JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the office order as contained in memo No. 1546 dated 2.8.2018 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period from 15.1.2016 to 2.8.2018 i.e. from the date of joining in the office of Area Education Officer, Sadar Giridih till the date of dismissal as he had worked during the aforesaid period, but salary was not paid. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including the back wages. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Para Teacher on 15.9.2009 in Upgraded Middle School, Tilaiya under Bishnugarh block of Hazaribagh district. He was enrolled by the concerned department in National Institute of Open Schooling, Noida to complete the course of Diploma in Elementary Education (D. El. Ed.) (Session 2012-14) in the year 2012 and while pursuing the said course, he passed the Jharkhand Teachers' Eligibility Test, 2012 (JTET) held in the month of April, 2013 and the certificate to that effect was also issued to him on 28th May, 2013. A certificate of Diploma in Elementary Education was issued to him by the National Institute of Open Schooling, Noida on 25.02.2015. Thereafter, he applied for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Class 6 to 8) in the ‘Language’ subject pursuant to Advertisement No. 04/2015 issued by the office of the respondent No.3 and was finally appointed on the said post vide office order as contained in memo No. 11 dated 05.01.2016 issued by the respondent No.3. Accordingly, he was relieved from the post of Para Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Tilaiya, Hazaribagh to join in the office of the Area Education Officer, Sadar, Giridih vide office order as contained in memo No. 47 dated 13.01.2016 where he joined on 15.01.2016. Thereafter, vide office order as contained in memo No. 477 dated 01.03.2016 issued by the respondent No.3, he was posted at Middle School, Hesla, Bagodar where he joined on 04.03.2016. Thereafter, vide office order as contained in memo No. 477 dated 01.03.2016 issued by the respondent No.3, he was posted at Middle School, Hesla, Bagodar where he joined on 04.03.2016. The petitioner was further deputed in Upgraded Middle School, Ghaghra (Bagodar) vide office order as contained in memo No. 701 dated 17.6.2016, however, he subsequently returned to his original place of posting i.e. Middle School, Hesla. Thereafter, he received the letter as contained in memo No. 2299 dated 22.09.2016, issued by the respondent No.3 seeking explanation on the issue that he passed the Jharkhand Teachers’ Eligibility Test (JTET) in the year 2013, however, he passed the Teacher Training Examination (i.e. D. El. Ed.) in the year 2015 which showed that he had not passed the Teacher Training Examination before clearing the Jharkhand Teachers’ Eligibility Test. The said letter was replied by the petitioner on 22.10.2016, however, he was dismissed from service vide the impugned office order as contained in memo No. 1546 dated 2.8.2018 issued by the respondent No.3. 3. It is further submitted that as per proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Bihar State (now Jharkhand) Nationalised Elementary School Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1994, dismissal of a teacher is a major penalty and as such initiation of departmental proceeding is sine qua non before passing the order of dismissal from service. However, the said Rule was not adhered to before passing the impugned order of dismissal. The respondents have not even paid salary to the petitioner for the period he worked from 15.1.2016 to 2.8.2018. The petitioner had joined the post of Assistant Teacher after relieving from the post of Para Teacher and as such his illegal dismissal from service has put him to deprivation of livelihood. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Para Teacher on 15.9.2009 in Middle School, Tilaiya within Bishnugarh block of Hazaribagh district. He appeared in JTET examination and was declared to have passed. Accordingly, a certificate to that effect was also issued to him on 28.05.2013 whereas prior to that, he did not complete Teacher Training Course. As per the rules and norms of the government, only those candidates, who had passed the Teacher Training Course were eligible to appear in the JTET examination. Hence, the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as an Assistant Government Teacher. As per the rules and norms of the government, only those candidates, who had passed the Teacher Training Course were eligible to appear in the JTET examination. Hence, the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as an Assistant Government Teacher. In fact, the petitioner had submitted the certificate of passing Teacher Training Course of the year 2015, which clearly established that at the time of appearing in the JTET examination, he had not cleared the Teacher Training Course. On a complaint that the petitioner had passed JTET examination without passing the examination of Teacher Training Course, he was asked to submit explanation and after receiving his reply, the matter was placed for consideration in the meeting of the District Education Establishment Committee, Giridih held on 30.07.2018 for taking appropriate decision and the said Committee unanimously decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 vide the impugned office order as contained in memo No. 1546 dated 02.08.2018, dismissed the petitioner from service. 5. It is further submitted that on perusal of the appointment letter, it is evident that if any candidate is appointed due to bonafide mistake, the appointment of such candidate would be cancelled on its detection by the authority without furnishing any information to such candidate and the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee would be final in this regard. Thus, the petitioner has been dismissed from service after finding his appointment as illegal. 6. It is also submitted that facing difficulty in maintaining the family is not a ground to set aside the order of dismissal which is completely justified and legal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. 8. