Honble R.S. VER.MA., J.—This writ petition apparently raises a very minor and insignificant controversy. However, a false step by this Court here or there may lead to grave and serious evil consequence resulting in irremediable damage to the Child of the State, the future citizen and indeed a sacred charge entrusted to the care and custody of the Nation. Hence, this short preface to put the controversy in a clearer perspective. 2. Primary Education in Rajasthan has two distinct sectors. The urban sector is looked after by the Director of Primary & Secondary Education, under whose control and supervision are run government primary schools in cities and towns of the State. The rural sector of primary education is controlled and supervised by the various Panchayat Samities. For Panchayat Samities in a district, there is a statutory autonomous body known as District Establishment Committee (for short DEC) which recruits primary schools teachers and after initial recruitment allots them to various Panchayat Samities within its territorial jurisdiction. 3. Petitioners before me claim that they possess requisite qualification for being appointed as teachers in Panchayat Samiti Schools. All of them, as stated at the bar by their learned counsel Shri P.P. Chaudhary, have passed Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Rajasthan Board of Higher Secondary Education, an autonomous body. The said examination is admittedly equivalent to matriculation or matric examination. Admittedly, the petitioners have not been trained as teachers at any institution imparting training for teaching However, each one of them possesses a State Trade Certificate, each one of them having completed and passed a course in cutting and tailoring run by various institutions in the State, which are recognised by State Vocational Training Council Certificate Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 7 evidence this fact. 4. The DEC, Zila Parishad, Churu (respondent no. 2) issued advertisement (Ex. P. 12) No. 5 of 1991 whereby it invited applications for a specified number of posts of teachers for Primary Schools under its control, the number of posts being liable to variation as per administrative exigencies. All the petitioners applied in pursuance of this advertisement. However the DEC refused to consider their cases on the ground that they did not possess requisite qualification viz the teachers, training certificate. The petitioners contend that the State Govt. All the petitioners applied in pursuance of this advertisement. However the DEC refused to consider their cases on the ground that they did not possess requisite qualification viz the teachers, training certificate. The petitioners contend that the State Govt. has recognized the State Trade Certificate as equivalent to B.S.T.C. (the recognized teachers training course run in the State) and hence they possess the requisite qualifications and are eligible to be considered and appointed. It is on these premises that they have come to this Court interalia seeking a direction that the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioners candidature for appointment on the post of General Teachers in primary schools treating the State Trade Certificate as equivalent to B.S.T C. with all consequential reliefs. 5. A reply to show cause notice issued by this Court has been filed by respondent No. 1. Since both the respondents are represented through a common lawyer, the stand taken by respondent no. 1 has been adopted by respondent no. 2 also and it is urged that the petitioners, not being trained teachers, have no right to be considered and the DEC rightly refused to consider their candidature. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have best-owed my earnest consideration to the rival contentions. In the forgoing paragraphs I have briefly outlined the rival stands and shall deal with various contentions raised on behalf of either side. 7. Here, I may reiterate and repeat that todays child is tommorows citizen and the nation owes a special responsibility toward the children of today so that they shape as ideal citizens and serve the nation in this fast moving world, which is full of competition in all walks of life. The founding fathers of the Constitution of India were aware of the special responsibilities and obligations that the nation owed to its children, the citizens of future, a sacred trust in every sense of the term so that the nation could redeem its pledge, which it took on 15.08.1947. The preamble to the Constitution promises to usher in a welfare State where shall be secuied to all its citizens, Justice, Social economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship and equality of status and of opportunity. 8. I may here state that in our Constitution children have been bestowed special care and attention and rightly so. The preamble to the Constitution promises to usher in a welfare State where shall be secuied to all its citizens, Justice, Social economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship and equality of status and of opportunity. 8. I may here state that in our Constitution children have been bestowed special care and attention and rightly so. Article 15(3) enables the State to make special provisions for women and children. Articles 24 mandates that no child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. Article 39 (f) mandates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. Article 45 mandates the State to provide for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years. Now, education in this context means a purposeful and meaningful education which allows a child to develop its personality in all its dimensions and faculties. Such education is expected to develop cognitive skills and motivation for higher learning so that the curiosity of an impressionable mind is satiated and he seeks further knowledge and advances on the social, moral and physical planes. Children reading in Primary Schools are like soft clay, which can be shaped and moulded by a master craftsman; they are like newly budding saplings, who need tender care and attention by persons specially trained in child psychology and modern techniques of teaching. It is rather unfortunate that over the years, we have failed to give a fair treatment to the primary school teacher. The apex Court in Andhra Kesari Education Society vs. Director of School Education (1) had to make this observation: "Before parting with the case, we should like to add a word more. