JUDGMENT : S.N.Pathak, J. Heard the parties. 2. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are same and identical, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Petitioner in W.P.(S). Nos. 13 of 2020 and 14 of 2020 has prayed for quashing the order contained in memo No. 6097 dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent No.5 whereby it has been communicated that the recommendation for appointment made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the degree of B.Ed. Special Education from Banaras Hindu University is not recognized for purpose of appointment in Government School, College or added Government Institution in view of the letter of NCTE, New Delhi letter No. 77806, dated 25.04.2019, because there is no such content in the letter of NCTE, New Delhi. Similarly, petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2287 of 2019 prayed for quashing the Important Notice No. 3345 dated 29.04.2019 (Annexure-18) and letter No. 3554 dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure-10) whereby candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected. 4. Petitioners having the requisite qualifications, applied for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the district of Deoghar. It is the stand of the petitioners that though they fulfill the requisite qualification to be appointed as Assistant Teachers, their cases have been turned-down on the ground that B.Ed. Degree possessed by them is not as per the norms and the same has not been recognized by the NCTE and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for appointment since they are not fulfilling the criteria for appointment as Assistant Teachers. 5. Earlier the petitioners in W.P.(S). Nos. 13 of 2020 and 14 of 2020 were appointed as Assistant Teachers on the recommendation of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission on 09.01.2019. Subsequently, an objection was raised by the respondent-State that B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioners are not recognized by the NCTE. Thereafter, the respondent-JSSC cancelled the candidature of petitioners on 29.11.2019. Aggrieved by the said cancellation order, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 6. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel and Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously urges that the stand of the respondent-JSSC is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of Annexures-5, 6 and 13. Aggrieved by the said cancellation order, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 6. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel and Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously urges that the stand of the respondent-JSSC is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of Annexures-5, 6 and 13. Learned counsel further argues that from perusal of Annexures-6 and 13 it is clear that degree obtained by the petitioners are duly recognized not only by the NCTE but also by the RCI. It appears that respondent-JSSC as well as State of Jharkhand has not gone through the particular annexures of the writ petitions and without appreciating the contention of the NCTE as well as RCI has rejected the claim of the petitioners mechanically. It has been further argued that once degree has been recognized, the same could not have been questioned or rejected on frivolous grounds. Since petitioners in W.P.(S). Nos. 13 of 2020 and 14 of 2020 were already appointed and working by virtue of interim order passed by this Court dated 08.07.2020 and further, the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2287 of 2019 were also having B.Ed. degree which has been recognized by the NCTE, the order of cancellation of their candidature is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioners is not accepted and the same is not valid. Learned counsel, upon query made by this Court, has argued that certificates obtained from any University has to be recognized either by NCTE or by RCI. In this case, the same has not been recognized by either of the two Agencies and as such, the degree possessed by the petitioners i.e. B.Ed. Special Course which is of one year course, is not valid since the B.Ed. regular course is of two years. As such, any degree possessed by the candidates cannot be termed to be having requisite qualification and therefore, since not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the candidatures of the petitioners have been rightly turned down. 8. Special Course which is of one year course, is not valid since the B.Ed. regular course is of two years. As such, any degree possessed by the candidates cannot be termed to be having requisite qualification and therefore, since not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the candidatures of the petitioners have been rightly turned down. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NCTE referring to the counter-affidavit which is filed today and taken on board, submits that earlier the Regional Director has recognized the degree possessed by the petitioners and as such, both are equivalent meaning thereby B.Ed. Special Course and B.Ed. regular course are equivalent and as such, the same are recognized. The candidates having the degree of B.Ed. Special Course are eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher. 9. Learned counsel adopts arguments of learned counsel for the respondent-State and submits that though degree has been obtained from Banaras Hindu University but since the same is of one year B.Ed. Special Course, the same is not equivalent to B.Ed. degree in regular course. 10. Having heard the parties at length and going through the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly petitioners are possessing the requisite qualification of B.Ed. Special Course. It is the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission which had recommended the case of petitioners to be appointed as Assistant Teachers. Once the candidatures were found to be genuine as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, thereafter the same was recommended for appointment to the State. In the instant case, after fulfilling the requisite qualification duly accepted by the respondent-JSSC, the same was recommended to the State and appointments were made. However, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has now taken a ‘U’turn which is impermissible in the eyes of law. From the different documents annexed in the writ petition particular Annexures-6, 13, 14, it is crystal clear that the certificates issued by the Banaras Hindu University i.e. B.Ed. Special Course is equivalent to B.Ed. regular course and also recognized not only by the NCTE but also by the RCI. Once the degree has been recognized by the NCTE and RCI and certificates to that effect is issued by nonetheless the Director of the Institution, the same cannot be de-recognized merely on the recommendation of the State. Special Course is equivalent to B.Ed. regular course and also recognized not only by the NCTE but also by the RCI. Once the degree has been recognized by the NCTE and RCI and certificates to that effect is issued by nonetheless the Director of the Institution, the same cannot be de-recognized merely on the recommendation of the State. The recommendation of the State is always based on the certificates duly recognized by NCTE and RCI. Since no objection has been raised by the NCTE and RCI and thus, recommendation of the State for cancellation of the candidature is not tenable in the eyes of law and same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 11. Earlier, this Court by way of interim protection allowed the petitioners in W.P.(S). Nos. 13 of 2020 and 14 of 2020 to continue on the said post. This Court is in total agreement with the interim order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. No fault is there by the candidates since degree has already been recognized by the NCTE and RCI and hence, cancellation of candidatures of the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set. 12. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the impugned orders in W.P.(S). Nos. 13 of 2020 and 14 of 2020 as contained in order contained in memo No. 6097 dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure-5); & the Important Notice No. 3345 dated 29.04.2019 (Annexure-18) and letter No. 3554 dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure-10) in W.P.(S). No. 2287 of 2019 are hereby quashed and set aside. 13. Since the petitioners in W.P.(S). Nos. 13 of 2020 and 14 of 2020 are continuing in service as per the interim order passed by this Court, they shall continue on the same and respondents may extend consequential benefits to them. Further, petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2287 of 2019 are possessing the same degree and having the requisite qualification to be appointed as Assistant Teachers their cases shall also be considered and if there is no other legal impediments, offer of appointments be issued to the petitioners. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petition stand allowed. 15. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed.