SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.:–All the writ petitions have come up for admission. Taking into consideration the nature of the case, both the counsels have agreed to argue the case finally. Accordingly, the case was heard finally at this stage. 2. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 21397 of 2018 submits that the petitioners, who are working as teachers had acquired their B.Ed qualification in between the year 1979-81 to 1986 from the Chhota Nagpur Prathmik Sikchhak Sichha Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi. 3. The Education Department found certain discrepancies upon inspection conducted of the said college and thereafter, issued an order dated 30.09.1986 to de-recognise the said Teachers Education College w.e.f. 30th September, 1986. 4. Learned counsel has further taken this Court to the said order to submit that the college was dully recognized on 26th February, 1975 and continued to remain recognized till the order was passed on 30th September, 1986. 5. Learned counsel submits that on account of derecognition and erroneous interpretation the petitioners' salary was stopped. The petitioners, therefore, preferred a writ petition before this Court and this Court in CWJC No. 3154 of 2018 vide its order dated 9th March, 2018 directed the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Purnea to conduct an enquiry and take a final decision within a period of three months with liberty to the petitioners to assail the order, if the same goes adverse to them. 6. The District Education Officer (Establishment), Purnea vide its order dated 15th May, 2018 took an interpretation of order dated 30.09.1986 to know that all the candidates, who had acquired degree of education prior to 1986-88 from Chhota Nagpur Prathmik Sikchhak Sichha Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi would stand disqualified and accordingly the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were held to be disqualified to continue and their services were dispense with, with direction to recover the salary. The petitioners have assailed the said order before this Court. 7. Learned counsel submits that the order of de-recognition dated 30th September, 1986 nowhere mentions of de-recognition with retrospective effect. He further submits that the earlier recognition order dated 26th February, 1975 was passed for further Sessions 1975-76 and till further orders. Thus, all the students who acquired degree qualification from the said college would be eligible for appointment and their degrees cannot be said to be derecognised. 8. He further submits that the earlier recognition order dated 26th February, 1975 was passed for further Sessions 1975-76 and till further orders. Thus, all the students who acquired degree qualification from the said college would be eligible for appointment and their degrees cannot be said to be derecognised. 8. Learned counsel also taken to the order dated 16th September, 1988 to submit that even the State Government rebut its order dated 30th September, 1986 and continued recognition of the college for the Session 1986-88 temporarily. Thus, learned Counsel submits that there was no occasion for the concerned respondent to take a view that all the qualification prior to 1986-88 would stand de-recognise and prays to quash the order dated 15th May, 2018 with consequential benefits. 9. Learned counsel has also placed on record the letter to show that similarly situated 07 other teachers have been continued and have also been granted salary. 10. Learned counsel submits that the termination order essentially is retrospective in nature which cannot have been passed. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the other two writ petitions have also adopted the arguments of their senior counsel and further in CWJC No. 22833 of 2018 learned counsel has relied upon on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2018 to show that candidates, who had passed out from the Session 1985-87 were permitted to appear in the examination also. The petitioner has passed out for the Session 1985-87 and he submits that as the order dated 30.09.1986 was retrospectively modified to even allow candidates for the Sessions 1986-88 and given them provisional recognition, the petitioners would be entitled to continue and the impugned order passed in his case also deserves to be set aside. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that as the recognition was cancelled vide order dated 30th September, 1986, it would be assume that the college stood derecognised and all the qualifications which had been issued prior to 1986 would also be treated as de-recognised and, therefore, he supports the impugned order and submits that the order has rightly been passed and the petitioners cannot be said to be eligible to continue as teachers as they all passed the requisite qualification from the said college for the various sessions prior to 1986 as mentioned in the order dated 15th May, 2018. 13. 13. I have considered the submissions. Recognition of teachers training institute have been a subject matter of litigation since long. