JUDGMENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure 8) by which the claim of the petitioner for recognizing his services has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has obtained B.Ed. degree from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata, which is not affiliated to the Public Examining Body, e.g. University/Board/Council. 2. Heard Mr. Saurav Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Ms. Nidhi Kumari, learned counsel and Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 15.01.2015, passed by the Director, Secondary Education-Respondent No. 2, is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that on the one hand similarly situated persons appointed with the petitioner have been absorbed by the respondents, namely Ram Krishna Gope, who has also acquired B.Ed. decree from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata in the year 1990 and who had filed W.P.(S) No.3243 of 2011 before this High Court and his case was considered and allowed on 03.06.2013 in the light of the order dated 27.02.2013, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2011, whereas the case of the petitioner was rejected in an illegal and arbitrary manner. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 22.12.1984 in Project Girls High School, Jainagar, Koderma by the competent Management Committee and the petitioner joined the school on 25.12.1984. It is further submitted that Annexure 2 is the Circular dated 04.2.1989, whereby the decision was taken that services of Assistant Teachers of the Project Girls High Schools will be absorbed. Thereafter ‘Alam Committee’ was constituted on the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the Committee had not recognized the services of the petitioner on the ground that although he had requisite qualification, but he was an untrained teacher. Thereafter ‘Alam Committee’ was constituted on the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the Committee had not recognized the services of the petitioner on the ground that although he had requisite qualification, but he was an untrained teacher. Thereafter, petitioner had preferred W.P.(S) No. 4195 of 2013, which was heard and vide Order dated 04.8.2014 (Annexure-7) was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of order passed in the case of Ram Krishna Gope in W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2011 in line with the judgment passed in the case of Sukhdeo Gope in W.P.(S) No. 5161 of 2009. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order, the Director (Secondary Education), Jharkhand, Ranchi heard the petitioner and finally vide order dated 15.01.2015, the Director has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had obtained B.Ed. Degree before the implementation of N.C.T.E. Act and also on the ground that Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata has not been recognized by any statutory body and any University/Board/Council or by any Public Examination Body. It is further submitted that Ram Krishna Gope, another Assistant Teacher, who had been appointed in the Project Girls High School, Jainagar, Koderma on 25.12.1983 and joined the said School on 28.12.1983 and had also obtained B.Ed. degree from Dr. B .C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata in the year 1990 (same year the petitioner has obtained such degree) filed W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2011 before the Jharkhand High Court and his case was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2013 and he was directed to be absorbed in the light of order 22.02.2012, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in terms of the order dated 04.02.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2048 of 2010 with analogous cases, wherein it has been directed by the High Court to consider the case of the petitioners of the aforesaid batch cases in the light of the order passed in the writ petition filed by Sukhdeo Singh in W.P.(S) No. 5161 of 2009 and also in view of the opinion of the learned Advocate General, by directing the then Director (Secondary Education), Human Resource Development Department, Jharkhand now School Education and Literacy Department (Directorate of Secondary Education) and to pass a reasoned order. In pursuance of the order dated 27.02.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2011, respondents have passed the reasoned order dated 03.6.2013 (Annexure 10/1 of this writ application). It is submitted that judgment dated 03.5.2018, passed in L.P.A. 357 of 2016 and in L.P.A. No. 382 of 2018 and in L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014 was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Prasad Dey Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3693 of 2020 [S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27694 of 2018] and vide judgment dated 17.11.2020, the order of the High Court has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court so far as L.P.A. No. 265 of 2013 is concerned. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Prasad Dey Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3693 of 2020 [S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27694 of 2018] vide judgment dated 17.11.2020 had considered the said issues and framed Issue No. 1 regarding the cases where the certificates were issued by the college before the National Council for Teachers Education Act. 1993 (N.C.T.E. Act) came into effect from 1.7.1995 and allowed the appeal by observing that the qualification and certificate issued by the college shall be considered to be good and valid qualification for the appellant and hence, impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be directed to be absorbed and be given all the consequential benefits. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that this writ petition is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Respondent No.2 is fit and proper. It is further submitted that after constitution of the Alam Committee, the case of the petitioner was not found valid. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not possess valid degree, which has been recognized by any University/Board/Council or by any Public Examining Body. It is submitted that similar matter was heard by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.357 of 2016 and L.P.A. No. 382 of 2013 and L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014 it was observed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court that degree granted by the college, which was not recognized, cannot be considered for the appointment. It is submitted that similar matter was heard by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.357 of 2016 and L.P.A. No. 382 of 2013 and L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014 it was observed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court that degree granted by the college, which was not recognized, cannot be considered for the appointment. It is further submitted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Prasad Dey Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3693 of 2020 [S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27694 of 2018] vide judgment dated 17.11.2020 will not be a binding precedent nor does it operate as a ratio decidendi, which needs to be followed as a precedence. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State that though the Institute had issued Teacher’s Training Certificate to the petitioner before the N.C.T.E. Act came into existence, but that did not exempt the said institution from getting recognition from the State Government. 5. Learned counsel for the State has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed on 07.07.2010 in the case of Shiv Narayan Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. 14846 of 2007) by filing the said judgment (Annexure A in his supplementary counter affidavit). 6. Learned counsel for the State has also relied upon the order passed in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Sec. Education Services Commission & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2006 on 07.3.2008. 7. It is submitted that a writ petition was earlier filed, i.e. W.P.