JYOTI SARAN, J.:–Heard Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, learned Assisting Counsel to Additional Advocate General No. 12 for the State and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. It is feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 2691 of 2015 whereby it is in reference to his lordships earlier judgment rendered in the case of Reeta Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 353 which inter alia held a qualification of Sahitya Alankar obtained from the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar as not equivalent to a graduate qualification in view of the departmental notification dated 27.08.2008 that the writ petition was dismissed. 2. The brief facts which arise for consideration in the present matter stands noted in our order dated 30.04.2019 and since the issue in contest is limited to the facts noted therein, we deem it proper to reproduce the extract thereof which runs under:— “ It is because the writ petition is dismissed relying upon an earlier judgment of the said court in Reeta Srivastava Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 353 that the petitioner is before this Court raising an issue as to whether the order of the Human Resources Development Department, Government of India bearing Memo No. 1346 dated 27.08.2008 has a retrospective effect and nullifies a qualification of Sahitya Alankar obtained by a candidate from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deogarh prior thereto. The issue gains much importance because it is appreciating the confusion prevailing that the General Administrative Department of the Government of Bihar issued a notification on 08.04.2016 which at paragraphs 4 and 5 recognises such qualification as well as an appointment made prior to 07.05.2012 i.e the date of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Reeta Srivastava (supra). In the present case the petitioner has not only obtained her qualification in Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth prior to 27.08.2008, she has thereafter obtained post graduate qualification in the Session 2003-05, qualified in the B.Ed Examination in 2011, the State Teachers Eligibility Test in 2011and whereafter she applied for appointment as a teacher under one of the schools managed by the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. The application was not entertained because according to the respondents, the qualification of the Sahitya Alankar stood dereconized. Learned Single Judge relying upon his judgment in Reeta Srivastava (supra) has dismissed the writ petition without inviting any counter affidavit and without examining the claim. The writ petition primarily raises the following issues: (a) Whether the notification of derecognition coming vide Memo No.1346 dated 27.08.2008, it can derecognise the qualification obtained even prior thereto? (b) In view of the clarification present in the Notification dated 08.04.2016 accepting such qualification for appointment as well as recognizing appointments until 07.05.2012, that such qualification was obtained by the petitioner much prior thereto in the year 2002, it could be rejected? (c) Where a candidate having acquired any such qualification proceeds to improve his qualification by acquiring a post graduate, a B.Ed as well as by qualifying in Teachers Eligibility Test which obviously is on recognition of such graduate qualification, the qualification requires any examination. Mr. Manish Kumar has relied upon some orders passed by a Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No.953 of 2012 (Surendra Rai & Anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.), a Division Bench judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 13836 of 2012 (Muralidhar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.) and the judgment in L.P.A. No. 24 of 2013 (Reeta Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) whereby the opinion of the learned Single Judge was affirmed but each of these judgments do not address on the issue that we have taken note of. Since no counter affidavit was invited at the stage of the writ petition, we allow the State as well as the Corporation to file counter affidavit bearing note of the issues. For the purpose list this case ‘For Orders-1’ on 14.05.2019. Let a copy of this order be served on Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, A.C. to AAG 12 for the needful.” 3. For the purpose list this case ‘For Orders-1’ on 14.05.2019. Let a copy of this order be served on Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, A.C. to AAG 12 for the needful.” 3. When the matter has come up today each of the two authorities i.e. Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation as well as the State have filed their counter affidavit through their respective counsel and in our opinion the statement made by the State at paragraph 14 and 15 of the judgment is itself sufficient to allow this appeal for the State acknowledges that the derecognition notification bearing memo No. 1346 dated 27.08.2008 which proceeds to derecognise degree of Sahitya Alankar obtained by a candidate from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar neither has a retrospective effect nor does it derecognise the degree obtained prior thereto. 4. We have already noted in our order reproduced above that the writ petitioner obtained her qualification much prior to the derecognition notification and having attained such qualification which at the relevant stage was treated equivalent to a graduate qualification, she has also improved her qualification to attain a Postgraduate and B.Ed qualification and has also qualified in the Teacher Eligibility Test. Now there is no dispute that these qualifications can be obtained only after obtaining a graduate qualification. 5. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Bhagalpur Municipal corporation informs that the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Rita Srivastava (supra) came up for consideration in Civil Appeal No. 4274 of 2014 (State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar) which was heard analogous with Civil Appeal No. 4273 of 2014 (State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Azad Kumar Singh) and the matter has been remitted to this Court on the issue of equivalence. 6. In our opinion the remand of the said issue would not detain the outcome of the present appeal nor the issue of equivalence has any bearing on the outcome of the present appeal, in view of the clear stand taken by the State in paragraph 14 and 15 of their counter affidavit which runs under:— “14. That now the question of law formulated by this Hon’ble Court i.e. (a) whether the notification of derecognition coming vide Memo No. 1346 dated 27.08.2008, it can derecognise obtained even prior thereto? That now the question of law formulated by this Hon’ble Court i.e. (a) whether the notification of derecognition coming vide Memo No. 1346 dated 27.08.2008, it can derecognise obtained even prior thereto? In this respect the answer is no as in view of the fact that it is well settled that any Govt. Notification/Circular/executive Instruction will have either immediate or prospective effect and it cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. 15. That so far as the issue raised in (b) is concerned, it is pertinent to state here that in Clause 4 of the Notification No. 5267 dated 08.04.2016 it has been specifically and categorically mentioned that the degree obtained from Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar in respect of Praveshika, Sahityabhusan as well as Sahityalankar have already been declared inadmissible for recruitment of Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Teacher. In Clause 5 of the said notification it has been specifically and categorically mentioned that the Departmental order dated 11.01.1991 contained in Memo no. 541 is being annulled w.e.f. 07.05.2012 in respect of validity of the degree of Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar in compliance of the order dated 07.05.2012 passed in CWJC No. 13343/2011. It has further been clarified that any appointment/promotion made prior to the aforesaid date will have no effect.” 7. In the aforementioned view of the matter and since the State itself admits that the notification dated 27.08.2008 does not have a retrospective application nor does it derecognise such qualification obtained prior to 27.08.2008, that, this qualification was all along treated equivalent to a graduate qualification until the derecognition notification came on 27.08.2008, the rejection of the candidature of the appellant by the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation was not correct and is accordingly set aside. In result, the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed on the writ petition in question, is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. 8. As a consequence, the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the candidature of the appellant- petitioner as and when any vacancy is advertised in the Corporation by giving her age relaxation because in the nature of the discussion held the appellant held a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment under the State Government. 9. The appeal is allowed with the directions/ observations above.