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dismissal of the petitioner from service on mere ground that he had completed Teacher Training Course (TTC) after passing the JTET examination is in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Omkar Singh & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2021) 14 SCC 486 wherein it has been specifically held that a candidate, who is pursuing TTC, is also eligible to appear in TET examination. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2021) 14 SCC 486 wherein it has been specifically held that a candidate, who is pursuing TTC, is also eligible to appear in TET examination. Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Omkar Singh (Supra), the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) has issued letter No. 112852 dated 04.08.2022 to the Deputy Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education, Delhi forwarding the same to the Director (CTET) & Regional Director (Delhi, East) Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi whereby it has been clarified that a candidate pursuing Teacher Training Course is entitled to appear in TET Examination. 9. I have perused the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Singh (Supra) wherein the question as to whether the incumbents, who were pursuing the Teacher Training Courses, could have appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test prescribed by NCTE, fell for consideration and Their Lordships held as under:- “7.3. Looking to the clear wordings in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE Guidelines and the phrase used is “pursuing”, the High Court is not justified in adding the additional riders, such as, that to become eligible for appearing in TET examination, a candidate must have appeared in the TTC examination and the result have not been declared by the last date specified for filling up the online form for TET examination. As per the dictionary meaning, the word “pursuing” means undergoing and/or proceeding further. Therefore, a candidate who has been admitted in any of the TTC and undergoing the teacher training course (“TTC”) can be said to be “pursuing” such teacher training course and shall be eligible to appear in TET examination, irrespective of the fact that whether, by the last date specified for filling up the online form for TET examination, he has, in fact, appeared in the examination of the teacher training course concerned and the result is awaited. “Pursuing” the requisite teacher training course is sufficient to make such a candidate eligible to appear in TET examination. Therefore, on a fair reading of clause 5(ii) of the NCTE Guidelines, a person who has been admitted in TTC and is pursuing, he/she can appear in TET examination. In the present case, admittedly, on the cut-off date, all the candidates were pursuing the teacher training course concerned. Therefore, on a fair reading of clause 5(ii) of the NCTE Guidelines, a person who has been admitted in TTC and is pursuing, he/she can appear in TET examination. In the present case, admittedly, on the cut-off date, all the candidates were pursuing the teacher training course concerned. Thereafter, all of them have cleared TET examination as well as have cleared the teacher training course concerned. At the time when they were appointed as Assistant Teachers, all of them fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointment as Assistant Teachers. All of them have passed TET examination and have also passed the TTC as per the requisite eligibility criteria. Thus, in our view, ousting certain incumbents by the High Court cannot be sustained since they were pursuing TTC and they were clearly eligible to appear in TET examination and have passed it while pursuing the requisite professional qualification for being eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teachers.” 10. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the word ‘pursuing’ used in Clause 5(ii) of the NCTE Guidelines and has held that a candidate can be said to be pursuing a course when he/she is undergoing any of the requisite teacher training courses and declaration of result of the same cannot be a criterion to appear in the TET examination. Their Lordships looking to the fact of that case have held that at the time of appointment, all the candidates had passed the TTC and the TET examinations and as such they were eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers. 11. I have also perused letter No. 112852 dated 04.08.2022 whereby it has been clarified that in view of Clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines, a person who has been admitted in TTC and is pursuing the same, he/she is eligible for appearing in TET examination, if otherwise eligible as per extant guidelines of TET circulated on 11.02.2011 (amended from time to time) and notifications issued by the NCTE regarding minimum qualification (amended from time to time). 12. In the case in hand, the stand of the petitioner is that he was admitted to TTC (D. El. Ed., Session 2012-14) in the year 2012. While pursuing the said course, he had appeared in the JTET, 2012 and the certificate of passing the JTET examination was issued to him on 28.05.2013. 12. In the case in hand, the stand of the petitioner is that he was admitted to TTC (D. El. Ed., Session 2012-14) in the year 2012. While pursuing the said course, he had appeared in the JTET, 2012 and the certificate of passing the JTET examination was issued to him on 28.05.2013. Subsequently, he also completed the TTC and the certificate to that effect was issued to him on 25.02.2015. The said factual plea taken by the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents. Thus, it appears that at the time of filling up the form for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Language) (Class 6 to 8) vide Advertisement No. 04/2015, the petitioner was holding both the JTET as well as the Teacher Training certificates. As such, his case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Omkar Singh (Supra) as well as letter No. 112852 dated 04.08.2022 issued by the NCTE. Thus, the impugned office order as contained in memo No. 1546 dated 02.08.2018 is patently illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned office order as contained in memo No. 1546 dated 2.8.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service. They are also directed to pay the salary for the period from 15.1.2016 to 2.8.2018 to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed.