SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.:–This matter comes up for final arguments as the Supreme Court in its Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 1033 of 2021 passed following orders on 28th September, 2021:— “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the High Court has to dispose of CWJC No. 9017 of 2021 at an early date. Therefore, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application also stands disposed of.” 2. On 24th February, 2021, on the request of the counsels, the case was directed to be listed on 22nd March, 2022 and it was made clear that the pleading shall be completed on the next date. However, the case came up on 4th July, 2022 and directions were again issued to complete the pleadings and remove all the defects whereafter the case has come up today. 3. Heard, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Government counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 at length. 4. The brief, facts which require to be considered for the present dispute are that the petitioner had passed B.Ed. degree from University of Jammu & Kashmir in 2003-2005, whereafter she applied for the post of Niyojit Secondary Teacher and was selected and appointed vide order dated 12th March, 2007. She joined on 13th March, 2007. Respondent No. 4 was appointed vide order dated 5th April, 2007. It has been pointed out that there was no dispute raised with regard to her degree at the time of appointment and after having served for about seven years the petitioner was given the charge of Headmistress. She continued to perform her duties but by the impugned order dated 15th March, 2021, she was directed to hand over charge to respondent no. 4 and was also informed that her service rendered prior to 12.04.2017 stands derecognized vide order dated 15.03.2021 as the qualification of B.Ed. from University of Jammu & Kashmir has been recognized with effect from 12.04.2017. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.03.2021 and by an amendment application has also challenged the order passed by the State Government dated 28th May, 2019, which is the basis for passing of the order dated 15th March, 2021. 5. from University of Jammu & Kashmir has been recognized with effect from 12.04.2017. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.03.2021 and by an amendment application has also challenged the order passed by the State Government dated 28th May, 2019, which is the basis for passing of the order dated 15th March, 2021. 5. Learned senior counsel submits that the order dated 28th May,2019, is per se bad in law and the consequential order of 15th March, 2021 is also unjustified 6. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the order dated 28th May, 2019 which is stated to have been issued in compliance of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and submits that the authorities have wholly mis-interpreted and misunderstood the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the S.L.P. disposed of on 18.01.2019. Learned counsel submits that the Apex Court has granted relief to all the employees who were already in employment and also to those who have to be employed. In view thereof, the services rendered by employees who obtained B.Ed. From Jammu & Kashmir prior to issuing of notification dated 12.04.2017, could not be ignored and they could not be treated to be fresh appointees as on 12.04.2017. The order was thus vitiated on other grounds. Learned counsel has relied on judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Rama Shankar Patel and Others vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2019(3) P.L.J.R. 1291 . 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Government supports the order passed by the respondent-State and submits that since the notification was issued on 12.04.2017, the service of the already employed teachers can only be counted from 12.04.2017 as interpreted by the State Government. The degree awarded by Jammu & Kashmir University has been recognized from 12.04.2017 onwards alone. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has also supported the submissions made by the Government counsel and submits that so far as respondent no. 4 is concerned, she has acquired her qualifications from another University and was appointed although after the petitioner, but would be entitled to seniority over and above the petitioner as the service of the petitioner has been discounted from 2007 up to 2017. Therefore, natural corollary and consequential order of posting the respondent no. 4 as the Headmistress-in-Charge over and above the petitioner does not warrant any interference. Therefore, natural corollary and consequential order of posting the respondent no. 4 as the Headmistress-in-Charge over and above the petitioner does not warrant any interference. 