1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. These Letters Patent Appeals are decided by this common order because of the reason that common questions of fact and law are involved as well as in view of the fact that two sets of judgments running contrary to each other are under challenge in these matters.

3. An advertisement was issued on 28th August, 2002 for selection and offering appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher and total number of posts offered were 9223. All the petitioners are some of the aspirant for the job, applied for the post and they were permitted to appear in the written examination and thereafter a select list was prepared wherein names of all the petitioners are finding place. However, even after publishing of select list in the year 2003, the petitioners were not given appointment, and, therefore, petitioners approached this Court by filing various writ petitions. Three sets of writ petitions were decided by three different orders but of the same date i.e., 14.07.2011 which were decided by common judgment delivered in W.P.(S) No. 2102 of 2008 in the case of Sur Singh Hasda Vs. State of Jharkhand & others along with connected writ petitions. Another bunch of writ petitions were decided along with W.P.(S) No. 4322 of 2010 in the case of Kunti Birua Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others and third set of writ petitions were decided by another Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5090 of 2008 and connected writ petitions having title Majhi Jonko Vs. State of Jharkhand & others. These three sets of judgments were passed for the candidates who claimed that they have been selected in due process of selection as teacher for 'Ho' language. The number of these candidates were 187 who have not been offered appointment even after selection.

4. Before learned Single Judge it has been argued that the petitioners have been denied appointment on the ground that they did not possess the training in 'Ho' subject by duly recognized institution namely National Council for Teachers' Education (in short NCTE). The State's contention was that the petitioners lack basic requirement i.e., training from Government institution, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to appointment.

5. Learned Single Judge held that at the time when the advertisement was made and the petitioners were permitted to appear in the selection process, there was no requirement of obtaining certificate of training from an institute recognized by the NCTE as the NCTE Circular came into existence only vide G.O. No. 2192 dated 13.11.2003, G.O. No. 404 dated 16.02.2004 and G.O. No. 746 dated 27.03.2004 which were much after the issuance of the advertisement and, therefore, the petitioners could not have been denied appointment on this ground of not having certificate from any institute recognized by NCTE. Learned Single Judge also held that the decision of the NCTE was not retrospective in operation nor it is the case of the State that the said decision was operative retrospectively. On facts, learned Single Judge observed that the language 'Ho' is one of the subjects prescribed in Standard 1 to 4 in the District West Singhbhum where the Government school is offering this subject. The State of Jharkhand is also publishing text books in the said language but there is no teacher to teach the 'Ho' language subject. Then learned Single Judge observed that though the stand has been taken by the State Government that training in 'Ho' language is essential from a Government institute, obviously, if not, then from Government recognized institute. But, it is admitted position that in the entire country, there is no institution teaching and imparting training in 'Ho' language. Then learned Single Judge observed that directive principle enshrined in Article 41 to be read with fundamental duties as stated in Article 51A of the Constitution of India and the obligation is upon the State Government to retain its rich heritage and culture and, therefore, 'Ho' lan