Acquisition of requisite qualification during the pendency of the case validated the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers.

1. By this review petition the petitioners seek review of our order dated 1.11.99 in LPA No. 24/84. By the said order the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the appeal preferred by the State of Bihar was allowed.

2. The petitioners herein had preferred the writ petition, CWJC No. 1645/83 seeking direction to approve their services as Assistant Teachers. The controversy emanated from the fact that the petitioners did not possess the requisite training qualification. Their contention on the point of absorption was rejected following decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Ballabh Pd. Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1986 PLJR 373 in view of provisions of Section 4(2) of the Take Over Act. In the present petition it has been stated that the petitioners acquired the requisite qualification of training during the pendency of the letters patent appeal in 1986 but unfortunately this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court, as a matter of fact, it may be mentioned that the petitioners did not give any instruction to their lawyer which is evident from the judgment under review.

3. While allowing the writ petition the learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to approve the services of the petitioners and to pay them salaries and other emoluments from the date of the notification. They were further directed to grant facilities for their training giving them at least one chance to obtain B. Ed. degree, possibly, in the next session. The Court clarified that if the petitioners do not avail of the opportunity and thus do not obtain the B. Ed. degree, it will be open to the Government to terminate their services. The said order having been set aside in the letters patent appeal, the petitioners came to this Court in the present petition pointing out that they had already acquired the requisite qualification as mentioned above. The petitioners have enclosed copies of the marks sheets granted to them as Annexures 9 series to the petition.

4. When this case came up for preliminary hearing on 18.4.2001 counsel for the State was directed to take instructions, and when the case was taken up today it was stated by the State counsel that from the counter affidavit it appears that the petitioners services have already been approved on 29.6.84 during the pendency of the letters patent appeal.

5. As the petitioners have acquired the requisite qualifications and thus fulfil the conditions envisaged in Section 4(2) of the Take Over Act, we are of the view that nothing stands against them to invalidate their appointment.

6. In these premises, the order under review dated 1.11.1999 in LPA No. 24/84 is recalled and the LPA stands disposed of in terms of the present order.

7. The petition stands disposed of.