9. I have considered the submissions noted above. Admittedly, the petitioner who was appointed on 12.03.2007 and her qualifications were never put to question at the relevant time. Degree awarded by University of Jammu & Kashmir came up to be a subject matter of challenge only when in the year 2013 the Government refused to recognize the said qualification from student/candidate for selection vide its memorandum dated 1st March, 2013. The said memorandum was made a subject matter of litigation before this Court and ultimately the case travelled to the Supreme Court where the State Government filed an affidavit stating therein that they have issued a notification on 12.04.2011 filed an affidavit. The Supreme Court accordingly passed following orders in the S.L.P. :— ORDER “An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 by the Director Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same are extracted hereunder : “2. This Hon’ble Court on 11.01.2019 adjourned the matter by a week to enable the State of Bihar to place on record the notifications dated 12.04.2017 in relation to amendment to the Bihar District Board, Secondary/Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 and the Bihar Municipal Bodies Secondary/High Secondary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 by which the B.Ed degree awarded from the universities situated in Jammu & Kashmir have been recognized as admissible requisite qualification. 3. Further, the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7135 of 2013 vide order dated 22.04.2013 had directed the State Government not to fill up the posts of Secondary/Senior Secondary Teachers so far as it relates to the Petitions and thereafter extended this benefit to all persons similarly situated. Accordingly the State Government has kept 405 seats reserved qua 405 persons who were selected but not appointed in order of merit.” The Government has decided to give the benefit to the persons who are in employment and those who have to be employed. Let similar treatment be meted out to those who are similarly situated. In view of the aforesaid, nothing further survives in the matter. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 10. Let similar treatment be meted out to those who are similarly situated. In view of the aforesaid, nothing further survives in the matter. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 10. In view of above, the Education Department of the State of Bihar was required to pass the orders accordingly. Let similar treatment be meted out to those who are similarly situated. In view of the aforesaid, nothing further survives in the matter. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 10. In view of above, the Education Department of the State of Bihar was required to pass the orders accordingly. However, after quoting the order of the Supreme Court (supra), it proceeded to interpret and pass orders as under:— ^^fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx vfèklwpuk la[;k% 11@fuñ1&03@10 ---1108 iVuk] fnukad 12-04-2017 izLrkouk %& lafoèkku dh 73oha la'kksèku ds vkyksd esa ftyk ifj"knksa dh Hkwfedk dks egRoiw.kZ ekurs gq, f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu dk dk;Z iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa dks iwoZ esa gh gLrxr djk fn;k x;k gSA jkT; ljdkj }kjk lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr f'k{kd ik=krk ijh{kk esa mÙkh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ekè;fed@mPp ekè;fed esa ekè;fed ,oa mPp ekè;fed f'k{kd rFkk iqLrdky;kè;{kksa ds in ij fu;kstu dh ftEesokjh iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa dks lkSaius dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA bl iz;kstukFkZ fo'ks"k ;kstuk ds vèkhu] ekè;fed@mPp ekè;fed fo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kd@iqLrky;kè;{k in ij fu;kstu gsrq fcgkj ftyk ifj"kn~ ekè;fed ,oa mPprj ekè;fed f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok'kÙkZ½ fu;ekoyh] 2006 ¼le;≤ ij ;Fkk la'kksfèkr½ dk la'kksèku djus dk izLrko gSA Hkkjr lafoèkku ds vuqPNsn&243 N% lgifBr fcgkj iapk;r jkt vfèkfu;e] 2006 dh èkkjk&146 ds vèkhu iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fcgkj ds jkT;iky] fcgkj ftyk ifj"kn~&ekè;fed ,oa mPprj&ekè;fed f'k{kd (fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'kÙkZ½ fu;ekoyh] 2006 ¼le;≤ ij ;Fkk la'kksfèkr½ esa la'kksèku djus gsrq fuEufyf[kr fu;ekoyh cukrs gSa%& 1- laf{kIr uke] foLrkj ,oa izkjaHk-µ¼1½ ;g fu;ekoyh **fcgkj ftyk ifj"kn~ ekè;fed ,oa mPprj ekè;fed f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok'kÙkZ½ ¼la'kksèku½ fu;ekoyh] 2017** dgh tk ldsxhA ¼2½ bldk foLrkj lEiw.kZ fcgkj jkT; esa gksxkA ¼3½ ;g rqjar izo`r gksxh 2- mDr fu;ekoyh] 2006 ds fu;e&4 ds mifu;e (d)(iii) esa fuEufyf[kr ijUrqd tksM+k tk;sxk%& ^^ijUrq p¡wfd jk"Vªh; vè;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ vfèkfu;e tEew&d'ehj jkT; esa izHkkoh ugha gS] vr% tEew&d'ehj jkT; esa vofLFkr fo'ofo|ky; ls iznÙk chñ,Mñ fMxzh Lohdk;Z visf{kr vgZrk gksxhA** 3- mDr fu;ekoyh] 2006 ds fu;e&4 ds mifu;e ([k)(iii) esa fuEufyf[kr ijUrqd tksM+k tk;sxk %& ^^ijUrq p¡wfd jk"Vªh; vè;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ vfèkfu;e tEew&d'ehj jkT; esa izHkkoh ugha gS] vr% tEew&d'ehj jkT; esa vofLFkr fo'ofo|ky; ls iznÙk chñ,Mñ fMxzh Lohdk;Z visf{kr vgZrk gksxhA** fcgkj ds jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] gñ@& ¼vkjñ dsñ egktu½ izèkku lfpo Kkikad%& 11@fuñ1&03@10---1108 iVuk] fnukad%& 12-04-17 izfrfyfi %& lHkh foHkkxh; izèkku lfpo@ lHkh foHkkxh; lfpo@egkys[kkdkj] fcgkj iVuk@ lHkh ize.Myh; vk;qDr@funs'kd] izFkkfed f'k{kk@funs'kd] ekè;fed f'k{kk@lHkh ftyk inkfèkdkjh@lHkh mi fodkl vk;qDr@lHkh {ks=kh; f'k{kk mi funs'kd@lHkh ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh@ lHkh ftyk dk;ZØe inkfèkdkjh ¼ftyk f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh dk;kZy;½@lHkh dks"kkxkj inkfèkdkjh@mi&dks"kkxkj inkfèkdkjh@lHkh iz[k.M fodkl inkfèkdkjh@ lHkh iz[k.M f'k{kk izlkj inkfèkdkjh ,oa lHkh iapk;r lfpo dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA gñ@& ¼vkjñ dsñ egktu½ izèkku lfpo** Paragraph 9 of the order dated 28-05-2019 is as under :— ^^9- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fnukad& 18-01-2019 dks ikfjr mDr vkns'k ds vuqikyukFkZ fuEukafdr fu.kZ; foHkkx ds Lrj ij fy, x,%& 1- tEew ,oa d'ehj esa vofLFkr fo'ofo|ky;ksa ls iznÙk chñ,Mñ fMxzh ds vkèkkj ij ftyk ifj"kn@uxj fudk; fu;kstu bdkbZ vUrxZr ekè;fed@mPp ekè;fed f'k{kd ds in ij fu;kstu gsrq vkosnu fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj esèkk lwph esa mUgsa lfEefyr djrs gq, ftu 405 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fu;kstu dh izfØ;k dks iw.kZ djrs gq, fu;kstu i=k fuxZr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj in dks lqjf{kr j[kk x;k Fkk] ¼ftudk fooj.k ftyksa ds }kjk funs'kky; dks izfrosfnr gS½ ds i{k esa fu;kstu i=k fuxZr djus dk funs'k lacafèkr fu;kstu bdkbZ dks fn;k tkrk gSA ;g dkjZokbZ fnukad&10-06-2019 rd djrs gq, vuqikyu izfrosnu ekè;fed f'k{kk funs'kky; dks lacafèkr fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk miyCèk djk;k tk;A 2- fnukad&12-04-2017 ds iwoZ ds fu;ksftr ,oa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa ds lsok dh ekU;rk fnukad& 12-04-2017 ds izHkko ls nh tkrh gSA bl frfFk ds iwoZ ds dk;Zjr vofèk dks laxr fu;ekoyh ds vkyksd esa ekU;rk ugha fn, tkus ds dkj.k mDr vofèk ds fy, cdk;k vkfn ds Hkqxrku ds nkok dks vuqekU; ugha fd;k tkrk gSA fnukad& 12-04-2017 ds izHkko ls dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa dks ns; cdk;k osrukfn dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;A mDr fu.kZ; ij foHkkx ds l{ke izkfèkdkj dk vuqeksnu izkIr gSA** 11. On conjoint reading of the order passed by the Supreme Court and the order passed by the Education Department, it is apparent that there has been an error in interpreting the orders passed by the Supreme Court. Those who are already employed with the Government are also required to be saved instead their entire period of service rendered with the Government has been discounted while passing the order dated 28.05.2019. It is also noticed that the salary paid or due for the period prior to 12.04.2017 has been treated as inadmissible. Thus, the teachers who have worked on the basis of appointment offered to them after having obtained B.Ed. degree from Jammu & Kashmir would have to either re-pay back the salary or if the salary has not been released and they have worked for the said period, shall not be entitled to get their dues. This Court is of firm view that the Apex Court neither intended to pass such orders nor could there be any such intention. This Court finds that the petitioner has been working for almost ten years, i.e., from 2007 to 2017 and her qualification was not a subject matter of challenge by any person nor she was served with any notice with regard to her qualifications. 