Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 739 (PAT)

Rahul Kiran v. State of Bihar

2020-12-15

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

body2020
ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. C.W.J.C. No. 6767 of 2020 has been filed by Neeraj Kumar and 70 other petitioners, C.W.J.C. No. 6664 of 2020 has been filed by Rahul Kiran and 16 other petitioners through Mr. Dinu Kumar and Ms. Ritika Rani, learned Advocates. C.W.J.C. No. 6079 of 2020 has been filed by Kumud Kant Pandey and 55 other petitioners, C.W.J.C. No. 6356 of 2020 has been filed by Chandan Kumar and 14 other petitioners through Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Advocate. C.W.J.C. No. 7721 of 2020 has been filed by Prabha Kumari and 327 other petitioners through Mr. Ashish Giri, learned Advocate, whereas C.W.J.C. No. 7701 of 2020 has been filed by Priyanka Kumari through Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned Advocate. 2. Since all the writ applications involve the same question of fact and law and as such with the consent of the parties, the cases were heard on different dates and finally the judgment was reserved on 13.11.2020. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 6767 of 2020 and C.W.J.C. No. 6664 of 2020 Mr. Dinu Kumar appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Ashish Giri appeared in C.W.J.C. No. 6356 of 2020 and 7721 of 2020. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar appeared in C.W.J.C. No. 6079 of 2020 on behalf of the petitioners whereas Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh appeared on behalf of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7701 of 2020. 4. After the order dated 01.07.2020, invention applications have been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 6767 of 2020 i.e. I.A. No. 1 of 2020 has been filed by Mr. Anshul, I.A. No. 2 of 2020 has been filed by Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra and Mr. Mrigank Mauli, I.A. No. 3 of 2020 has been filed by Mr. Mukesh Kumar whereas I.A. No. 4 of 2020 has been filed by Mr. Vijay Anand. 5. After hearing Mr. Y.C. Verma, learned senior counsel, Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned senior counsel, Mr. Mrigank Mauli and Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocates all the interlocutory applications have been allowed. In batch of writ applications on behalf of respondent no.4, counter affidavit has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 6767 of 2020 and C.W.J.C. No. 6664 of 2020. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 6767 of 2020 have also filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit. Mrigank Mauli and Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocates all the interlocutory applications have been allowed. In batch of writ applications on behalf of respondent no.4, counter affidavit has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 6767 of 2020 and C.W.J.C. No. 6664 of 2020. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 6767 of 2020 have also filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit. Respondent No.6 has also filed counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 7701 of 2020. 6. The basic facts are not in dispute and all the writ applications are based on the same foundational facts. The batch of writ applications challenge as to the order contained in Memo no. 514 dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure-11 in C.W.J.C. No. 6767 of 2020) whereby the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar has issued guide line for preparation of select list in the respective employment unit. In the guide line, it was indicated that Memo No. 482 dated 08.06.2020 was issued in compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 21.01.2020 in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 and the eligibility of the candidate for selection would be 23.11.2019. 7. In other words, the grievance of the petitioners in the batch of writ application is that vide notification dated 08.06.2020, the respondents have extended the date for submitting application in the light of judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 up to 14.07.2020, but vide Annexure-11, the Deputy Secretary, Education Department has fixed the cut-off date as 23.11.2019 contrary to the last date for submission of application. In sum and substance, their challenge in batch of writ applications is that once the last date for submission of application was extended up to 14.07.2020, the petitioners who acquired the eligibility condition on passing of CTET in December, 2019 i.e. after 23.11.2019 are eligible and the action of the respondents is arbitrary in excluding the petitioners from the zone of consideration on the ground that the cut off date is 23.11.2019. 8. For the purpose of deciding the batch of writ applications, the foundational facts are set out herein below: On 05.07.2019, notification was issued by the Government of Bihar containing the guide line and time schedule for appointment on different posts of teachers. 8. For the purpose of deciding the batch of writ applications, the foundational facts are set out herein below: On 05.07.2019, notification was issued by the Government of Bihar containing the guide line and time schedule for appointment on different posts of teachers. For ready reference, Annexure-2 is quoted herein below:— fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx vfèklwpuk lafpdk lañ- 7@fofoèk&25@2019------------@ iVuk fnukad---------- SLP © No.20/2018 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fnuakd 10-05-2018 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa foHkkxh; ifji=k la[;k & 1713 fnukad& 28-12-2018 esa f'k{kd fu;kstu ugha fd;s tkus ls lacafèkr fufgr funsZ'k dks f'kfFky fd;k tkrk gSA fcgkj iapk;r izkjafHkd f'k{kd (fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'krZ) fu;ekoyh] 2012 (;Fkk la'kksfèkr)] fcgkj uxj fudk; izkjafHkd f'k{kd (fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'krZ) fu;ekoyh] 2012 (;Fkk la'kksfèkr) ds fu;e 17 ds vèkhu iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ds fu.kZ;kuqlkj f'k{kd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh] 2012 ds Øe esa f'k{kd fu;kstu ls lacafèkr iwoZ esa fuxZr lHkh vkns'kksa] funs'kksa ,oa ifji=kksa dsk fuEu gn rd la'kksfèkr djrs gq, fcgkj iapk;r izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;kstu lsok 'krZ fu;ekoyh] 2012 ,oa fcgkj uxj fudk; izkjafHkd f'k{kd (fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'krZ) fu;ekoyh] 2012 ds vkyksd esa jkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa o"kZ 2019&20 esa f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ ,oa izfØ;k ds lacaèk esa fuEukafdr ekxZfunsZ'k fn;s tkrs gSa& (ekxZ funsZ'k) 1. fu;kstu gsrq le; rkfydk-µjkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa o"kZ 2019&20 esa f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ fuEufyf[kr le; rkfydk ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxh& Øekad fooj.k fnukad lañ i ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkfj;ksa ,oa ftyk dk;ZØe inkfèkdkfj;ksa fnukad& 25-07-2019 rd dk jkT; Lrjh; izf'k{k.k dk;ZØe ii fjfDr;ksa dk lesdu fnukad& 29-07-2019 rd iii fu;kstu ls tqM+s dfeZ;ksa dk ftyk ,oa iz[kaM Lrjh; fnukad&03-08-2019 ls izf'k{k.k dk;ZØe 05-08-2019 rd iv ftyk }kjk jksLVj dk vuqeksnu ,oa fu;kstu bdkbZ;ksa dks fnukad&16-08-2019 rd izs"k.k v LkHkh fu;kstu bdkbZ;ksa }kjk fu;kstu gsrq lwpuk dk izdk'ku fnukad& 20-08-2019 vi vkosnu i=k izkfIr dh frfFk fnukad& 26-08-2019 ls 25-09-2019 rd vii esèkk lwph dh rS;kjh fnukad& 26-09-2019 ls 11-10-2019 rd viii esèkk lwph dk fu;kstu lfefr }kjk vuqeksnu fnukad& 17-10-2019 rd ix esèkk lwph dk izdk'ku fnukad&21-10-2019 rd x esèkk lwph ij vkifÙk fnukad& 22-10-2019 ls 05-11-2019 rd xi vkifÙk;ksa dk fujkdj.k fnukad& 11-11-2019 rd xii esèkk lwph dk vafre izdk'ku fnukad& 14-11-2019 rd xiii ftyk }kjk iapk;r ,oa iz[kaM ds esèkk lwph dk vuqeksnu fnukad& 25-11-2019 xiv fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk esèkk lwph dk lkoZtuhdj.k fnukad& 29-11-2019 rd xv vkosnu ds lkFk layXu LovfHkizekf.kr izek.k i=kksa dk fnukad& 30-11-2019 ls ewy izek.k i=k ls feyku ,oa p;u lwph dk fuekZ.k 07-12-2019 rd xvi fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk fu;kstu i=k fuxZr djuk fnukad& 09-12-2019 ls 13-12-2019 rd 2. fu;kstu gsrq vgZrk rFkk f'k{kd inksa dh x.kuk ,oa forj.k-µfu;kstu gsrq f'k{kd inksa dh x.kuk izkFkfed d{kkvksa (oxZ I ls V) ds fy, vyx rFkk mPp izkFkfed d{kkvksa (oxZ VI ls VII) ds fy, vyx dh tk;sxhA fu;kstu dh vgZrk laxr fu;ekoyh] 2012 ds vuq:i gksxhA mDr fu;ekoyh ds rgr izf'kf{kr ,oa VhñbZñVhñ vgZrkèkkfjr vH;FkhZ gh fu;kstu ds fy, vkosnu dj ldsaxsA bl lacaèk esa Li"V djuk gS fd foHkkxh; vkns'k Kkikad& 837 fnukad& 02-07-2019 ds vkyksd esa fcgkj izkjafHkd f'k{kd ik=krk ijh{kk (BETET) 2012 mÙkh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds mÙkh.kZrk izek.k i=k ds oSèkrk dh vofèk vxys nks o"kZ ds fy, foLrkfjr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkfed d{kkvksa ds fy, fuEukafdr rhu fo"k;ksa ds f'k{kd in ds fu;kstu gsrq 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fuEuor gksxh& (d) lkekU; fo"k; ds f'k{kd& ('kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk& baVjehfM;V) ([k) mnwZ Hkk"kk ds f'k{kd & ('kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk& fcgkj enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk iznÙk ekSyoh vFkok mnwZ ;ksX;rkèkkjh vH;FkhZ& 50 vadksa ds mnwZ esa baVjehfM;V mÙkh.kZ) (x) caxyk Hkk"kk ds f'k{kd& ('kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk& baVj ls 100 vadksa dk caxyk fo"k; esa mÙkh.kZ) ,uñlhñVhñbZñ dh vfèklwpuk fnukad & 28.08-2018 ds vuqlkj ,uñlhñVhñbZñ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls f'k{kk&Lukrd dh mikfèk izkIr vH;FkhZ ls rd i<+kus ds fy, vè;kid ds :i esa fu;qfDr gsrq ;ksX; ekus tk;saxsA fdUrq bl izdkj vè;kid ds :i esa fu;qDr O;fDr dks izkFkfed f'k{kd ds :i esa fu;qDr gksus ds nks o"kZ ds Hkhrj ,uñlhñVhñbZñ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izkFkfed f'k{kk esa 6 eghus dk ,d lsrq ikB~;Øe fczt dkslZ vko';d :i ls iwjk djuk gksxkA blh izdkj mPp izkFkfedrk d{kkvksa (eè; fo|ky;) ds fy, vko';drkuqlkj fuEukafdr fo"k;ksa ds in in f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu gsrq 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fuEuor gksxh& (d) Lukrd xf.kr ,oa foKku ds f'k{kd ('kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk)%& (i) xf.kr] HkkSfrdh] jlk;u esa Lukrd vFkok (ii) jlk;u] ouLifr foKku] tarq foKku esa Lukrd vFkok (iii) chñ lhñ ,ñ ;ksX;rkèkkjh vFkok (iv) jk"Vªh; vè;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ (ekU;rk ekun.M rFkk fØ;kfofèk) fofu;eu] 2014 ds rgr bathfu;fjax ls Lukrd ftlesa foKku vkSj xf.kr dh fo'ks"kKrk gks dh chñ,Mñ esa ukekadu gsrq ik=krk fuèkkZfjr dh x;h gSA rn~uq:i oSls vH;FkhZ tks bathfu;fjax ls Lukrd] ftlesa foKku vkSj xf.kr dh fo'ks"kKrk gks rFkk chñ,Mñ ,oa BETET mÙkh.kZ gks dh ^^Lukrd xf.kr ,oa foKku** esa eè; fo|ky; ds f'k{kd ds in ij fu;kstu dh ik=krk gksxhA ([k) Lukrd lkekftd foKku ds f'k{kd dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk& bfrgkl] Hkwxksy] jktuhfr 