SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.:–All the writ petitions have come up for admission. Taking into consideration the nature of the case, both the counsels have agreed to argue the case finally. Accordingly, the case was heard finally at this stage.

2. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 21397 of 2018 submits that the petitioners, who are working as teachers had acquired their B.Ed qualification in between the year 1979-81 to 1986 from the Chhota Nagpur Prathmik Sikchhak Sichha Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi.

3. The Education Department found certain discrepancies upon inspection conducted of the said college and thereafter, issued an order dated 30.09.1986 to de-recognise the said Teachers Education College w.e.f. 30th September, 1986.

4. Learned counsel has further taken this Court to the said order to submit that the college was dully recognized on 26th February, 1975 and continued to remain recognized till the order was passed on 30th September, 1986.

5. Learned counsel submits that on account of derecognition and erroneous interpretation the petitioners' salary was stopped. The petitioners, therefore, preferred a writ petition before this Court and this Court in CWJC No. 3154 of 2018 vide its order dated 9th March, 2018 directed the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Purnea to conduct an enquiry and take a final decision within a period of three months with liberty to the petitioners to assail the order, if the same goes adverse to them.

6. The District Education Officer (Establishment), Purnea vide its order dated 15th May, 2018 took an interpretation of order dated 30.09.1986 to know that all the candidates, who had acquired degree of education prior to 1986-88 from Chhota Nagpur Prathmik Sikchhak Sichha Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi would stand disqualified and accordingly the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were held to be disqualified to continue and their services were dispense with, with direction to recover the salary. The petitioners have assailed the said order before this Court.

7. Learned counsel submits that the order of de-recognition dated 30th September, 1986 nowhere mentions of de-recognition with retrospective effect. He further submits that the earlier recognition order dated 26th February, 1975 was passed for further Sessions 1975-76 and till further orders. Thus, all the students who acquired degree qualification from the said college would be eligible for appointment and their degrees cannot be said to be derecognised.

8. Learned counsel also taken to the order dated 16th September, 1988 to submit that even the State Government rebut its order dated 30th September, 1986 and continued recognition of the college for the Session 1986-88 temporarily. Thus, learned Counsel submits that there was no occasion for the concerned respondent to take a view that all the qualification prior to 1986-88 would stand de-recognise and prays to quash the order dated 15th May, 2018 with consequential benefits.

9. Learned counsel has also placed on record the letter to show that similarly situated 07 other teachers have been continued and have also been granted salary.

10. Learned counsel submits that the termination order essentially is retrospective in nature which cannot have been passed.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the other two writ petitions have also adopted the arguments of their senior counsel and further in CWJC No. 22833 of 2018 learned counsel has relied upon on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2018 to show that candidates, who had passed out from the Session 1985-87 were permitted to appear in the examination also. The petitioner has passed out for the Session 1985-87 and he submits that as the order dated 30.09.1986 was retrospectively modified to even allow candidates for the Sessions 1986-88 and given them provisional recognition, the petitioners would be entitled to continue and the impugned order passed in his case also deserves to