- (1.) THIS intra court Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.6.2005, passed in W.PS. No. 2520 of 2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.
(2.) ON 22.3.2006, the following questions were framed in this appeal: - " In this appeal, the following questions require to be determined: (a) Whether there is any reservation of seat in the Schools/Colleges for disabled children: (b) Whether general trained teachers or physical trained teachers can teach the disabled children or for that trained persons for mentally retarded child should be appointed..  With regard to the said questions, Mr. Tandon referred to the following paragraphs of the affidavit filed on behalf of State -respondents: - "12 That with reference to the first question as to whether there is any reservation of seats in the school/colleges for disabled children, the answering respondents state that the Government of Jharkhand by Resolutions contained in Memo No. 5800 dated 10.10.2002 and Memo No. 5776 dated 10.10.2002 has come out with a policy of reservation of seats which are being brought on record. Copies of the said Resolutions contained in Memo No. 5800 dated 10.10.2002 and Memo No. 5776 dated 10.10.2002 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure -B and B/1. 13 That with reference to the question no. 2 formulated by this Honble Court as to whether general Trained or Physical trained teachers can teach the disabled children or for that trained persons for mentally retarded children should be appointed, it is to respectfully submit that for mentally retarded children specially Trained Teachers should be appointed. However, at the same time it is clarified that a physically challenged child can be taught by general trained teachers because although being physically handicapped the mental status of such child remains normal . However, Mr. Tandon clarified that the said Resolution No. 5800 dated 10.10.2002 and Memo No. 5776 dated 10.10.2002 do not provide for reservation of seats in the schools/colleges for disabled children. In view of the aforesaid averments made by State -Respondents, we do not propose to go further into the said questions, in this appeal.
(3.) MR . H.K. Mahto, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant got a certificate of diploma in mental retardation issued by the National Institute of Mentally Handicapped, Secunderabad ( NIMH for short) after undergoing training at "Deepshikha  recognized by NIMH. He submitted that in view of Rule 2 (Kha) of Jharkhand Primary School Appointment Rules, 2002 ( the Rules for short), a "trained  candidate includes a candidate having diploma in education/diploma in teaching, which does not exclude any candidate having special training in education or teaching. He also submitted that the case of Snehlata Kumari ( WPS No. 5276 of 2004) is not applicable to the case of the appellant in asmuch as the appellant acquired diploma in 1992, whereas in the case of Snehlata Kumari, the diploma was acquired between 1999 to 2002 i.e. after enforcement of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 ( NCTE Act for short), which came into effect from 1.7.1995. He further referred to the following paragraphs of the affidavits filed on behalf of respondent no. 7. "4. I say and submit that prior to implementation of RCI Act 1992; National Institutes were handling the training programmes in the field of disability and were responsible for the training and examination of the professionals. The appellant has undergone the training programme of National Institute, Secunderabad which is an approved qualification in 1992. Even in the year 19901991, 1991 -1992, National Institute for Mentally Handicapped, Secunderabad was running diploma in Special Education Programme standardized by the Council, when the status of the Council was a Society. As soon as the Institute applied for the recognition, the name has been included in the list of the recognized institute in the year 1993 -94 ( Annual report of the Council 1990 -91, 1991 -92, 1993 -94 is annexed herewith)  7. I say and submit that Teachers Training Diploma in Mental Retardation at Deepshikha, Ranchi is a recognized training programme of the Council and the qualified professionals would be considered for the appointment of primary teacher. In the said course, a candidates gets training in all aspects to handle the disabled and how to teach them. However, these special educators are more competent in comparison to teachers in general category as the Council has developed the programme in such a way that these special educators should be trained in all aspects so that they could handle the disabled children as well as general children. 8. I say and submit that the Council is a statutory body to regulate the training programme in the field of disability and it came into existence in 1992 when there was no existence of NCTE. Hence there is no need for approval of NCTE for the teachers training course for special educator which is under the purview of the Council only. 9. I further say and submit that the competency of such educators to go for normal streams should be considered more fruitful because in any case if there is any disabled child in the class then it wont be difficult to handle that child. Under the policy of Govt. "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan , it is required that the special educator should be appointed in every primary school to achieve the target of the Govt, "Education for all . 10. It is pertinent to mention here that some of the States have already declared the special educators at par with the teachers in general category. In this matter, petitioner is a well qualified candidate as he succeeded in primary teachers recruitment test and his name was recommended for appointment as primary teacher. Hence, there is no doubt about his competency and the concerned authority must give him an opportunity to prove his caliber . Therefore, he submitted that a direction should be issued to the State -respondents to consider the appellants case for his appointment as a Primary School Teacher as the appellant is qualified to teach the general students also. He also referred to paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed on 25.7.2008 on behalf of the appellant saying that in Hazaribagh District, the District Superintendent of Education is arranging Camp Training Programme for teaching the mentally retarded children by regular teachers. ;