'kkL=k] n'kZu'kkL=k] vFkZ'kkL=k] euksfoKku] lekt'kkL=k esa Lukrd Lrj esa fdlh nks fo"k; esa mÙkh.kZ fdUrq buesa ,d ifBr fo"k; bfrgkl ;k Hkwxksy vo'; gksA vFkok chñ dkWe (x) Lukrd Hkk"kk ds f'k{kd ('kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk)& fgUnh ds fy, Lukrd Lrj ij ifBr fgUnh fo"k; vFkkZr lgk;d fo"k; vFkok izfr"Bk ds :i esa j[kk x;k gks rFkk vaxzsth ds fy, Lukrd Lrj ij ifBr vaxzsth fo"k; vFkkZr lgk;d fo"k; vFkok izfr"Bk ds :i esa j[kk x;k gksA (?k) laLd`r Hkk"kk ds f'k{kd (laLÑr esa Lukrd@'kkL=kh dh fMxzh) (Ä) mnwZ f'k{kd ('kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk& vkyhe dh fMxzh vFkok mnwZ Hkk"kk esa Lukrd) ftyk ds fofHkUu bdkbZ;ksa esa fjDr inksa dh lwpuk izkIr dj jksLVj iath dks Hkjk tkuk visf{kr gSA 3. vkj{k.k jksLVj dk ikyu ,oa cSdykWx-µfu;kstu esa vkj{k.k lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx }kjk fuxZr vfèklwpukvksa@ifji=kksa ds lkis{k fn;k tkuk gSA bl Øe esa lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx }kjk fcgkj inksa ,oa lsokvksa dh fjfDr;ksa rFkk 'kS{kf.kd laLFkkuksa esa ukekadu esa (vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxksZ ds fy,) vkj{k.k fu;ekoyh] 2019 ds rgr vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ ds fy, 10 izfr'kr vkj{k.k] ladYi la[;k 13062 fnukad 12-10-2017 ds rgr lHkh inksa ,oa lsokvksa esa fnO;kaxtuksa dks 04 izfr'kr {kSfrt vkj{k.k] ladYi la[;k 13185 fnukad 09-09-2015 }kjk fcgkj jkT; ds oSls Lora=krk lsukfu;ksa] ftUgsa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk isa'ku LohÑr gS] ds iksrk@iksrh@ukrh@ uruh dks fu;qfDr esa 02 izfr'kr {kSfrt vkj{k.k dk ykHk ns; gksxkA 4. efgykvksa ds fy, inksa dk fuèkkZj.k-µizR;sd fo"k; ds izR;sd dksfV esa fu;kstu] fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj 50 izfr'kr efgykvksa dk fu;kstu gksxkA efgyk vH;FkhZ ugha feyus ij ;g in fjDr jgsaxsA 5. f'k{kd fu;kstu gsrq lwpuk dk izdk'ku-µizR;sd fu;kstu bdkbZ ds }kjk vius&vius fu;kstu bdkbZ ds fy, fuèkkZfjr frfFk dks f'k{kd fu;kstu gsrq lwpuk dk izdk'ku fuf'pr :i ls fd;k tk;sxkA izdkf'kr lwpuk esa fu;ksftr fd;s tkusokys f'k{kd inksa dh dksfVokj la[;k dk mYys[k jgsxkA iz[kaM fodkl inkfèkdkjh ,oa iz[kaM f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh ds }kjk ;g lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sxk fd xzke iapk;rksa ds }kjk fuèkkZfjr frfFk dh lwpuk dk izdk'ku dj fn;k tk,A xzke iapk;rksa }kjk izdkf'kr lwpuk izdkf'kr lwpuk dh ,d izfr iz[kaM fodkl inkfèkdkjh ds dk;kZy; ds lwpukiV~V ij Hkh izdkf'kr dh tk;sxhA blh izdkj iz[kaM ,oa uxj fudk; ds f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu ls lacafèkr lwpuk izdk'ku dh izfr ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh ds dk;kZy; ds lwpuk iV~V ij Hkh izdkf'kr dh tk;sxhA ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh dk;kZy; ds }kjk ;FkklaHko fu;kstu lacaèkh lHkh lwpuk;sa ftyk ds ,uñvkbZñlhñ ds osclkbZV ij Hkh nsus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA 6. vkosnu i=k-µfdlh Hkh Hkkjr ds ukxfjd ds }kjk vkosnu i=k fu;ekuqlkj lacafèkr fu;kstu bdkbZ ds ikl fuèkkZfjr frfFk rd gkFkksa&gkFk vFkok fucafèkr Mkd@LihM iksLV }kjk Hkstk tk,xkA vkosnu dk izi=k vyx gh miyCèk djk;k tk;sxkA 7. vkosnu i=k-µfdlh Hkh Hkkjr ds ukxfjd ds }kjk vkosnu i=k fu;ekuqlkj lacafèkr fu;kstu bdkbZ ds ikl fuèkkZfjr frfFk rd gkFkksa&gkFk vFkok fucafèkr Mkd@LihM iksLV }kjk Hkstk tk,xkA vkosnu dk izi=k vyx gh miyCèk djk;k tk;sxkA 7. vkosnu i=kksa dk iath esa laèkkj.k-µizR;sd xzke iapk;r ds fu;kstu bdkbZ ds }kjk f'k{kd fu;kstu gsrq izkIr vkosnu i=kksa dk C;ksjk iath esa laèkkfjr fd;k tk;sxkA iath ds izR;sd i`"B ij lfpo rFkk f'k{kd lnL; dk frfFk ;qDr gLrk{kj vfuok;Z gksxkA fu;kstu bdkbZ ds lfpo ds }kjk vkosnu izkfIr dh vafre frfFk dks vkosnu i=kksa dh izfof"V ds mijkar iath dks Dykst dj fn;k tk;sxkA blh izdkj esèkk lwph ,oa dkamlfyax gsrq vyx&vyx iaftdk laèkkfjr fd;k tk;sxkA iapk;r lfefr rFkk uxj fudk;ksa esa izkIr vkosnu i=kksa dk laèkkj.k] esèkk lwph dk fuekZ.k vkfn dEI;wVj esa Hkh fd;k tk;sxkA 8. iwoZ ds fu;ksftr f'k{kdksa }kjk vkosnu-µjkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa iwoZ ds fu;ksftr f'k{kd] tks f'k{kd ik=krk ijh{kk esa mÙkh.kZ gq, gSa ds }kjk nwljs fu;kstu bdkbZ;ksa esa fu;kstu gsrq mfpr fu;kstu inkfèkdkjh ds vxzlkj.k ls vkosnu fn;k tk ldsxkA fcuk mfpr lhy ls izkIr vkosnu dks jn~n fd;k tk ldsxkA ,sls vkosndksa dk fdlh fu;kstu bdkbZ esa fd;k x;k rFkk fu;kstu izFke fu;kstu ekuk tk;sxk vkSj dksbZ ykHk vuqekU; ugha gksxkA 9. esèkk lwph dh rS;kjh ,oa izdk'ku-µizR;sd fu;kstu bdkbZ ds }kjk fu;eksa ds vkyksd esa esèkklwph rS;kj dh tk;sxhA fuèkkZfjr frfFk dks esèkklwph dk izdk'ku izR;sd dksfV esa fd;k tk;sxkA vH;FkhZ ds }kjk vius vkosnu i=k ds lkFk LovfHkizekf.kr izek.k i=k fn;s tk;saxs] ftlds vkèkkj ij esèkklwph rS;kj dh tk;sxhA vH;FkhZ ds }kjk fn;s x;s LovfHkizekf.kr izek.k i=kksa ,oa vad i=kksa dk feyku ,oa tk¡p fuèkkZfjr frfFk dks dh tk;sxhA bl gsrq ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh }kjk izR;sd fu;kstu bdkbZ ds fy, izek.k i=kksa dh tkap dk dsUnz@LFky fuèkkZfjr fd;k tk;sxkA 10. jk"Vªh; laLFkkuksa@izf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa ds }kjk iznÙk izek.k i=kksa dh ekU;rk-µf'k{kk foHkkx }kjk jk"Vªh; laLFkkuksa ds }kjk iznÙk mikfèk@ izek.k i=k dks f'k{kd fu;kstu gsrq vekU; fd;s tkus lacaèkh fofHkUu vkns'kksa@funsZ'kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k tk;sxkA 11. jk"Vªh; laLFkkuksa@izf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa ds }kjk iznÙk izek.k i=kksa dh ekU;rk-µf'k{kk foHkkx }kjk jk"Vªh; laLFkkuksa ds }kjk iznÙk mikfèk@ izek.k i=k dks f'k{kd fu;kstu gsrq vekU; fd;s tkus lacaèkh fofHkUu vkns'kksa@funsZ'kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k tk;sxkA 11. fu;kstu gsrq vH;FkhZ dks fu;kstu i=k fuxZr djuk-µvafre :i ls izdkf'kr esèkklwph ds ckn ,oa ewy izek.k i=kksa ds feyku ds vkèkkj ij fu;eksa ds varxZr ftyk }kjk iznÙk vkj{k.k jksLVj dk ikyu djrs gq, p;fur lwph rS;kj dj p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;kstu i=k Hkstk tk;sxkA uo fu;ksftr f'k{kd dks ;ksxnku djkus ds mijkar muds 'kS{kf.kd@iz'kS{kf.kd@VhñbZñVhñ izek.k i=kksa dh tkap lacafèkr cksMZ@fo'ofo|ky;@ laLFkku ls djkus ds mijkar gh osru Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA tkap djus dh ftEesnkjh lacafèkr fu;kstu bdkbZ ds lnL; lfpo dh gksxh] mlesa f'k{kk foHkkx ds inkfèkdkjh }kjk vko';d lg;ksx iznku fd;k tk;sxkA ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj izR;sd ckj fjfDr ds vuqlkj gh p;fur vH;FkhZ dks fu;kstu i=k fucafèkr Mkd }kjk Hkstk tk;sxkA fu;kstu i=k izkfIr ds ckn fuèkkZfjr vofèk ds vanj lacafèkr vH;FkhZ inLFkkiu okys fo|ky; esa ;ksxnku dj ysaxsA 12. vihyh; izkfèkdkj-µf'k{kd fu;kstu ls lacafèkr f'kdk;rksa dk fu"iknu fcgkj jkT; fo|ky; f'k{kd ,oa deZpkjh&f'kdk;r fuokj.k fu;ekoyh] 2015 ds rgr ftyk Lrj ij inLFkkfir ftyk vihyh; izkfèkdkj ds }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA iwoZ ds yafcr vihy ds ekeys iwoZ dh fu;ekoyh ds vkyksd esa fu"ikfnr fd;k tk;sxkA 13- f'k{kd fu;kstu dk vuqJo.k ,oa izfrosnu-µf'k{kd fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ dk vuqJo.k izR;sd Lrj ls fd;k tk;sxk rFkk ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh }kjk fuèkkZfjr izi=k esa ftykokj fu;kstu dh lwpuk foHkkx dks miyCèk djkbZ tk;sxhA fu;kstu ls lacafèkr mDr dk;ZØe esa foHkkx ds iwokZuqefr ds fcuk ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA lkFk gh] foHkkx ds iwokZuqefr ds fcuk fuèkkZfjr le; rkfydk ls gVdj ;fn fdlh fu;kstu bZdkbZ ds }kjk f'k{kdksa dk fu;kstu fd;k tkrk gSa] rks ,sls fu;kstu dks foHkkx }kjk ekU;rk ugha nh tk;sxh] vkSj rnuq:i vuqorhZ dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA mDr i`"BHkwfe esa fu;kstu ds dSys.Mj dks n` fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] gñ@& mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Kkikad&7@ fofoèk &25@2019---------------------------@ iVuk fnukad--------------------------- izfrfyfi& lHkh ize.Myh; vk;qDr@lHkh egkikSj uxj fuxe@lHkh ftyk inkfèkdkjh@lHkh mi fodkl vk;qDr@lHkh {ks=kh; f'k{kk mi funs'kd@lHkh eq[; dk;Zikyd inkfèkdkjh@dk;Zikyd inkfèkdkjh@lHkh ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh@lHkh ftyk dk;ZØe inkfèkdkjh@lHkh vè;{k uxj ifj"kn@ uxj iapk;r@lHkh dk;ZØe inkfèkdkjh (f'k{kk)@lHkh izeq[k iapk;r lfefr@lHkh iz[kaM fodkl inkfèkdkjh@ lHkh iz[kaM f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh@lHkh eqf[k;k xzke iapk;r@lHkh xzke iapk;r ds lfpo dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA gñ@& mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Kkikad&7@ fofoèk &25@2019-------------------------@iVuk fnukad------------------------------ izfrfyfi& jkT; ifj;kstuk funs'kd] fcgkj f'k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj"kn@funs'kd izkFkfed f'k{kk@ funs'kd] ekè;fed f'k{kk@lHkh lnL; ftyk f'k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkfèkdkj@vkIr lfpo] ekuuh; ea=kh f'k{kk foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA gñ@& mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Kkikad&7@ fofoèk &25@2019-----------------@ iVuk fnukad------------------------------ izfrfyfi& vkbZñVhñ eSustj] f'k{kk foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA 9. The notification (Annexure-2) contained a detailed guide line for calculation of vacancy, details with regard to in service training, intimation of approval of roster to the employment unit, publication of notice for appointment by employment unit, last date for submission of application, date for publication of merit list, approval of merit list by the employment committee, publication of merit list, inviting objection on the merit list, disposal of objection on merit list, final publication of merit list and also details with regard to verification of certificate etc. and issuance of appointment letter by the employment Unit. 10. In Annexure-2, last date for submission of application form was 25.09.2019. The notification was subsequently modified vide notification as contained in Annexure-4. and issuance of appointment letter by the employment Unit. 10. In Annexure-2, last date for submission of application form was 25.09.2019. The notification was subsequently modified vide notification as contained in Annexure-4. The last date for submission of application was fixed as 23.11.2019. This modification was issued in the light of approval of NCTE, the proposal of the State Government for extension of life of the validity of passing TET. The result of TET was published in 2012 and was only valid for seven years i.e. up to May, 2019. Subsequently, on the request of the State Government, the NCTE extended the validity of TET for a further period of two years, as would be evident from Annexure-3 dated 02.07.2019. In the aforesaid background the last date was extended vide Annexure-4 dated 22.11.2019. The schedule for preparation of merit list was also modified vide Annexure-5 dated 04.10.2019. Annexures- 4 and 5 are quoted herein below:— Annexure-4 fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkxA vfèklwpuk lafpdk lañ&7@fofoèk&25@2019----------------@ iVuk fnukad&------------------------------ foHkkxh; vfèklwpuk la[;k&1329 fnukad& 04-10-2018 ds }kjk jkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa o"kZ 2019&20 esa f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu ds lacaèk esa la'kksfèkr le;&rkfydk lalwfpr fd;k x;k FkkA ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkfj;ksa ds lkFk fu;kstu izfØ;k dh leh{kk esa ;g ik;k x;k gS fd dbZ ftyksa esa jksLVj dk vuqeksnu ,oa vuqeksfnr jksLVj fu;kstu bdkbZ;ksa dks dfri; dkj.kksa ls izs"k.