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again expressed that institutes should possess the requisite infrastructure and qualified teachers for training the candidates who acquire the qualification from that college. For the said purpose, the N.C.T. E Act, 1993 has also come into force w.e.f. 1995. Prior to the Act come into force. The State Government at its own level was conducting inspections for examining and satisfying whether the institute is following minimum standards for the education programme laid down for awarding the requisite degree in B.Ed. 14. The institute in the present case has acquired the recognition from the State Government vide order dated 26th February, 1975. The recognition order reads as under:— ^^la[;k&31oha -------------- A 74 f'kñ 564 f'k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj A izs"kd] Jh izHkkr dkfUr pkSèkjh] ljdkj ds voj lfpo] fcgkj A lsok esa] lfpo] vjktdh; izkFkfed f'k{kd] f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] MksjaMk@Fkji[kuk] jk¡phA iVuk] fnukad 26 Qjojh] 75 fo"k; %& izLohd`frA egk'k;] funs'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd jkT; ljdkj us fu.kZ;kuqlkj vjktdh; izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] MksjaMk ,oa Fkji[kuk ¼jk¡ph½ dh fuEukafdr 'kÙkkZs ij 75&76 l= ls vxys vkns'k rd dh izLohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gS %& ¼1½ nksuksa izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r ikB~;Øeksa ds vuqlkj gh f'k{k.k dh O;oLFkk djsxhA ¼2½ nksuksa egkfo|ky;ksa esa LVkfiQax jktdh; izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa ds fy, LVkfiQax iSVuZ ds vuqlkj gh gksxkA ¼3½ fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa 100 izf'k{k.kkfFkZ;ksa ls vfèkd dk ukekadu ugha gksxk A ¼4½ Nk=kokl] lkt lTtk] miLdj] fo|ky; Hkou vkfn dh leqfpr O;oLFkk jgsxhA ¼5½ egkfo|ky; dh izcUèkdkfj.kh lfefr dk leqfpr xBu gksxk] ftlesa jkT; ljdkj ds }kjk le; le; ij ,d euksuhr lnL; Hkh gksaxs rFkk iw.kZ lfefr dk vuqeksnu jkT; ljdkj djsxhA ¼6½ le; le; ij jkT; ljdkj }kjk fn;s x;s funs'kksa dk ikyu djuk gksxkA jkT; ljdkj dks ;g vfèkdkj gksxk fd fdlh Hkh le; fo|ky; dh izLohd`fr okil ys ysaA fo'oklHkktu gñ@& ¼izHkkr dkfUr pkSèkjh½ ljdkj ds voj lfpo] fcgkjA** 15. The aforesaid recognition order thus clearly postulates that the institute shall remain recognised till further order. The next order which has come on record is the order dated 30th September, 1986, whereby the State Government after conducting inspection found that the certain discrepancies with the institute and took a decision to cancel the recognition. The aforesaid recognition order thus clearly postulates that the institute shall remain recognised till further order. The next order which has come on record is the order dated 30th September, 1986, whereby the State Government after conducting inspection found that the certain discrepancies with the institute and took a decision to cancel the recognition. It would be appropriate to note the order as under:— ^^i=kad 10@ok&0238@85ekñ --------------- fcgkj ljdkj ekuo lalkèku fodkl foHkkxA izs"kd] Jh mek'kadj izlkn] ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpo] ekuo lalkèku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA lsok esa] ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh] jkaphA iVuk] fnukad fo"k;%&vjktdh NksVkukxiqj izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky; esu jksM] jkaph dh izLohd`fr ds lacaèk esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d foHkkxh; i=kad & 1077] fnukad 30-09-86 ds izlax esa funs'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd ftlds }kjk vjktdh; NksVkukxiqj izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] esujksM] jkaph dh izLohd`fr jn dh xbZ Fkh ds lacaèk esa iquZfopkj dj jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl egkfo|ky; dks l= 1986&88 ls vLFkkbZ izLohd`fr iznku djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa Nk=ksa dh la[;k ,d lkS ls vfèkd ugha gksxkA foHkkxh; vfèklwpuk la[;k&1107 fnukad 25-11-87 esa vafdr izLohd`fr dh 'krksZ rFkk vfu;ferrk dh tkap xfBr lfefr }kjk djkdj izfrosnu ij vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxkA fo'oklHkktu] gñ@& mek'kadj izlkn ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA Kkikad&1082 iVuk] fnukad 16&9&88 izfrfyfi lfpo] fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr fcgkj] iVuk rFkk lfpo vjktdh; NksVkukxiqj izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] esu jksM] jkaph dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA mek'kadj izlkn ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA** 16. Thus, the cancellation is w.e.f. 30th September, 1986. It would, therefore, not affect the candidates, who have already acquired the qualification between 1975-86. The order does not say that all degrees granted earlier should stand de-recognised. This Court further noticed that the order dated 30th September, 1986 stood withdrawn vide order dated 16.09.1988 as the State Government reviewed its stand and recognised the degrees issued by the college for the session 1986-88 also. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the qualifications, which the petitioners acquired stood and continued to remain recognise. 17. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Purnea to hold otherwise he could not have added words for the order dated 30.09.1986 and terminate the services of the petitioners. The order is thus found to be clearly contrary to law and also on facts. 17. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Purnea to hold otherwise he could not have added words for the order dated 30.09.1986 and terminate the services of the petitioners. The order is thus found to be clearly contrary to law and also on facts. There is no such declaration by the State to de-recognise the qualifications prior to 1986-88 acquired from Chhota Nagpur Prathmik Sikchhak Sichha Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi. The termination order is found to be illegal also as it has been made retrospective no recovery could have been made. In view thereof, the order dated 15.05.2018 is found to be erroneous and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 18. In view of above, the petitioners would be entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and petitioners would also be entitled for their salary for the entire period and other consequential benefits, if any, vacancy has been made, the same should be restored to the petitioners. 19. The respondents are directed to make compliance of the order within a period of three months, failing which the petitioners shall be free to initiate contempt proceeding without further notice. 20. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.