ORDER : 1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that reference was made for constitution of Larger Bench as there were two earlier Division Bench judgments in Tayyab Hussain versus State of Rajasthan(D.B. Civil Review Petition No.22/2002) and Miss Altaf Bano versus State of Rajasthan(D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.258/2004) with regard to the controversy-in-question, whereas, in a subsequent Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan and others versus Firdos Tarannum 2006 (2) WLC (Raj.) 596, a different view was taken. However, now, the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan and others versus Firdos Tarannum’s case has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the case has been remanded to this Court for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. Thus, at this stage, nothing survives in this reference, as on date, it can be said that there are no two judgments giving a divergent/different view. 2. Learned State Counsel, has also supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Order dated 27.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, reference of the matter was sought to be made to a Division Bench reads as under :- “Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that earlier two division bench judgments of this Court in Tayyab Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Review Petition No.22/2002) and Miss Altaf Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Special Appeal No.258/2004) have not been correctly appreciated in the subsequent division bench judgment of this court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Firdos Tarannum 2006 (2) WLC (Raj.) 596. Besides, learned senior counsel submitted that earlier judgments should be followed in view of subsequent developments, which the petitioners have now by way of additional material placed on record before this Court in the present writ petition namely; subsequent instruction issued by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan in 2007 wherein, “Adeeb” & “Adeeb Mahir” qualifications of Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh were treated respectively equivalent to Secondary and Senior Secondary and the order issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions dated 12/7/2010 certifying the fact that Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is a ‘minority educational institution’ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 and, therefore, covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. There is third factor, which went un-noticed in Firdos Tarannum supra is that the State Government decided to send all such candidates possessing the qualification of “Adeep-Mahir” and “Moallium-e-Urdu” respectively equivalent to Senior Secondary and B.Ed. for undertaking the Bridge Course, which the petitioners successfully completed. Respondents could not have therefore abruptly removed the petitioners from the post of Prabodhak on which post, they are working since 2008. In view of the aforesaid three division bench judgments, it would be appropriate that this matter is laid before the Division Bench. Petitioners to file additional set of writ petition with documents. Put up on 6/5/2013 before the Division Bench.” 4. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Division Bench of this Court and following order was passed on 01.10.2013:- “The matter has been placed before us in view of the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 27/04/2013. A bare perusal of the order of the ld. Single Judge indicates that there was an occasion for the Division Bench to examine the controversy on two different point of time but certain points still missed and were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench when it came at later stage for consideration; and the ld. Single Judge, looking to the nature of controversy and the two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in particular, considered it appropriate to refer the matter to the Division Bench which has come before us. After going through the order of the ld. Single Judge dt.27/04/2013 and the view of two earlier Division Benches of this Court, we are of the view that to resolve the controversy, it will be appropriate that the matter may be considered by the Larger Bench. Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble The Chief Justice on the administrative side for seeking appropriate order.” 5. Single Judge dt.27/04/2013 and the view of two earlier Division Benches of this Court, we are of the view that to resolve the controversy, it will be appropriate that the matter may be considered by the Larger Bench. Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble The Chief Justice on the administrative side for seeking appropriate order.” 5. In pursuance to the above order, Larger Bench was constituted and vide order dated 15.07.2016, question of law for consideration was framed vide order dated 15.07.2016 and the same reads as under:- “Matter last came up before the Larger Bench on 15.09.2015 and taking note of the earlier orders passed by the Division Bench of this court, of which reference in detail has been made and taking note of R.59 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, the Larger Bench at that point of time was of the view that in the absence of any question or question of law being framed by the Division Bench for being decided by the Larger Bench, it may not be possible to proceed further in the matter and accordingly, the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for seeking necessary orders. The proceedings reveal that the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side but this fact was not brought to the notice that the question or question of law has to be framed before the matter is being placed before the Larger Bench to answer the question. After we have heard counsel for the parties on the primary issue of framing of question or question of law, we have option either to refer the matter back to the Division Bench for framing of the question or question of law, to be answered by the Larger Bench or after hearing the counsel for the parties, we ourselves may proceed to frame the question or questions of law and we are of the view that later option would be better which may expedite the matter pending since long. Accordingly, after taking note of the different views expressed by the Division Bench of this court, which have been referred by the Larger Bench in its order dt.15.09.2015 & taking note of the submissions made by the respective counsel and based on the pleadings & records, following question of law emerges for consideration:- “Whether Urdu qualification awarded by Jamia Urdu Aligarh had a legal sanction behind it and is recognized for admission to higher course/employment in the State of Rajasthan?” Counsel for the parties jointly submit that for the proper adjudication of the matter the Union of India through Ministry of HRD, New Delhi & Jamia Urdu Aligarh, Jamia Urdu Road, Dodpur, P.O. Aligarh (UP) are necessary parties may also be heard. We find substance in what is being urged before us that for passing final orders both the parties, referred to supra, are required to file their response and taking note thereof, we consider it appropriate that let the Registry may issue notice along with copy of the present order to the respective parties & also to Mr.R.D.Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General, referred to supra, who may file their written response within two months in reference to the question framed supra. Let the matter may come up before the Court after written response being filed by both the parties.” 6. Thus, from the above orders, it is evident that reference was made to the Larger Bench as in Firdos Tarannum’s case (supra), Division Bench had taken a different view than the one taken in two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Tayyab Hussain’s case (supra) and Miss Altaf Bano’s case (supra) with regard to the controversy-in-question. 7. Now, during the pendency of the reference, order dated 25.10.2018 has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10721-10722 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14573-14574 of 2012, titled as Jamia Urdu Aligarh Etc. versus The State of Rajasthan and others, arising out of Firdos Tarannum’s case (supra) and the said order reads as under:- “1. Leave granted. 2. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we find that it is undisputed that the appellant-institution was not heard before the impugned judgment was passed. Even so, the appellant's degrees have been held to be invalid on the ground that there is no sanction to the existence of the appellant's institution itself. 3. Leave granted. 2. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we find that it is undisputed that the appellant-institution was not heard before the impugned judgment was passed. Even so, the appellant's degrees have been held to be invalid on the ground that there is no sanction to the existence of the appellant's institution itself. 3. On the short ground that the appellant-institution was not heard, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and order and remit the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the appellant-institution. The High Court may decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably not later than one year. 4. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.” 8. Thus, the situation now emerges is, that at present, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Firdos Tarannum’s case (supra) has been set aside. Thus, at this stage, there are no two different/divergent views/decisions given by this Court, which would require consideration by a Larger Bench. 9. Thus, the reference at this stage is rendered infructuous. Hence, the reference is returned as having been rendered infructuous. 10. Consequently, the writ petitions be listed now as per roster.