S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for a direction on the respondents to consider their cases for appointment as Primary Teachers under the State of Jharkhand.

2. According to the petitioners, they are eligible for appointment to the posts of Primary Teacher and though they have competed in the written test for appointment to the posts of Primary Teacher, held by Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as 'J.P.S.C.'), they have not been provided with the letters of appointment whereas the persons, below them in the merit list, have been appointed.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they, having passed B.Ed. Examination from Ranchi University, are eligible for appointment to the posts of Primary Teacher. In pursuance of an advertisement, published by the J.P.S.C. in the month of August, 2002, the petitioners applied for appointment as Primary Teachers in Nationalized Primary Schools. They were allowed to appear at the written competitive test, held on 27th May, 2003. Thereafter, results of the successful candidates were published in the month of November, 2003 and the petitioners were declared successful. However, letters of appointment have not been issued to them, though the persons, below them in the merit list, have been appointed.

4. When the case was taken up, learned counsel for the State relied on a judgment dated 4th March, 2004, rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S) NO.588 of 2004] and analogous cases. Those cases were dismissed on the ground that the Institute from where those petitioners passed Teachers Training Examination was not recognized by the National Council For Teachers Education.

5. The judgment, rendered in W.P.(S) No. 588 of 2004 (Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and analogous cases fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 235 of 2004 (Dilip Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and analogous cases. In the said case, Division Bench of this Court having taken note of expression "Recognized Training Institute" held as follows:

Therefore, on a proper construction of expression "Recognized Training Institute" (Manyata Prapt Prakshikshan Sansthan), as occurring in Rule 2(kha) of Rules, 2002, I hold that the expression "Recognized Training Institute" means a Training Institute, recognized or established either by State Government or Union of India or Statutory Bodies, such as, N.C.T.E., U.G.C. etc./ Organizations, maintained and controlled by either State Government or Central Government or a Training Institute, recognized or affiliated by a University or a Board for imparting Teachers Training Course.

xx xx xx xx

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the guidelines, issued by the State from time to time, and the provisions of the Ordinances, Acts and Rules, as discussed above, in my considered opinion:-

(a) "Recognized Institute" means an institution recognized or established by State Government or Union Government or by Statutory Bodies/Organizations, maintained and controlled by either State Government or Central Government or recognized University or affiliated by a recognized University for imparting education (training/herein);

(b) After 1st July, 1995 or at best for another period of six months i.e. after 1st January, 1996 nobody, offering a course or training in Teachers Education, can run the institute without prior recognition by the N.C.T.E., there being bar to run such institute under Subsection (1) to Section 14 of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993;

(c) Even if a Teachers Training Institute is affiliated to a University, recognized by the University Grant Commission, no Teachers Training Examination can be held by the University whether provisional or otherwise, for the students of such Teachers Training College after 1 st January, 1996, if the institute is not recognized by