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA vifjgk;Z dkj.ko'k vf/lwpuk lañ&1329 fnukad& 04.10.2019 dh dafMdk&2 esa vafdr fu;kstu gsrq le;&rkfydk fuEuor la'kksfèkr fd;k tkrk gSA 1. fu;kstu gsrq le; rkfydk-µjkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa o"kZ 2019&20 esa f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ fuEufyf[kr le; rkfydk ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxh%& Øñlañ fooj.k fnukad i vkosnu i=k izkfIr dh frfFk fnukad& 23-11-2019 rd ii esèkk lwph dh rS;kjh fnukad&05-12-2019 rd iii esèkk lwph dk fu;kstu lfefr }kjk vuqeksnu fnukad&11-12-2019 rd iv esèkk lwph dk izdk'ku fnukad& 16-12-2019 rd v esèkk lwph ij vkifÙk fnukad& 02-01-2020 ls 17-01-2020 rd vi vkifÙk;ksa dk fujkdj.k fnukad&21-01-2020 rd vii esèkk lwph dk vafre izdk'ku fnukad&25-01-2020 rd viii ftyk }kjk iapk;r ,oa iz[kaM ds esèkk lwph dk vuqeksnu fnukad&24-02-2019 rd xi fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk esèkk lwph dk lkoZtuhdj.k fnukad&29-02-2019 rd x vuqeksfnr esèkk lwph ,oa vkj{k.k jksLVj iath ds vuq:i fnukad&05-03-2020 rd miyC?k fjfDr ds lkis{k p;u lwph dk fuekZ.k xi Pk;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izek.k i=kksa dh tk¡p ,oa fu;kstu fnukad&31-03-2020 rd i=k fuxZr djuk 2. ;fn fuèkkZfjr frfFk rd izek.k i=kksa dh tkap ugha gks rks bldh lwpuk izkFkfed f'k{kk funs'kky; dks nsrs gq, vafre frfFk ds foLrkj dk vuqjksèk lacafèkr ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh ds }kjk fd;k tk ldrk gSA 3. vfèklwpuk la[;k& 1329 fnukad& 04.10-2019 esa vafdr 'ks"k izfof"V ;Fkkor~ jgsxhA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] gñ@& mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Kkikad&7@ fofoèk &25@2019----------------@ iVuk fnukad------------------------------ izfrfyfi&lHkh ize.Myh; vk;qDr@lHkh egkikSj uxj fuxe@lHkh ftyk inkfèkdkjh@lHkh mi fodkl vk;qDr@lHkh {ks=kh; f'k{kk mi funs'kd@lHkh eq[; dk;Zikyd inkfèkdkjh@ dk;Zikyd inkfèkdkjh@lHkh ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh@ lHkh ftyk dk;ZØe inkfèkdkjh@lHkh vè;{k uxj ifj"kn@uxj iapk;r@lHkh dk;ZØe inkfèkdkjh lHkh izeq[k iapk;r lfefr@lHkh iz[kaM fodkl inkfèkdkjh@ lHkh iz[kaM f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh@lHkh eqf[k;k xzke iapk;r@lHkh xzke iapk;r ds lfpo dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA gñ@& mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Kkikad&7@ fofoèk &25@2019-------------@ iVuk fnukad------------------------------ izfrfyfi&jkT ifj;kstuk funs'kd] fcgkj f'k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj"kn@funs'kd izkFkfed f'k{kk@ funs'kd] ekè;fed f'k{kk@lHkh lnL; ftyk f'k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkfèkdkj@vkIr lfpo] ekuuh; ea=kh f'k{kk foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA gñ@& mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Kkikad&7@ fofoèk &25@2019-----------------@ iVuk fnukad------------------------------ izfrfyfi&vkbZñVhñ eSustj] f'k{kk foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Annexure-5 fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkxA vfèklwpuk lafpdk lañ& 07@ fofoèk& 25@2019---------------------------@ iVuk fnukad&----------------------------- foHkkxh; vfèklwpuk la[;k&1098 fnukad& 22-08-2019 ds }kjk jkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa o"kZ 2019&20 esa f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu ds lacaèk esa la'kksfèkr le;&rkfydk lalwfpr fd;k x;k FkkA ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkfj;ksa ds lkFk fu;kstu izfØ;k dh leh{kk esa ;g ik;k x;k gS fd dbZ ftyksa esa jksLVj dk vuqeksnu ,oa vuqeksfnr jksLVj dk fu;kstu bdkbZ;ksa dks dfri; dkj.kksa ls izs"k.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA jkT; ds fofHkUu ftyksa esa ck<+ ,oa ty&teko dh fLFkfr dks ;ku esa j[krs gq, vfèklwpuk la[;k&1098 fnukad& 22-08-2019 ds dafMdk&2 esa vafdr fu;kstu gsrq le;&rkfydk fuEuor~ la'kksfèkr fd;k tkrk gS& 1. fu;kstu gsrq le; rkfydk-µjkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa o"kZ 2019&20 esa f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ fuEufyf[kr le; rkfydk ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxh%& Øñlañ fooj.k fnukad i ftyk }kjk jksLVj dk vuqeksnu ,oa fu;kstu bdkbZ;ksa dks fnukad& 09-10-2019 rd izs"k.k ii LkHkh fu;kstu bdkbZ;ksa }kjk fu;kstu gsrq lwpuk dk izdk'ku fnukad& 10-10-2019 iii vkosnu i=k izkfIr dh frfFk fnukad& 09-11-2019 rd iv esèkk lwph dh rS;kjh fnukad& 20-11-2019 rd v esèkk lwph dk fu;kstu lfefr }kjk vuqeksnu fnukad& 26-11-2019 rd vi esèkk lwph dk izdk'ku fnukad& 29-11-2019 rd vii esèkk lwph ij vkifr fnukad& 13-12-2019 rd viii vkifr;ksa dk fujkdj.k fnukad& 20-12-2019 rd ix esèkk lwph dk vafre izdk'ku fnukad& 21-12-2020 rd x ftyk }kjk iapk;r ,oa iz[kaM ds esèkk lwph dk vuqeksnu fnukad& 11-01-2020 rd xi fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk esèkk lwph dk lkoZtuhdj.k fnukad& 16-01-2020 rd xii vkosnu ds lkFk layXu LovfHkizekf.kr izek.k i=ksa dk fnukad& 20-01-2020 ls ewy izek.k i=k ls feyku ,oa p;u lwph dk fuekZ.k 25-01-2020 rd xiii p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izek.k i=kksa dh tk¡p ,oa fu;kstu fnukad& 29-01-2020 ls i=k fuxZr djuk 2. vH;FkhZ dk p;u lwph esa vafdr ojh;rk Kkikad v{kq..k jgsxk rFkk p;u lwph ds vH;FkhZ ds ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls ;g vizHkkfor jgsxkA 3. vfèklwpuk la[;k& 1098 fnukad 22.06-2019 esa vafdr 'ks"k izfof"V ;Fkkor jgsxhA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] gñ@& mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Kkikad&7@ fofoèk &25@2019-----------------@ iVuk fnukad------------------------------ izfrfyfi&lHkh ize.Myh; vk;qDr@lHkh egkikSj uxj fuxe@lHkh ftyk inkfèkdkjh@lHkh mi fodkl vk;qDr@lHkh {ks=kh; f'k{kk mi funs'kd@lHkh eq[; dk;Zikyd inkfèkdkjh@ dk;Zikyd inkfèkdkjh@lHkh ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh@ lHkh ftyk dk;ZØe inkfèkdkjh@lHkh vè;{k uxj ifj"kn@uxj iapk;r@lHkh dk;ZØe inkfèkdkjh lHkh izeq[k iapk;r lfefr@lHkh iz[kaM fodkl inkfèkdkjh@ lHkh iz[kaM f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh@lHkh eqf[k;k xzke iapk;r@lHkh xzke iapk;r ds lfpo dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA gñ@& mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Kkikad&7@ fofoèk &25@2019-----------------@ iVuk fnukad------------------------------ izfrfyfi&jkT ifj;kstuk funs'kd] fcgkj f'k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj"kn@funs'kd izkFkfed f'k{kk@ funs'kd] ekè;fed f'k{kk@lHkh lnL; ftyk f'k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkfèkdkj@vkIr lfpo] ekuuh; ea=kh f'k{kk foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA gñ@& mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA Kkikad&7@ fofoèk &25@2019---------------@ iVuk fnukad------------------------------ izfrfyfi&vkbZñVhñ eSustj] f'k{kk foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA mi lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkxA 11. It appears that C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 was filed by Sanjay Kumar Yadav and others challenging the decision of the State Government not to treat D.El.Ed training through NIOS as appropriate. It appears that C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 was filed by Sanjay Kumar Yadav and others challenging the decision of the State Government not to treat D.El.Ed training through NIOS as appropriate. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Director, Primary Education dated 11.09.2019 and submitted that their training is appropriate and they cannot be denied selection on the ground that their training is of 18 months and not of 24 months. The writ Court on consideration of various aspect of the matter allowed the writ application on 21.01.2020. The relevant part of the judgment dated 21.01.2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 is quoted herein below:— “14. From bare perusal of the decisions, it is apparent that the NCTE recognized one time the course in D.El.Ed. conducted by NIOS. The relaxation of some period was only granted to the inservice teachers who had not obtained the required degree training course such as B.Ed./D.El.Ed. which is made minimum requisite qualification for appointment on the post of teachers in elementary and primary schools thus, it cannot be said that the teachers who had obtained D.El.Ed. through NIOS and any other institute duly recognized by the NCTE is not at par with the two years period D.El.Ed. course as prescribes under Section 23(2) of the NCTE Act and Rule 5 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules. From perusal of the letter as contained in Annexure-10 issued by the Under Secretary (Regulation), NCTE, it appears that the NCTE has simply informed the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar by way of clarification that as per the NRC, NCTE order dated 22.09.2017 the D.El.Ed. (ODL) programme of NIOS is only for those un-trained inservice teachers in Govt./Govt. aided/private unaided schools appointed on or before 10.08.2017 but it is nowhere mentioned that the said course cannot be treated at par with the two years training course and on the basis of such directions, two years degree course whereas the same course was duly recognized by the NCTE in pursuance of the direction issued by the Government of India, MHRD under Section 29 of the NCTE Act. 15. Thus, I find that on such misrepresentation and misreading of the clarification issued by the NCTE, the Director, Primary Education has illegally issued direction that the persons who had obtained D.El.Ed. 15. Thus, I find that on such misrepresentation and misreading of the clarification issued by the NCTE, the Director, Primary Education has illegally issued direction that the persons who had obtained D.El.Ed. course duly run for 18 months by NIOS are not eligible for appointment on the post of teachers in primary schools and thus, the letter as contained in Annexure-11 is illegal, unsustainable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Annexure-11 is set aside. 16. The writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to apply within one month and consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of primary teachers.” 12. After the judgment of the Writ Court, the issue of validity of D.El.Ed. course of 18 months was taken up by the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar and on the request of Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, on 19.05.2020 the NCTE decided to accept the verdict of the Court in Sanjay Kumar Yadav Case (supra) and NCTE also intimated the Education Department to take further necessary action in the matter. 