BIRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved because of the reason that order of this Court dated 15.1.2009 passed in L.P.A. No. 532 of 2005, has not been complied with in spite of the fact that according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court categorically recorded finding that the certificate obtained by the writ petitioner from the National Institute of Mentally Handicapped, Secunderabad is a certificate of imparting teachers training course and the Division Bench clearly held that in view of the stand of respondent no. 7 and in view of the general definition of trained candidates even in Rule 2(Kha) of the Rules, which does not debar the trained candidate like the appellant, the State Government is directed to take a decision whether the appellant can be treated as the trained candidate under Rule 2(Kha) of the Rules, amounts to declaration that the certificate which petitioner obtained is equivalent qualification course as prescribed in Rule 2(Kha). In spite of this clear finding, the Secretary of the Department has rejected the petitioner's prayer for giving appointment vide order dated 19.5.2010.

(3.) It appears that the dispute was with respect to the equivalence of the course and the issue was whether a certificate given by the National Institute for Mentally Handicapped (in short N.I.M.H.) is a course equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the employers or the State Government in Rule 2(Kha). We would like to quote para-9 and 10 of the affidavit of respondent no. 7, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and which are as under: