ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The State of Jharkhand is in appeal against the order dated 21st May 2015 by which the order of termination of service of the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “respondent”) has been set aside by the writ Court. 2. W.P.(S) No. 4124 of 2008 was filed by the respondent challenging the order contained in the letter dated 24th May 2008 by which the Regional Deputy Director, Santhal Pargana Circle, Dumka refused to grant approval to her appointment as Matric Trained Assistant Teacher. The consequential order dated 10th June 2008 by which appointment of the respondent was cancelled by the Managing Committee of Marwari Girls Middle School, Dumka was also challenged before the writ Court. 3. Briefly stated, appointment of the respondent as Matric Trained Assistant Teacher was made on 22nd January 2000 by the Managing Committee of Marwari Girls Middle School, Dumka on a vacant sanctioned post. The respondent produced certificate of 'Shikshalankar' from Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur which was a degree recognized by the erstwhile State of Bihar equivalent to B.Ed. degree. It is not in dispute that the respondent joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 28th January 2000, however, the requisite approval for her appointment was not granted rather there were correspondences between different authorities. It appears that by letter dated 16th January 2003 the Director, Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur affirmed genuineness of the certificate produced by the respondent and it was further indicated that the degree of 'Shikshalankar' is equivalent to B.Ed. degree. Later on, the respondent took permission of the competent authority for pursuing B.Ed. course which she successfully completed from Sido Kanhu Murmu University in 2007. However, on the basis of the departmental order contained in letter dated 27th March 2004 which was to the effect that Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was a fake institution, as noticed above, appointment of the respondent was cancelled. 4. The writ Court taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case came to a conclusion that the certificate produced by the respondent cannot be treated invalid and her appointment could not have been terminated. The writ Court further took note of the report dated 9th October 1992 by which Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was accorded status of autonomous body and the certificates issued by it were recognized. 5. The writ Court has held as under : “7. The writ Court further took note of the report dated 9th October 1992 by which Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was accorded status of autonomous body and the certificates issued by it were recognized. 5. The writ Court has held as under : “7. On careful consideration of the aforesaid facts and documents available on record and after hearing the parties at length, I find that the petitioner has been able to make out a case warranting interference by this Court, accordingly, impugned order dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure 13) and letter dated 24.05.2008 (Annexure 11) are hereby quashed and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in his former post with all consequential benefits including continuity in service and the arrears of wages during the period, in which, he has served in the school. So far as back wages for the interregnum period of termination till the date of reinstatement is concerned, since there is no straight jacket formula for grant of back wages, a balance has to be struck for grant of back wages between interregnum period and sufferings undergone by the petitioner for no fault on his part vis-à-vis principle of ‘no work no pay’ and considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal, Ayurvedic College and others Vs. Sushil Chandra Misra and Another as reported in (2006) 12 SCC 703 and Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Another as reported in (2002) 6 SCC 41 , I am of the considered view that for the ends of justice the petitioner is entitled to get 25 % back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to do the whole exercise of reinstatement and payment of arrears of salary within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.” 6. The stand taken by the appellants is that the initial appointment of the respondent was illegal and while so B.Ed. certificate dated 7th April 2007 produced by the respondent would not attach validity to her appointment as Assistant Teacher. 7. Mr. The stand taken by the appellants is that the initial appointment of the respondent was illegal and while so B.Ed. certificate dated 7th April 2007 produced by the respondent would not attach validity to her appointment as Assistant Teacher. 7. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned AAG-III would refer to the communication dated 12th February 2004 from the Director, Directorate of Higher Education, Allahabad, whereby the Secretary to the State of Jharkhand was apprised that Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur is a fake institution, to lay support to the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand that initial appointment of the respondent was illegal. 8. The learned AAG-III would further refer to the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A No.83 of 2019. 9. We do not find any ground to interfere with the writ Court's order primarily for the reason that merely on the basis of a letter dated 12th February 2004 received from the Director, Directorate of Higher Education, Allahabad a decision terminating appointment of the respondent could not have been taken. As rightly held by the writ Court, there is a report dated 9th October 1992 and the degree awarded by Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was recognized by the State of Bihar and while so without a detailed inquiry in the matter and affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent her appointment could not have been terminated. 10. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel for respondent has referred to the order dated 17th November 2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3693 of 2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Bhagirathi Prasad Dey v. State of Jharkhand and Others” to lay support to the decision of the writ Court on the ground that the degree awarded by an institution before coming into force of NCTE Act, 1993 could not have been held invalid. 11. We are also of the opinion that the direction issued by the writ Court that on her reinstatement the respondent shall be paid 25% back wages does not call for any interference by this Court. That is so because the order of termination of the respondent from service was wholly illegal. 11. We are also of the opinion that the direction issued by the writ Court that on her reinstatement the respondent shall be paid 25% back wages does not call for any interference by this Court. That is so because the order of termination of the respondent from service was wholly illegal. However, we clarify that for the period between 8th October 2018 till today i.e. 16th June 2022 the back wages shall not be paid to the respondent as there is an order by a co-ordinate Bench staying the implementation of the writ Court's order. 12. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand shall comply the directions issued by the writ Court within six weeks. 13. Letters Patent Appeal No.546 of 2015 is dismissed.