no. 4, 7 and 15 shall also be entitled for the benefits because in both cases i.e. notification dated 08.04.2016 and notification dated 17.04.2017 the State respondents cannot contend that while the promotions granted to the persons junior to the petitioners in the gradation list between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 shall be saved, the petitioners would not be entitled for the same. This would be discriminatory because once equivalence granted to Sahityaalankar degree obtained from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar prior to 07.05.2012 is saved it will save the petitioners who have their Sahityaalankar degree obtained prior to 07.05.2012. They would be entitled to maintain their position in the seniority list and in case juniors to them have been granted promotion in terms of B.A. (Trained) Scale, these petitioners shall also be entitled for the same from the date their juniors have received the benefit. 47. We answer the reference accordingly and both the writ applications are thus, allowed.