13. Once the State Government as well as NCTE party to the writ application, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Ors) accepted the verdict of the learned Single Judge and decided to implement the direction issued by the writ Court to be effect that the petitioners be allowed to participate in the selection process for which the Writ Court directed the respondents to grant one month time and consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers. The respondent State in all fairness issued notification as contained in Annexure-10 dated 08.06.2020. This notification was issued in the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 and in the light of the acceptance of verdict of the Writ Court by NCTE dated 19.05.2020. In the aforesaid background the last date for submission of application was extended up to 14.07.2020. For compliance of direction in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 for the petitioners and others, who were eligible up to 23.11.2019 but for their 18 months training through NIOS they were excluded from selection process. 14. In the aforesaid background the last date for submission of application was extended up to 14.07.2020. For compliance of direction in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 for the petitioners and others, who were eligible up to 23.11.2019 but for their 18 months training through NIOS they were excluded from selection process. 14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned above i.e. the direction in judgment of the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Ors) and acceptance of its verdict by NCTE as well as the State Government, notification dated 08.06.2020 was issued but certain Employment units were under confusion whether the notification dated 08.06.2020 extends for last date of submission of application in the light of the judgment of the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 and acceptance of its verdict by the State Government as well as NCTE as extension of time for all candidates completed NIOS 18 months training upto the last date as per notification dated 08.06.2020 or those who were eligible in terms of the previous notification dated 22.11.2019 i.e. upto 23.11.2019 the Deputy Secretary, Education Department issued clarification for consumption of all employment units that the D.El.Ed. course conducted by NIOS for a period of 18 months, instead of two years was held to be valid by the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 and NCTE as well as State Government accepted the verdict and as such only those D.Ed.Ed. candidates, who have the necessary 18 months training up to 23.11.2019 are eligible for consideration in compliance of the direction issued by the Writ Court and it was only for that the last date of submission of application was extended up to 14.07.2020. The aforesaid clarificatory order issued by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department dated 15.06.2020 is impugned in the batch of writ applications. 15. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the selection process has commenced, the respondents were not justified in changing the rule of game in the mid way. He also contended that the petitioners, who passed the CTET in the month of December, 2019 are eligible for consideration for appointment and non-acceptance of their application for employment as teacher is illegal and arbitrary. 16. Mr. He also contended that the petitioners, who passed the CTET in the month of December, 2019 are eligible for consideration for appointment and non-acceptance of their application for employment as teacher is illegal and arbitrary. 16. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further added the aforesaid submission of Mr. Dinu Kumar on the ground that once the date of submission of application has been extended, the eligibility has to be extended up to the last date of submission of application. In the present writ application, last date for submission of application was 14.07.2020 and, as such, those who acquired the eligibility by passing CTET in December, 2019 are eligible and action of the respondents in excluding them from the zone of consideration is illegal and arbitrary. He placed reliance on the judgment of the L.P.A. Court in L.P.A. No. 68 of 2020 to contend that once the corrigendum was issued and the last date for submission of application has been extended, the eligibility criteria has to be decided up to the last date of submission of the application. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel next contended that he is not aggrieved by Annexure-10, but aggrieved by the subsequent decision dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure-11 of C.W.J.C. No. 6767 of 2020), which was not the Governmental decision but a Departmental decision. He submits that these petitioners, who have passed CTET in December, 2019, have been illegally and arbitrarily excluded from the zone of consideration by Annexure-11. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6670 of 2020 and analogous cases. 17. In this batch of writ applications, the stand of the State, as evident from the counter affidavit of respondent no.4 is that Annexure-11 dated 15.06.2020 is clarification and not independent Government decision for the purpose of appointment on the post of teacher. The relevant part i.e. para 4 and 7 to 22 of the counter affidavit of the respondents is quoted herein below:— “4. That the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order issued vide memo no. The relevant part i.e. para 4 and 7 to 22 of the counter affidavit of the respondents is quoted herein below:— “4. That the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order issued vide memo no. 514 dated 15.06.2020, contained as Annexure-11 whereby it has been clarified that the cutoff date for acquiring of academic and training eligibility, for the purpose of appointment on the post of teacher, had been 23.11.2019 and as such candidates subsequently passing CTET examination in the month of December 2019 would not be eligible for applying for appointment in light of departmental notification issued vide memo no. 482 dated 08.06.2020 as the same was exclusively meant for candidates passing 18 months in service course of D.El.Ed. conducted by NIOS, for which order dated 21.01.2020 had been passed by the Hon’ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Ors). 7. That the issue involved in the present writ petition basically relates to appointment of teachers for class I to V and VI to VIII, for 2019-20, for which advertisement had been issued by the department vide memo no. 866 dated 05.07.2019, and it is connection with the said process of appointment that the impugned order had been issued vide memo no. 514 dated 15.06.2020, (Annexure-11) whereby it has been clarified that 23.11.2019 is the cutoff date for the academic and training eligibility for the purpose of appointment on the post of teacher and as such CTET candidates who had passed eligibility test in December 2019, would not be eligible for applying in the aforesaid process of appointment. 8. That it is submitted that initially vide memo no. 866 dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition) an advertisement had been issued inviting application from eligible candidates for making appointment on the post of primary teachers, for 2019-20, in the State of Bihar. A bare perusal of terms and conditions of the said advertisement clearly shows that there was no provision for an appearing candidate in any of the essential qualifications required for appointment on the post of teacher. The date for filling up forms in the terms of the aforesaid advertisement dated 05.07.2019 was from 26.08.2019 to 25.09.2019. 9. A bare perusal of terms and conditions of the said advertisement clearly shows that there was no provision for an appearing candidate in any of the essential qualifications required for appointment on the post of teacher. The date for filling up forms in the terms of the aforesaid advertisement dated 05.07.2019 was from 26.08.2019 to 25.09.2019. 9. That it is submitted that it was on account of certain inevitable technical impediments such as nonfinalisation of roster at certain districts that the date for filling of forms earlier provided vide advertisement dated 05.07.2019, was extended vide Annexure-5 up to 09.11.2019, and further upto 17.10.2019 and thereafter vide Annexure-4 upto 23.11.2019. 10. That through the aforesaid subsequent corrigendum to the original advertisement dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure-2 of writ petition), the terms and conditions of the original advertisement were never changed save and except that the date for filling of forms had been extended and consequently the follow up to be undertaken. 11. That it is submitted that as per the corrigendum dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-4) to the original advertisement, the last date for filling up of forms by an eligible candidate was 23.11.2019, in other words the cutoff date for academic and training eligibility for the purpose of appointment in question was 23.11.2019. 12. That it is submitted that the petitioners of the present writ petition had become eligible for being considered for appointment as teacher, only after passing of CTET examination in December 2019, whereas the cutoff for academic and training eligibility for the purpose of appointment in question was 23.11.2019. 13. That as the CTET result of the petitioners were declared in the month of December 2019, and thus they were not even having the basic eligibility criteria for applying pursuant to advertisement dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition) and its subsequent corrigendum, whereby the last date for filling up of forms had been extended up to 23.11.2019, and thus the petitioners have no right to challenge the selection process. 14. That it was in the meantime that the order issued by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 11.09.2019 holding that in service candidates who had completed D.El.Ed. 14. That it was in the meantime that the order issued by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 11.09.2019 holding that in service candidates who had completed D.El.Ed. Training through National School of Open Schooling, will not be considered for selection / appointment as teacher, was challenged vide C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Ors) and the said writ petition was finally allowed by order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure-6 of the writ petition) whereby the aforesaid letter dated 11.09.2019 had been set aside with the observation that the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners (of the said writ petition) to apply within one month and consider the case of the petitioners (of the said writ petition) for appointment on the post of primary teacher. 15. That it was in light of the said judgment and order dated 21.01.2020 passed in CWJC No. 19842/2019 that the respondent authority came out with an another corrigendum dated 08.06.2020 vide memo no. 482 (Annexure-10 of the writ petition) to the original advertisement dated 05.07.2019, allowing candidates possessing 18 months D.El.Ed. Training course through National School of Open Schooling to submit applications from 15.06.2020 to 14.07.2020. 