(S) No. 4195 of 2013 by the petitioner before this Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.08.2014, had directed the respondent State for a considered decision and the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, after carefully observing the materials on record, had rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Memo No. 73 dated 15.01.2015, hence, the case of the petitioner may be rejected and the writ petition may be dismissed. 8. Perused the record of this case and considered the submission of both sides. 9. 8. Perused the record of this case and considered the submission of both sides. 9. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 22.12.1984 and had joined the Project Girls High School, Jainagar, Koderma on 25.12.1984, whereas one Ram Krishna Gope had also joined as Assistant Teacher in the said school on 28.12.1983 (page 77) and he had joined the school on 28.12.1983. Thereafter, he also passed graduation in the year 1986 from Ranchi University and had been granted certificate of Teacher’s Training from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata on 21.08.1990. 10. It transpires that said Ram Krishna Gope had filed W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2011 before this Court which was disposed of on 27.02.2013 by this Court by directing the State-Respondents to consider the case of said Ram Krishna Gope. The operative portion of the order dated 27.2.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2011 (Ramkrishna Gope Vs. Jharkhand State) reads as follows. “……..This writ petition is being disposed of in terms of the order dated 04.02.2013, passed in W.P.S. No. 2048 of 2010. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the prayer of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Jharkhand (Respondent no. 2) to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is found entitled to the claim made by him, the consequential benefits, including the arrears of salary etc. shall be paid to the petitioner, within eight weeks thereafter. If the amount(s)/arrear(s) found payable is/are not paid within the said period, the same shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date the amount(s) is/are found payable till the date of final payment”. 11. Thereafter, the Director-(Secondary Education-cum-Joint Secretary, Jharkhand, Ranchi-Respondent No.2, in the light of the decision made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also after seeking opinion from the learned Advocate General and also considering the orders passed in W.P.(S) 393/2010, W.P.(S) No.873 of 2011 filed by Sri Dinesh Singh Deo and Smt. Shruti Mishra respectively, who had obtained training from Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata, and W.P.(S) No. 5412/2015 (Saarbani Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand) & Ors.), who had obtained training from Dr. Vs. State of Jharkhand) & Ors.), who had obtained training from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata before enactment of N.C.T.E. Act, 1995 had considered and approved the services of Ram Krishna Gope and had directed the D.S.E., Koderma to dispose of the claims of the said Ram Krishna Gope. 12. Thus, on the one hand, the Director had allowed the claim of Ram Krishna Gope, who was appointed just earlier to the petitioner in the same Project Girls High School, Jainagar by placing reliance upon the orders passed in W.P.(S) 393/2010, W.P.(S) No.873 of 2011 filed by Sri Dinesh Singh Deo and Smt. Shruti Mishra respectively and W.P.(S) No. 5412/2015 (Saarbani Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), respectively, who had also obtained training from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata before enactment of N.C.T.E. Act, 1995, but on the other hand, had illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner. 13. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bhagirathi Prasad Dey Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3693 of 2020 [S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27694 of 2018] vide judgment dated 17.11.2020, had considered the certificate, which are subject matter of consideration of the different Benches of the High Court and have divided the cases in two categories in Para 4 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: “Para 4:-Similar such Certificates were subject matter of consideration by different Benches of the High Court and one may divide those cases in two categories:- I) The cases where the Certificate were issued by the College before the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (“NCTE Act” for short) came into effect on 01.07.1995; and II) the cases where the Certificates were issued after the NCTE Act had come into effect. 14. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had answered the Category No. 1 in Paragraph 8 and 9, which read as follows: “Paragraph 8:-The instant case comes in the Ist Category’ of cases as stated above. In so far as that category is concerned, the matter stands concluded by the decisions of the High Court, which were confirmed by dismissal of Special Leave Petition arising thereform. In the circumstances, the Division Bench was not justified in taking a different view in the matter. In so far as that category is concerned, the matter stands concluded by the decisions of the High Court, which were confirmed by dismissal of Special Leave Petition arising thereform. In the circumstances, the Division Bench was not justified in taking a different view in the matter. Paragraph 9:-We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the view taken by the Division Bench with regard to the case of the appellant and direct: (a) that the qualification and the Certificate issued by the College shall be considered to be good and valid qualification for the appellant; (b) the appellant shall be entitled to have all the benefits accruing to him from the service rendered as Assistant Teacher and all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, if any, shall be paid within eight weeks from today; and (c) in case the arrears are not paid within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum.” 15. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents appears to be contemptuous as it has been stated in the said counter affidavit that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court is per se per incuriam. 16. This Court does not appreciate filing of such counter affidavit on behalf of the State. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the State apologized and submitted that due to inadvertence such statement has been made in the counter affidavit and sought permission for deleting the paragraph containing such contemptuous statements, but the State must henceforth careful in future, failing which the court may draw adverse inference on such type of affidavit. 17. The counter affidavit filed by the State is completely in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 18. It is well settled that as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the judgment of Supreme Court is binding in all the States in the entire territory of India. Therefore, filing counter affidavit to the effect that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is per incurium is highly contemptuous and deprecated by this Court with the further direction to the authorities to remain cautious and careful in future. 19. Therefore, filing counter affidavit to the effect that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is per incurium is highly contemptuous and deprecated by this Court with the further direction to the authorities to remain cautious and careful in future. 19. It is evident that that vide judgment dated 17.11.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already decided the issue that the qualification and Certificate issued by the College shall be considered to be good and valid qualification for the appellant. 20. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Respondent No. 2The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand is set aside and it is further directed that the qualification and certificate of the petitioner shall be treated as valid and the petitioner shall be entitled to have all the benefits accrued from the services rendered by him of Assistant Teacher and also all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary which shall be paid within 10 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and if the arrears are not paid within the said period the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 21. Thus, this writ application is allowed and disposed of.