JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard Shri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. The appellant was a Panchayat Teacher initially having been appointed as a Shiksha Mitra. The appointment of the appellant took place as a Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003 when the qualification prescribed for appointment as a Shiksha Mitra was High School. This is evident from the guidelines enforced with effect from 20th June, 2002 where Clause 4 (kha) prescribes the aforesaid qualification. The same is extracted hereinunder:- ^^4- ¼[k½ U;wure eSfVªd ;k mlds led{k ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gks rFkk mDr ijh{kk esa U;wure 45 Áfr'kr vad ÁkIr fd;k gksA mnwZ fo"k; ds inksa ds fy, enjlk ijh{kk@cksMZ@fcgkj ,oa jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk ÁkIr laLFkkvksa ls Qksdkfu;k¡ ijh{kksRrh.kZ ekU; gksxkA** 3. Later on the said qualification was revised and vide amended guidelines dated 11th August, 2004 the minimum qualification was raised to Intermediate as per Clause 5(kha), which is extracted hereinunder:- ^^5- ¼[k½ U;wure baVjehfM;V vFkok blds led{k ijh{kk esa mRrhZ.krk rFkk mDr ijh{kk esa U;wure 45 Áfr'kr vad j[kh tk;sxhA mnwZ fo"k;d inksa ds fy;s baVjehfM;V mnZw lfgr ;k enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ ,oa jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk ÁkIr laLFkkvksa ls ^ekSyoh* ijh{kksRrhZ.k dh ;ksX;rk vfuok;Z gksxhA** 4. It has to be noticed that the engagement of Shiksha Mitra was on contract basis for a period of 11 months renewable from time to time. 5. The appellant claims to have acquired the qualification of Madhyama Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The question as to whether those who had been appointed with the minimum qualification of High School would continue or not engaged the attention of the State Government. The Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar came out with a clarification on 4th of July, 2008 stating therein that there was earlier a circular issued that those Shiksha Mitra who did not possess the qualification of Intermediate after the amendment should be disengaged, but there were certain clarifications which were required with regard to those already engaged. Ultimately under the aforesaid clarification memo dated 4th July, 2008 it was resolved that those appointees who had been engaged on the strength of qualification of High School, they shall be extended the benefit of continuance provided they acquire the qualification of Intermediate within 33 months of their engagement. Ultimately under the aforesaid clarification memo dated 4th July, 2008 it was resolved that those appointees who had been engaged on the strength of qualification of High School, they shall be extended the benefit of continuance provided they acquire the qualification of Intermediate within 33 months of their engagement. The appellant's contention was that he had the qualification of Madhyama Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad which is equivalent to Intermediate. The department took a decision that such qualification possessed from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was not a valid qualification and, therefore, any such claim should be disallowed and such appointees should be disengaged. 6. The appellant then came up with the plea that he has acquired the qualification of Intermediate having passed the Intermediate examination from the Bihar School Examination Board in the year 2009. 7. The earlier stand of the department about disengaging those who had been appointed on the basis of qualifications from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan again resurfaced and vide communication dated 23rd March, 2012 the Headmaster of the concerned Institutions were informed of unauthorisedly allowing the continuance of such teachers who had claimed appointment on the basis of an Intermediate qualification of Madhyama Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The name of the appellant also surfaced at Serial No. 9 and accordingly the appellant's services were discontinued, which the learned counsel contends was without any order of termination. It is in these circumstances that the appellant preferred the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal praying for the relief of his continuance and also challenging the communication dated 22nd March, 2012 and also the dismissal of his appeal on 28.08.2012 filed against the said order. 8. The appellate order also records the same facts as narrated above and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 9. Before the learned Single Judge the same situation prevailed and the learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the subsequent acquisition of Intermediate qualification in 2009 as claimed by the appellant would not come to his aid keeping in view the qualification on the basis whereof he had been appointed and continued which was from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. 10. 10. Questioning the correctness of the said judgment Shri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no longer res integra and the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rehana Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 469 has held that the said memo of the Human Resources Development Department dated 4th July, 2008 cannot be pressed into service retrospectively. On an examination of the facts of that case, this Court finds that Rehana Khatoon had acquired the Intermediate qualification on 7th July, 2007 which is prior to the enforcement of the said circular dated 4th of July, 2008. It is in this context that a learned Single Judge held that the circular dated 4th July, 2008 cannot be applied retrospectively. 11. Relying on a Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No. 11 of 2014 (Dr. Amresh Thakur v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) Shri Singh submits that this Court has acknowledged the validity of the acquisition of the qualification from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar and, therefore, accordingly applying the same logic the acquisition of Madhyama Visharad by the appellant from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad should be accepted. 12. It may be pointed out that in the case of Dr. Amresh Thakur (supra) the facts were that he had acquired the qualification of Ph.D. from Lalit Narayan Mithila University in 2010 after having passed his Graduation, Post Graduation and other educational qualifications. It is in this background that the Division Bench came to the conclusion that it would be a travesty of justice to disentitle him of any such benefits on the ground that he had passed his initial examination from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. 13. The aforesaid Division Bench decision is, therefore, clearly distinguishable inasmuch as it was in the background of the appellant therein having acquired higher qualifications that the Division Bench did not consider it appropriate to disentitle the appellant of any such benefits who had subsequently proved his worth by acquiring such qualifications. 14. In the instant case, the learned counsel has tried to draw a parity that the appellant has acquired the Intermediate qualification from the Bihar School Examination Board in the year 2009 and, therefore, the defect stands cured. 14. In the instant case, the learned counsel has tried to draw a parity that the appellant has acquired the Intermediate qualification from the Bihar School Examination Board in the year 2009 and, therefore, the defect stands cured. We would have accepted this proposition keeping in view the fact that the appellant has also passed the Teacher Eligibility Test had the appellant acquired the qualification of Intermediate prior to the circular dated 4th July, 2008 as has been held in the case of Rehana Khatoon (supra). In the aforesaid background, we find that the appellant has simply missed the bus by not having acquired the qualification of Intermediate timely keeping in view the period prescribed of 33 months in the said circular. As a matter of fact, the circular itself narrates that the period of 33 months will be available from the date of initial engagement. The circular was not under challenge yet the learned Single Judge interpreted that it cannot be allowed retrospectively. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge is correct, yet in the instant case as observed above the appellant would have been benefited had he acquired qualification of Intermediate prior to 4th July, 2008. We are, therefore, not inclined to extend the same relief to the appellant. 15. Learned counsel then contends that the appellant has become over age and may not be enable to get any other employment. The State Government and its authorities have the power to consider grant of relaxation or otherwise continuance in the background aforesaid. If such a power is available, we see no reason as to why the appellant's claim cannot be considered appropriately for his engagement in the event he is otherwise qualified as per rule. It will be open for the appellant to approach the State Government for redressal of his grievance but insofar as the claim of the appellant on the strength of the aforesaid facts is concerned, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It will be open for the appellant to approach the State Government for redressal of his grievance but insofar as the claim of the appellant on the strength of the aforesaid facts is concerned, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It is also observed that in view of the Teacher Eligibility Test having been passed by the appellant as well as other related qualifications having been acquired by him, the authorities will also examine that if any other engagement standing on a similar footing has been allowed to continue keeping in view the Division Bench judgment in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Indu Devi (L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2009 dated 09.03.2011) then in that event the claim of the appellant may be reconsidered. 16. The appeal is consigned to the records with the aforesaid observations.