16. That it needs to be emphasised that the aforesaid corrigendum dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) was exclusively in deference to the order dated 21.01.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 19842/2019 allowing such candidates to apply, who had acquired 18 months D.El.Ed. Course through NIOS. 17. That it is submitted that on account of certain confusion that the respondent authority was constrained to issue the order dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure-11) impugned in the present writ petition, whereby it had categorically been clarified that the corrigendum dated 08.06.2020 issued vide memo no. 482 (Annexure-10) was exclusively issued in obedience to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, allowing only such candidates who had acquired 18 months D.El.Ed. training course through NIOS in terms of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court and that no other candidate specially those who had passed in CTET in December 2019 were not eligible for applying for appointment in terms of the aforesaid corrigendum dated 08.06.2020 for the reason that the cutoff date for academic and training eligibility for the purpose of appointment in question was 23.11.2019. 18. 18. That thus it is respectfully submitted that the impugned order dated 15.06.2020 in no way tries to change the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 05.07.2019. In fact the impugned order dated 15.06.2020 only clarifies that the corrigendum issued vide memo no.482 dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure-10) was only confined for such candidates who had acquired 18 months D.El.Ed. training course through NIOS and candidates passing CTET examination in December 2019 would not be eligible to fill forms in terms of the said corrigendum dated 08.06.2020. 19. That it is submitted that ones the petitioners have no eligibility in terms of advertisement notice, on the cutoff date they have no right to hold the whole process of selection to ransom. The fact that the petitioners had acquired the required eligibility subsequently, is of no relevance for the present process of appointment of teachers for 2019-20. 20. That it is submitted that the selection process in question need not be fiddled with as the petitioners lacked eligibility condition on the cutoff date. 21. That it has categorically been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chandra Shekhar, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 , that qualification prescribed for appointment for public employment under the relevant statutory rule shall be on the last date of receipt of application pursuant to the advertisement calling for applications for the post. 22. That it is submitted that since the petitioners as per the advertisement dated 05.07.2019 as well as its subsequent corrigendum dated 22.11.2019 did not possess the basis eligibility criteria of having qualified the eligibility test as on 23.11.2019, hence through the impugned order dated 15.06.2020, candidates passing CTET examination in December 2019, had rightly been held ineligible for applying for appointment in question. The order impugned is basically a clarification to the said effect and not a change in terms and conditions of the original advertisement dated 05.07.2019.” 18. Similar was the stand of respondent no.6 in C.W.J.C. No. 6356 of 2020 and as such to avoid multiplicity the same has not been discussed here. Intervenor Rajesh Kumar has filed counter affidavit in support of writ petition, but there is no new or additional facts. 19. On behalf of the State, a Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed. Para 4 to 10 thereof is quoted herein below:— 4. Intervenor Rajesh Kumar has filed counter affidavit in support of writ petition, but there is no new or additional facts. 19. On behalf of the State, a Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed. Para 4 to 10 thereof is quoted herein below:— 4. That instant Supplementary Counter Affidavit is being filed for bringing on record certain facts for the kind consideration by the Hon’ble Court. 5. That it is respectfully submitted that due to non completion of rosters, reservation in different districts the dates for submitting applications were extended in following manner: Vide Memo Dated Time to make No. application 864 5.7.2019 26.08.19 to 25.09.19 1098 22.08.19 18.09.19 to 17.10.19 1329 04.10.19 17.10.19 to 09.11.19 1563 22.11.19 Till 23.11.19 6. That it is respectfully submitted that soon after making extension on 22.08.2019 the department vide its letter no. 1192 dated 12.09.2019 clarified that candidates shall have to pass educational as well as training exams on the last date of the date of submission of applications. 7. That it is submitted that for the last time the department made extension on 22.11.2019 whereby and whereunder the date of submission of form was finally extended till 23.11.2019 and if it is being read in consonance with letter no. 1192 dated 12.09.2019 it will be amply clear that last date for passing educational as well as training course was till 23.11.2019. 8. That it is necessary to bring on record the brief facts of CWJC No. 19842/2019 Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors and other analogous cases which were filed in between 30.08.19 to 07.11.2019 and petitioners of those cases stated that they all have training certificates obtained from N.I.O.S. prior to 23.11.2019 and TET or CTET certificate also prior to 23.11.2019 and accordingly they prayed that their application forms may be accepted. (Paragraph IV of the prayer of CWJC No.19842/2019). 9. That in view of the aforesaid background of facts the Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 21.01.2020 allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to allow the petitioners of those cases to apply within one month so that their candidature could be considered for appointment. (Paragraph IV of the prayer of CWJC No.19842/2019). 9. That in view of the aforesaid background of facts the Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 21.01.2020 allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to allow the petitioners of those cases to apply within one month so that their candidature could be considered for appointment. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Hon’ble Court dated 21.01.2020 the authorities vide notification no.482 dated 08.06.2020 gave one month’s time since 15.06.2020 to 14.07.2020 for such candidates those who are covered with aforesaid order of this Hon’ble Court to make applications. 10. That it is respectfully submitted that respondents have proceeded after 14.07.2020 in terms with their programme and in all the districts have finalized merit list also as per schedule.” 20. Intervenor Raushan Kumar has filed counter affidavit on the same line of counter affidavit of State. 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor applicant Rajesh Kumar has also supported the State action. Their contention is basically on the ground that the candidates with D.El.Ed. of 18 months training were excluded from the zone of consideration and only after the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case, the respondents issued notification in compliance of the direction issued by the writ court, which was accepted by the State as well as by the NCTE and as such the last date for submission of application vide notification dated 08.06.2020 is not extension of cut off date. They submitted that it was not extension of eligibility and cut off date, but it was in compliance of the direction of this Hon’ble Court to facilitate the petitioners and alike, who were otherwise eligible on the cut off date on 23.11.2019, but for D.El.Ed. 18 months training conducted by NIOS, they were excluded from the zone of consideration and as such in the light of the direction issued by the writ Court, the opportunity for submission of their application was only considered and Annexure 10 dated 08.06.2020 is designed to provide special opportunity to the petitioners in Sanjay Kumar Yadav Case (supra). The last date for submission of application was not for other category of candidate and hence it cannot be read as extension of time for all and extension of cut off date and as to eligibility. The last date for submission of application was not for other category of candidate and hence it cannot be read as extension of time for all and extension of cut off date and as to eligibility. Their contention is that the cut off date for eligibility is 23.11.2019 and cannot be read as extension up to 14.07.2020. As per the desire of parties, Court granted time for filing of written submissions and parties have filed their written submissions. 22. Written submission of petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 7721 of 2020:— BRIEF FACTS: 1. That there are four categories of petitioners in the present writ application i.e. B.Ed. degree holders, D.EL.ED degree holders from NIOS, D.EL.ED degree holders under regular courses and handicapped category as detailed in para 10 (Pg. 40) of the writ petition. All the writ petitioners have attained CTET in December 2019. 2. That originally advertisement was issued for appointment of teachers in the State of Bihar dated 05.07.2019 by the state government (Annexure 2 – Pg. 53) in terms of which the last date of submission of the Application was 25.09.2019 which was extended subsequently by notification dated 04.10.2019 upto 09.11.2019 (Annexure 3 – Pg. 57), by notification dated 22.11.2019 upto 23.11.2019 (Annexure 4 – Pg. 59). 3. That thereafter pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court dated 21.01.2020 passed in CWJC No. 19842 of 2019 (Annexure 7 – Pg. 80) another notification dated 08.06.2020 issued by the state government (Annexure 9 - Pg. 120) in terms of which the D.EL.ED candidate from NIOS and CTET/CTET passed candidate were permitted to submit application from 15.06.2020 to 14.07.2020. 4. However, vide notification 15.06.2019 (Annexure 10 - Pg. 122) issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary Education Department, the cut off date for eligibility criteria was fixed to be 23.11.2019. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR: 5. That thus in the present writ application the challenge is against the said decision dated 15.06.2019 fixing the cutoff date for eligibility criteria to be 23.11.2019 and for a declaration that the cutoff date shall be the last extended date for submission of the application which is 14.07.2020 and also for a declaration that the extension of the date for application form by notification dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure 9 – Pg. 120) shall also be for all the other candidates including the B.Ed. 120) shall also be for all the other candidates including the B.Ed. degree holders, D.EL.ED degree holders from NIOS, D.EL.ED holders under regular courses and all handicapped category and not only limited to the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 19842 of 2019. GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE: I. Fixing of cut off date to be 23.11.2019 contrary to law: a. The original advertisement has been issued by the state government, in which no cutoff date for eligibility was prescribed and even the last notification dated 08.06.2020 was issued by the state government wherein no cut off date for eligibility was prescribed. Hence, in this circumstance the law has been well settled that in absence of a prescribed cutoff date in the advertisement the relevant date for eligibility becomes the last date of submission of the application form. Thus, in the present case the cutoff date for eligibility will be last date for submission of the application form in terms of the notification dated 08.06.2020 which is 14.07.2020 and thus not 23.11.2019 as introduced by letter dated 15.06.2019 and hence liable to be quashed. b. Reference in this regard maybe made to the following decisions: ? Order dated 07.10.2020 in LPA No. 68 of 2020 (Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. vs. Md. Zishan Danish) ? (2007) 4 SCC 54 , Para 15, 18, 20. c. That the impugned decision of fixing the cutoff date to be 23.11.2019 contrary to the advertisement also amounts to changing the rules of the selection process in the middle and hence on this ground also the impugned decision is fit to be set aside. d. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions: ? (2015) 8 SCC 484 , Para 4, 8, 9. ? (2008) 7 SCC 11 , Para 14 to 16. ? (2009) 4 SCC 555 , Para 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ? Oder dated 04.11.2020 in CWJC No. 6670 of 2020 (Hareram Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar), Para 28, 32. II. Impugned order of fixing the cutoff date not decision of the State Government. ? (2008) 7 SCC 11 , Para 14 to 16. ? (2009) 4 SCC 555 , Para 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ? Oder dated 04.11.2020 in CWJC No. 6670 of 2020 (Hareram Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar), Para 28, 32. II. Impugned order of fixing the cutoff date not decision of the State Government. A. The original advertisement as well as the subsequent notification dated 08.06.2020 have been issued by the decision of the state government as the same is under the direction of the Governor of Bihar, in terms of which there is no cutoff date fixed for eligibility meaning thereby that the eligibility was to be judged on the basis of the qualification on the last date of submission of the application form which in the present case would be 14.07.2020. However, an artificial cutoff date has been introduced for eligibility to be 23.11.2019 vide letter dated 15.06.2019 (Annexure 10 – Pg. 122) under the signature of the Deputy Secretary Education Department. B. That is thus submitted that the said decision is contrary to the advertisement itself issued by the state government and the same thus not having any sanctity in law as not a decision of the state government and merely a decision of an individual authority and therefore not in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India and as such untenable in the eyes of law. C. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions: ? Oder dated 04.11.2020 in CWJC No. 6670 of 2020 (Hareram Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar), Para 17 (IV), 26, 32. ? (2016) 2 PLJR 459 , Para 1, 8, 9, 15, 19, 20, 22. ? (1987) 3 SCC 34 , Para 23, 25 to 29. ? (2011) 8 SCC 670 , Para 17, 18, 22, 23, 24. III. Petitioners thus, eligible to participate. ? That once it is held that the letter dated 15.06.2019 is untenable and that the cutoff date of eligibility shall be the last date of submission of the application form and not 23.11.2019, the petitioners would thus be eligible to participate as having attained the qualification criteria of CTET in the month of December 2019 prior to the last date of submission of the application form which is 14.07.2020, in terms of notification of the state government dated 08.06.2020. ? ? That it is submitted that the said notification dated 08.06.2020 will also be applicable not only to the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 19842 of 2019 but even to the other candidates who are B.Ed. qualified etc. as there cannot be two different qualification cutoff dates for common appointment which will become discriminatory and thus violative of Article of 14 of the constitution of India. ? That thus, all the candidates who have qualification criteria prior to the last date of submission of the form i.e. 14.07.2020 will form one common class together and there cannot be made any distinction or a further subclass amongst them on basis of their degree as the advertisements issued by the state government does not make any such distinction between the candidates on the basis of their degrees and hence, non-extension of the benefit of submission of the application form in terms of the notification dated 08.06.2020 to others will thus amount to creating a class amongst class without any rational distinction and thus violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. e. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions: ? (2018) 1 SCC 149 , Para 7, 8, 17. ? (2003) 2 SCC 349 , Para 7, 8, 12. ? Oder dated 04.11.2020 in CWJC No. 6670 of 2020 (Hareram Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar), Para 17 (II), 26, 39, 30, 32. f. That another reason for extending the benefit of notification dated 08.06.2020 to other candidates as well and not only limited to the writ petitioners of CWJC NO. 19842 of 2019 is that the said decision is a decision in rem and not persona. g. That it has been settled by various judicial pronouncements that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Merely because they did not approach the court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. Reference be made to (2015) 1 SCC 347 , para 22. Merely because they did not approach the court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. Reference be made to (2015) 1 SCC 347 , para 22. h. That further, it is submitted that a judgment in rem is generally said to be a judgment declaratory of the status of some subject matter, whether this be a person, or a thing. Where the intervention of the court is sought for the adjudication of a right or title to property, not merely as between the parties but against all persons generally, the action is in rem. It is a judgment of a court determining the status of a person or thing. Reference be made to the case of Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors. reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 655, para 25 to 27. i. That thus, viewed from the said angle it is apparent that the decision of the court in CWJC No. 19842 of 2019 was a decision determining the status of the class of persons i.e. D.EL.ED candidates from NIOS who were held to be eligible and hence being a decision in rem and therefore will cover not only the writ petitioner therein but all other similarly situated. j. That the petitioners have already explained that even the B.Ed. degree holders are similarly situated to that of the D.EL.ED. candidates as they are treated equally for appointment to the post of teachers in terms of the advertisements without any distinction. Thus, once the qualification of D.EL.ED. candidate is considered on basis of the eligibility date on the last date of submission of the form in terms of notification dated 08.06.2020, the other candidates as well possessing the required qualification as on last date of submission of the application form also requires to be given similar opportunity, failing which it will be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT: It is submitted that if the contention of the B.Ed. candidates is not accepted then in such cases at least those petitioners who have D.EL.ED. degrees from NIOS as detailed in para 10 (Pg. ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT: It is submitted that if the contention of the B.Ed. candidates is not accepted then in such cases at least those petitioners who have D.EL.ED. degrees from NIOS as detailed in para 10 (Pg. 40-41) of the writ petition be granted the benefit of the notification dated 08.06.2020 for considering their case for appointment as they have attained the CTET in the month of December 2019 i.e. prior to the last date of submission of the application form as provided by notification dated 08.06.2020 which is 14.07.2020. CONCLUSION: In the said background it is apparent that the impugned letter dated 15.06.2019 (Annexure 10 – Pg. 122) fixing the cutoff date of eligibility as 23.11.2019 is not tenable in the eyes of law and thus fit to be quashed holding that the cutoff date for eligibility is not 23.11.2019 but the last date of submission of the form as extended by notification dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure 9 – Pg. 120) and accordingly extend the benefit of the same notification not only to the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 19842 of 2019 but also to other D.EL.ED. candidates from NIOS, D.EL.ED. candidates from regular courses and also B.Ed. degree holders and handicapped category people who have attained CTET qualifications prior to the last date of the submission of the form i.e. 14.07.2020 like that of the petitioners. 23. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar has filed verbatim the same written submission in C.W.J.C. No.6356 of 2020 and C.W.J.C. No. 6079 of 2020 for the sake of brevity and to avoid duplicacy written submission in C.W.J.C. No. 6079 of 2020 is quoted below:— 1. That in the present writ petition altogether 56 petitioners are there who have completed the course of D.El.Ed. and passed the examination in the year 2019 from National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). Thereafter they have qualified the Central Teacher Eligibility TEST (CTET) from Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.) Delhi. The examination for which was held on 08.12.19 and the result of the said examination was published on 27.12.2019 (Annexure-13 of I.A. Petition). 2. and passed the examination in the year 2019 from National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). Thereafter they have qualified the Central Teacher Eligibility TEST (CTET) from Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.) Delhi. The examination for which was held on 08.12.19 and the result of the said examination was published on 27.12.2019 (Annexure-13 of I.A. Petition). 2. That during pendency of this writ application, the petitioners have filed Interlocutory Application on 07.07.20 for quashing the Memo No. 514 dated 15.06.20 (Annexure-15) issued by Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna by which the applications of the petitioners who have passed Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET) in the month of December for Session 2019-20 are not acceptable for employment of Panchayat Teachers. 3. That this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 vide Order dated 21.01.20 has allowed the candidates who have passed D.El.Ed. examination for NIOS and also qualified in Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET). 