12. It is noticed that the qualifications required prior to amendment dated 12.04.2017 was B.Ed. degree from institution recognized by the NCTE. Admittedly, the B.Ed. degree awarded by University of Jammu & Kashmir would not fall within the jurisdiction and control of the NCTE as the Act of NCTE was not extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. However, University of Jammu & Kashmir is a duly recognized University. Any degree awarded by a duly recognized University has to be considered as a duly recognized qualification. The same is sufficient qualification for employment unless there is a specific order derecognizing such qualification for employment by any State Government. 13. The view is supported by judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. B.L. Awawa vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1982) 2 SCC 55 , paragraph and 11 is reproduced below:— “11 : The University of Bihar at Muzaffarpur is one duly established by statute and it is fully competent to conduct examinations and award degrees. B.L. Awawa vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1982) 2 SCC 55 , paragraph and 11 is reproduced below:— “11 : The University of Bihar at Muzaffarpur is one duly established by statute and it is fully competent to conduct examinations and award degrees. The Degree of Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)-M.D. (Forensic Medicine)-of the University of Bihar is included in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as a degree fully recognised by the Indian Medical Council which is the paramount professional body set up by statute with authority to recognise the medical qualifications granted by any University or Medical Institution in India. A Post-graduate Medical Degree granted by a University duly established by statute in this country and which has also been recognised by the Indian Medical Council by inclusion to the Schedule of the Medical Council Act has ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country. In the absence of any express provision to the contrary, such a degree does not require to be specifically recognised by other Universities in any State in India before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a State. The Division Bench of the High Court was, in our opinion, manifestly in error in thinking that since the Post-graduate degree possessed by the appellant was not one obtained from the University of Rajasthan, it could not be treated as a valid qualification for the purpose of recruitment in question in the absence of any specific order by the University of Rajasthan recognising the said degree or declaring it as an equivalent qualification. It is common ground before us that the University of Rajasthan does not conduct Post-graduate examinations in the subject of Forensic Medicine and it does not award the degree of M.L. (Forensic Medicine). In order that there should be scope for declaration of 'equivalence' of a qualification obtained from another body, there should be a corresponding qualification that can be earned by virtue of passing an examination or test conducted by the concerned University. There can be declaration of equivalence only as between a degree etc. awarded by the concerned University and one obtained from a body different from the concerned University. There can be declaration of equivalence only as between a degree etc. awarded by the concerned University and one obtained from a body different from the concerned University. When the University of Rajasthan does not conduct any examination for the award of the degree of M.L. (Forensic Medicine), there cannot be any question of declaration of 'equivalence' in respect of such a degree awarded by any University. Unfortunately, the State Public Service Commission as well as the Division Bench of the High Court failed to notice this crucial aspect. We may also point out that the declaration of 'equivalence' referred to in Section 23A of the Rajasthan University Act as well as in clause (vii) of Ordinance No. 65 of the Rajasthan University Ordinances can only be in respect of qualifications other than basic or Post-graduate degrees awarded by other statutory Indian Universities in the concerned subjects. In the case of a Post-graduate degree in the concerned subject awarded by a statutory Indian University, no recognition or declaration of equivalence by any other University is called for. This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree-basic as well as Post-graduate-that is awarded by a statutory Indian University and which has been specifically recognised by the Indian Medical Council.” 