4. That the present writ application is fully covered with C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Ors). 5. That in the light of the said order dated 21.01.20, the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna vide Memo no. 482 dated 08.06.20 has directed the candidates who have qualified the Central Teacher Eligibility Test to fill up the form for employment of the post of Panchayat Teachers from 15.06.20 to 14.07.20 (Annexure- 14 of I.A. Petition). 6. That thereafter, the Deputy Secretary, Education Department vide Memo No. 514 dated 15.06.20 has directed the Employment Unit inter-alia that the candidates who have passed CTET examination in December 2019, they are not eligible for their appointment of the said post (Annexure-15 of I.A. Petition). 7. That the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna vide Memo no. 757 dated 12.09.19 had directed all the District Education Officers and District Programme Officer (Establishment) inter alia that for the employment of Teacher of the year 2019-20, the candidates have to pass the Training Examination till last date of fill up the forms (Annexure-16 of I.A. Petition). 8. That in view of Memo dated 12.09.19 (Annexure-16) the petitioners are very much eligible to fill up the form for employment of Panchayat Teachers as the last date of submission of form is 14.07.20 and the petitioners have qualified the CTET examination in December, 2019. 9. 8. That in view of Memo dated 12.09.19 (Annexure-16) the petitioners are very much eligible to fill up the form for employment of Panchayat Teachers as the last date of submission of form is 14.07.20 and the petitioners have qualified the CTET examination in December, 2019. 9. That it may be stated and submitted that during the pendency of selection process, the State Government cannot change the criteria. 10. That under the aforesaid circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to fill up the form for employment of Panchayat Teacher.” 24. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh has filed written submission on behalf of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7701 of 2020, which is quoted below:— “1. That writ application has been filed for quashing the Memo No. 514 dated 15.06.2020 to the extent by which the candidates declared successful in C.T.E.T. in the month December 2019 have been deprived to participate in the selection process of teacher and for a direction to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process which is going on in view of Advertisement No. 1098 dated 22.8.2019 read with 482 dated 8.6.2020. 2. That the petitioner has passed Intermediate examination in the year 2010 in second division and D.El.Ed. In session 2017-19 and result was published in the month of December 2019 (Annexure-2) and She has also cleared Central Eligibility Test (CTET) in December 2019 (Annexure-1). 3. That an advertisement was made (Annexure-3) for the purpose of appointment of teacher in which D.El.Ed. passed candidates have been restrained to participate in the selection process of teacher. 4. That against the decision of the State Govt. that D.El.Ed. certificate holders are not eligible then CWJC No. 19842/2019 was filed and after hearing the parties the Hon’ble High Court has held that said certificate is valid one and decision of the Govt. is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Annexure-5). 5. That vide Memo No. 482 dated 08.06.2020 D.El.Ed. certificate holders have been allowed to participate in the selection process but by issuance of subsequent letter contained in Memo no. 514 dated 15.06.2020 whereby those candidates who have declared successful in CTET before 23.11.2019 can only be allowed. 6. That by issuance of subsequent letter, a rider has been put in the original advertisement to change the criteria as made in the original advertisement. 514 dated 15.06.2020 whereby those candidates who have declared successful in CTET before 23.11.2019 can only be allowed. 6. That by issuance of subsequent letter, a rider has been put in the original advertisement to change the criteria as made in the original advertisement. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that during the selection process criteria for selection cannot be changed. 7. That in the present case earlier D.El.Ed. certificate holders were not allowed and after interference of the Hon’ble Court the said certificate has been made valid for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher but putting a rider that the CTET passed candidate before 23.11.2019 can only be eligible is nothing but to change the criteria of selection during the pendency of the selection process, which is not permissible in law has held in Salm Samarjeet Singh vs. High Court of Manipur & Imphal Writ Petition (c) 294 of 2015. 8. That since the decision of the State Govt. as well as impugned order is in teeth of law therefore the same is required to be quashed.” 25. On behalf of Intervenor Rajesh Kumar written submission in support of writ petition has been filed. Although as per Patna High Court Rules intervention for only opposition is permissible Under Chapter XXIC Rule 5 proviso but for wide discussion, the Court allowed his intervention but no new fact or additional facts or question of facts and or law was either argued or submitted in the written notes of arguments. 26. On behalf of intervenor represented by Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel, a written notes of argument has been filed, which is quoted below:— “2. The petitioners have admittedly passed the CTET in the month of December, 2019 whereas the advertisement was issued in the month of July, 2019, therefore, they are not eligible to participate in the present selection process. 3. From text and context of notification no. 482 dated 08.06.2020 it is crystal clear that the said notification was issued exclusively for those who were/are covered by CWJC No. 19842 of 2019 and other analogous cases. 4. So far letter dated 15.06.2020 is concerned, the same is nothing but a clarification whereby it has been clarified that the Departmental notification no. 482 dated 08.06.2020 it is crystal clear that the said notification was issued exclusively for those who were/are covered by CWJC No. 19842 of 2019 and other analogous cases. 4. So far letter dated 15.06.2020 is concerned, the same is nothing but a clarification whereby it has been clarified that the Departmental notification no. 482 dated 08.06.2020 is not for those who have acquired eligibility after 23.11.2019, therefore, the petitioners are not eligible to participate in the light of notification dated 08.06.2020. 5. So far submission of the petitioners that letter dated 15.06.2020 changes the criteria of selection is wholly misconceived and unsustainable.” 27. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned advocate has filed written submission, which is quoted below:— I. FACTS The Petitioners have challenged the Departmental Notification issued vide Memo No. 514 dated 15/06/2020 (Annexure-P/11), whereby it has been clarified that the cut-off date for acquiring of academic and training eligibility, for the purpose of appointment on the post of teacher had been 23/11/2019 and as such candidates who have subsequently passed the CTET examination in the month of December 2019 would not be eligible for appointment in light of Departmental Notification issued vide Memo No.482 dated 08/06/2020 as same has been exclusively issued for candidates, who have passed 18 months in-service course of D.El.Ed. conducted by NIOS for which order has been passed in the case of CWJC No.19842/2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar) by Hon’ble Patna High Court. II ISSUES/SUBMISSIONS:— D. The Departmental Notification issued vide Memo No.482 dated 08/06/2020 is exclusively meant for candidates who have passed 18 months in-service course of D.El.Ed. conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling pursuant to order dated 21/01/2020 passed in the case of CWJC No.19842/2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav and Ors vs. The State of Bihar) by Hon’ble Patna High Court. ? It is submitted that vide Letter dated 11/09/2019 issued by Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, candidates who have passed 18 months D.El.Ed. course conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling were not allowed to apply in the selection process initiated vide Memo No. 866 dated 05/07/2019 for appointment of teachers for class 1 to 5 and 6 to 8 for 2019 – 20, on the ground that their degrees are of 18 months and not of 2 year. D.El.Ed. course conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling were not allowed to apply in the selection process initiated vide Memo No. 866 dated 05/07/2019 for appointment of teachers for class 1 to 5 and 6 to 8 for 2019 – 20, on the ground that their degrees are of 18 months and not of 2 year. D.El.Ed. Candidates who have done their training from NIOS, challenged the said action before the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide CWJC No.19842/2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav and ors vs. The State of Bihar). The Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow writ petition with following direction:- “15. Thus, I find that on such misrepresentation and misreading of the clarification issued by the NCTE, the Director, Primary Education has illegally issued direction that the persons who had obtained D.El.Ed. course duly run for 18 months by NIOS are not eligible for appointment on the post of teachers in primary schools and thus, the letter as contained in Annexure-11 is illegal, unsustainable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Annexure-11 is set aside. 16. The writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to apply within one month and consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of primary teachers.” ? It is submitted that vide aforesaid order dated 21/01/2020, the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Patna was pleased to quash the letter dated 11/09/2019 issued by Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar. Since the last date for making application has expired, the state was directed to allow the petitioners therein, to apply within one month and consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of primary teachers. Thereafter in compliance of the order dated 21/01/2020 passed in CWJC No. 19842/2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs. State of Bihar), Education Department, Bihar, vide Memo No. 482 dated 08/06/20, published schedule for submission of application from candidates who have done their D.El.Ed. degree within 18 months from NIOS. B. That this selection process is being done to complete the selection process initiated vide Departmental Notification No. 864 dated 05/07/2019, therefore only those NIOS candidates who have completed their 18 months D.El.Ed. course are covered in terms of the judgment of the Patna High Court, Patna, can make application. It is further submitted that date for acquiring essential educational and training qualifications is 23/11/2019. course are covered in terms of the judgment of the Patna High Court, Patna, can make application. It is further submitted that date for acquiring essential educational and training qualifications is 23/11/2019. Therefore, those candidates who have passed their CTET examination in December 2019 are not eligible for participation in this selection view of the Departmental Notification No. 482 dated 08/06/2020. C. The aforesaid order has been challenged in this writ petition stating that rules of the advertisement have been changed in mid way, which is clearly misconceived. ? It is more than evident that this selection process is being done to complete the selection process initiated vide Departmental Notification No. 864 dated 05/07/2019. Furthermore, last date for acquiring essential educational and training qualifications is 23/11/2019, wherein these petitioners have passed their CTET examination only in December – much after the cut off date. ? It is clear that the Notification bearing Memo No.514 dated 15/06/2020– issued by Deputy Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, is not a fresh recruitment invitation rather same is continuation of the recruitment process initiated vide Departmental Notification No. 864 dated 05/07/2019. It is stated that last date for acquiring essential educational and training qualifications is 23/11/2019, when these petitioners have not even passed their CTET examination by that time. Furthermore, in compliance of the order dated 21/01/2020 passed in CWJC No.19842/2019, the Memo No. 514 dated 15/06/2020, has been issued inviting application from those NIOS candidates who have completed their 18 months D.El.Ed. course and are covered in terms of the judgement of the Patna High Court, Patna. Therefore, there is no infirmity in excluding candidates who have passed CTET in December. ? It is submitted that there is no change in the rules of advertisement, rather Memo No. 514 dated 15/06/2020 has been issued in compliance of the order dated 21/01/2020 passed in CWJC No.19842/2019, wherein it has been specifically directed to give 4 weeks times to make application to those NIOS candidates, who have completed 18 months D.El.Ed. course. D. Eligibility condition should be examined as on the last date of receipt of applications. Petitioners did not possess requisite eligibility qualification till the prescribed date i.e., 23/11/2019. ? There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. course. D. Eligibility condition should be examined as on the last date of receipt of applications. Petitioners did not possess requisite eligibility qualification till the prescribed date i.e., 23/11/2019. ? There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfills the requisite qualification. Admittedly, all the petitioners were not having the training qualification as on 23/11/2019 and they acquired the same in the month of December 2019. ? The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; and if there being no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. ? (Bhupinderpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262 (para 13) ? Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs. State ( NCT of Delhi) and others (2013) 11SCC 58- (para 11 ,12 15, 17, 19) ? U P Public Service Commission vs. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 732) ? Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajsthan 1993 Supp. (4)SCC 706 (para 10) Conclusion That it is stated that in the aforesaid view of the matter, the present case is required to be dismissed as the order under challenge does not require any interference as none of these Petitioners have passed CTET examination prior to 23/11/2019. 28. On consideration of the rival contention of the parties, the Court is of the considered view that the cut off date 23.11.2019 was never extended. The Court also finds that the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra) was accepted by the State Government as well as by the NCTE and in terms of the direction issued in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra) the respondents were under obligation to consider their case for selection and appointment as teacher. The Court also finds that the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra) was accepted by the State Government as well as by the NCTE and in terms of the direction issued in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra) the respondents were under obligation to consider their case for selection and appointment as teacher. The Court on scrutiny of the facts find that Annexure-10 was issued in the backdrop of the judgment passed in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra) and acceptance of the verdict of the writ court by the State of Bihar as well as NCTE. The Court is also of the considered view that notification as contained in Annexure-10 has to be read in the context it was issued i.e. in compliance of the direction issued in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra) and it cannot be read as extension of time for submission of application and extension of cut of date of eligibility, since the petitioners have passed CTET after the cut off date i.e. 23.11.2019, their passing CTET cannot be taken as appropriate for the purpose of deciding their eligibility on 23.11.2019. 29. The Court on scrutiny of entire materials on record finds that the judgment in L.P.A. No. 68 of 2020 is inapplicable in the facts of the case. It is well settled that the judgment is an authorities of what it decides and not what finds as a matter of corollary. Reference in this connection was made by the Apex Court in the case of Deena Dayal vs. The Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1155 . Contents as well as context of the judgment is relevant in applying the test of binding precedent. The contents and context in the judgment in L.P.A. No. 68 of 2020 is distinguishable and not applicable in the present case. 30. The Court is also of the considered view that the instant case is a peculiar case where in order to comply the direction of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra), the respondents have issued notification for submission of application up to 14.07.2020. 30. The Court is also of the considered view that the instant case is a peculiar case where in order to comply the direction of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra), the respondents have issued notification for submission of application up to 14.07.2020. A conjoint reading of the judgment passed in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra), the decision of NCTE on the request of the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department dated 29.05.2020 and the notification as contained in Annexure-10 any prudent man can come to a definite conclusion that the date was extended to facilitate the D.El.Ed. candidates, who were otherwise eligible up to 23.11.2019, but were not treated as eligible by the respondents on the ground that their training of 18 months through NIOS is inappropriate and as such Annexure-10 has to be read as opportunity to the writ petitioners in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra) and no other class of candidate. 31. Mr. Ashish Giri, learned counsel has relied upon various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court. It is to be noted here that the reliance of Mr. Giri on the judgment in L.P.A. No. 68 of 2020 as well as (2007) 4 SCC 54 is misconceived as in the peculiar facts of this case the last date vide Annexure-10 was to facilitate D.L.Ed. Candidates covered by Sanjay Kumar Yadav case and not an independent decision for universal extension of time for submission of application. The submission that fixation of cut off date is contrary to advertisement is also misconceived. The action of the respondent if examined in the perspective of decision of learned Single Judge in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case and acceptance of the verdict of the learned Single Judge accepting 18 months training through NIOS as appropriate training will make it crystal clear that the last date was extended by Annexure-10 dated 08.06.2020 is for specific class for a specified purpose and cannot be read as extension of time for all and as such reliance on the judgment in (2015) 8 SCC 484 , (2008) 7 SCC 11 ; (2009) 4 SCC 555 and Hareram Kumar case is totally misplaced. Similarly, the submission of Mr. Giri that petitioners are covered by judgment in CWJC No. 19842 of 2019 is also misconceived. It is well settled that a judgment is an authority of what it decides and not what follow logically. Similarly, the submission of Mr. Giri that petitioners are covered by judgment in CWJC No. 19842 of 2019 is also misconceived. It is well settled that a judgment is an authority of what it decides and not what follow logically. The decision in Sanjay Kumar Yadav Case (C.W.J.C. No. 19842 of 2019) cannot be stretched and applied in this case. Since the Court does not find merit in the contention that cut off dated 23.11.2019 has to be treated as extended vide Annexure-10, hence the alternative submission is noted to be rejected. 32. The Court does not find substance in the submission of the petitioners that they have passed CTET in December, 2019 and therefore they became eligible for consideration for appointment in terms of Annexure-4, which was only extended vide Annexure-10 for the limited purpose of facilitating the candidates covered by the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra). The submission of Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel that Annexure-11 dated 15.06.2020 is not a Governmental decision not expressed in the name of Governor does not merit any consideration for the reason that Annexure-11 dated 15.06.2020 was only clarification for the consumption of employment unit in the light of the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Yadav case (supra) and acceptance of its verdict by the State of Bihar as well as NCTE. The clarification for selection to the employment unit is not required to be authenticated in the name of Governor and as such the Court does not find any merit in the contention of the writ petitioners. 33. For the reasons and the discussion made in para 31, the submission of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar that the petitioners are covered by the decision in C.W.J.C. N. 19842 of 2019 is here by rejected. 34. Similarly, the Court does not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh that Annexure-10 be read as open for all category, the notification Annexure-10 has to be read in the context it was issued for those covered by judgment of Sanjay Kumar Yadav case. 35. For the reasons stated above, all the writ applications lack substance and the same are dismissed. However, there should be no order as to costs. 36. Consequently, the respondents are directed to take steps for completion of selection process and issuance of appointment letter forthwith.