14. In view of above, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was wrongly appointed in the year 2007 and, therefore, her services cannot be set at naught and discounted. She would, therefore, be entitled to her continuity of service from 2007 onward itself for all purposes. A similar view has been taken by the Full Bench in Rama Shankar Patel vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2019 (3) PLJR (supra) wherein after considering the issue the reference was answered as under:— “46. In terms of the notification of the General Administration Department as contained in Memo No. 541 dated 11th January, 1991 the Sahityaalankar certificate had got equivalence to the graduation at least prior to 25.08.2008, therefore, those writ petitioners who obtained their Sahityalankar degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar prior to 25.08.2008 would come within the framework of the notification dated 11 th January, 1991 and shall be entitled for consideration for promotion to B.A. (Trained) Scale. By virtue of the notification dated 08.04.2016, the promotions granted between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 have been saved. By virtue of the notification dated 08.04.2016, the promotions granted between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 have been saved. Further by notification dated 17.04.2017 now even the degree obtained prior to 07.05.2012 and the appointment/promotion granted between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 have been saved. In these circumstances the petitioners no. 4, 7 and 15 shall also be entitled for the benefits because in both cases i.e. notification dated 08.04.2016 and notification dated 17.04.2017 the State respondents cannot contend that while the promotions granted to the persons junior to the petitioners in the gradation list between 07.05.2012 and 08.04.2016 shall be saved, the petitioners would not be entitled Patna High Court CWJC No.11255 of 2016 dt. 22-08-2019 for the same. This would be discriminatory because once equivalence granted to Sahityaalankar degree obtained from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar prior to 07.05.2012 is saved it will save the petitioners who have their Sahityaalankar degree obtained prior to 07.05.2012. They would be entitled to maintain their position in the seniority list and in case juniors to them have been granted promotion in terms of B.A. (Trained) Scale, these petitioners shall also be entitled for the same from the date their juniors have received the benefit.” 15. In view of above, the order passed by the State Government dated 28th May, 2019 so far as it directs of not counting service and not treating the salary admissible for existing employees who possess the degree from Jammu & Kashmir University prior to 12.04.2017 is not sustainable in law. 16. Having reached to the aforesaid conclusion, the consequential order passed by the respondent Annexure-6 dated 15.03.2021, therefore, cannot be sustained. The petitioner would be entitled for benefit of her entire period of her service from 13th March, 2007, for all purposes including seniority, increments and pay fixation etc. 17. Accordingly, the said the petition is allowed. The order dated 22nd July, 2019 passed by the Education Department and the consequential order dated 15th March, 2020 are quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. It is made clear that this order shall apply to all existing employees who were working prior to the issuing of the notification dated 12th April 2017. The petitioner would accordingly be granted her due benefits. No Costs. 18. It is made clear that this order shall apply to all existing employees who were working prior to the issuing of the notification dated 12th April 2017. The petitioner would accordingly be granted her due benefits. No Costs. 18. It has been informed that by way of an I.A. that the petitioner who was later on suspended by the 21.05.2022, since, the said suspension order is not a subject matter of examination of litigation in the present case, petitioner would be free to challenge the same in independent proceeding.