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teacher is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the engine of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teacher is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the engine of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast of ever changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiperous tendencies and attitude and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill trained or such standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system, if not a punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of the teacher is not compounded by any extraneous consideration." The aforesaid observations are all the more pertinent and germane to the training of primary school teachers, who have to handle very young, delicate and impressionable minds. 9. In Ram Sukh vs. State of Raj. (2), the apex Court was dealing with cases of untrained teachers who claimed to be continued as teachers, even when they did not possess any training as teachers. The apex Court, though having ?11 sympathies for the plight of the hapless teachers who had been thrown out of jobs, refused to mandate their continuance in service and after referring to the observations made in Andhra Kesari Education Societys Case (supra) observed:- "The primary school teachers are of utmost importance in development of a childs personality in the formative years. It is not just enough to teach the child alphabets and figures; but much more is required to understand child psychology and aptitudes They need a different approach altogether only trained teachers could lead them properly. The untrained teachers can never be proper substitute to trained teachers. We are therefore, unable to give them any relief." 10. It is not just enough to teach the child alphabets and figures; but much more is required to understand child psychology and aptitudes They need a different approach altogether only trained teachers could lead them properly. The untrained teachers can never be proper substitute to trained teachers. We are therefore, unable to give them any relief." 10. In my opinion, this is the back drop in which the entire controversy has to be viewed. I pointedly and repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner if the petitioners, while being trained in cutting and tailoring, had been imparted any training in teaching techniques. He candidly confessed that the training imparted to the petitioners was in the craft of cutting and tailoring. His principal thrust was that since the State Govt. at certain points of time had recognised the State Trade Certificate equivalent to B.S.T.C. (a recognised teachers training course), the petitioners were entitled to be appointed as teachers. However, more of this later. Suffice it to say, that I put a question to the parent in me and ask if I would entrust my children or grand children to the case of such untrained teachers ? My conscience gives a categorical answer that I would not-not in any situation. I could not entrust them for primary teching to the care of the petitioners and their likes. However, it would be a different matter, if the children were to be trained in the craft of cutting and tailoring and were not required to be taught their lessons in primary education which is foundation for all future learning. If the foundation is left weak, the entire edific may be weak. 11. I may here state that in its counter, respondent No. 1 has made a very categorical and positive assertion that "S.T.C. and N.T.C" courses are technical course which are usefuls for technical training like craft wooden work, tailoring etc. and these subjects are not taught at the level of primary schools and such training is not inaverted (sic) (probably imparted) in such primary schools. Therefore, S.T.C. and N.T.C. trained teachers are not required by the Panchayat Samities." The petitioners did not controvert this stand of the contesting respondent. and these subjects are not taught at the level of primary schools and such training is not inaverted (sic) (probably imparted) in such primary schools. Therefore, S.T.C. and N.T.C. trained teachers are not required by the Panchayat Samities." The petitioners did not controvert this stand of the contesting respondent. Hence, it can be safely held that craft, cutting and tailoring are not the subjects taught at primary level in Panchayat Samiti Schools and hence the S.T.C. Certificates held by the petitioners have no relevance to the pattern of primary school education in the State. 12. Hence, it can be safely held that craft, cutting and tailoring are not the subjects taught at primary level in Panchayat Samiti Schools and hence the S.T.C. Certificates held by the petitioners have no relevance to the pattern of primary school education in the State. 12. "Shikshaka Shiksha Vibhag" of the Rajasthan State Research and Training Institution, Udaipur (for short SIERT Udaipur) has published a booklet entitled "Poorva Shikshak Prashikshan Shiksha Kram" (1989) Edition which lays down the objectives to be achieved by training of schools teachers : ^^fk{kd izfk{k.k ikB~;Øe&vof/k ,oa mís; vof/k %& ;g ikB~;Øe f}o"khZ; laLFkkxr ikB~;Øe gksxkA ;g nks kSf{kd l=ksaa esa lEiUu gksxkA i=kpkj }kjk lEiwfrZ djkus ij blds fy, 30 ekl dh vof/k fu/kkZfjr jgsxhA ijh{kk O;oLFkk %& 1- nksuks o"kksZa dh ijh{kk O;oLFkk i`Fkd&i`Fkd gksxhA 2- ijh{kk dk vk;kstu iath;d] fk{kk foHkkxh; ijh{kk,a] jkt- chdkusj }kjk fd;k tk,xkA 3- izR;sd o"kZ esa lS)kfUrd i{k esa 8 izu&i=ksa }kjk ijh{kk yh tkosxhA fØ;kRed vH;kl fk{k.k i{k dh ijh{kk vkUrfjd rFkk ckg~; ijh{kk ds :i esa lEiUu gksxhA 4- izk;ksfxd dk;ksZa dk ewY;kadu iw.kZr% vkUrfjd iw.kZr% vkUrfjd ewY;kadu }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA 5- ijh{kk O;oLFkk ,oa d{kksUufr lEcU/kh lHkh fu;e] mi&fueksa dk fu/kkZj.k iath;d }kjk funskd] jkT; kSf{kd vuqla/kku ,oa izfk{k.k laLFkku mn;iqj dh lgefr ls rS;kj fd;s tk;saxs rFkk os gh Lohdk;Z gksaxsA fk{kd izfk{k.k ds mís; %& jk"Vªh; fk{kk uhfr] 86 ds lanHkZ esa vk, ifjorZuksa rFkk Ldwy fk{kk ds dksj ikB~;dze (Cori-curriculum) dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, jkT; ds fk{kd izfk{k.kky;ksa ls izfkf{kr fd, tkus okys v/;kidksa ds izfk{k.k dk;ZØe esa ifjorZu dh vko;drk dks /;ku esa j[k dj ;g u;k ikB~;Øe izLrkfor fd;k tk jgk gSA bl ikB~~;Øe ds vk/kkj ij izfk{k.k iznku djus ls v/;kid lkekftd ifjorZu ds lkDr vfHkdj.k ds :i esa dk;Z dj ldsxk rFkk jk"Vªh; izxfr ds egr~ mís; dh izkfIr esa lgk;d fl) gks ldsxkA bl n`f"V ls jkT; ds fk{kd izfk{k.k ikB~;Øe ds fy, fuEukafdr mís; fu/kkZfjr fd, x, gS %& 1- izfk{k.kkFkhZ&kSf{kd fl)kUrksa dh tkudkjh izkIr dj ckydksa esa pfj= fuekZ.k ,oa ekuoewY;ksa ds izfr vkLFkk fodflr dj ldsA 2- izfk{k.kkFkhZ cky fodkl lEcU/kh euksfoKku dks le>dj rnuq:i fk{k.k dk;Z dj ldsaA 3- izfk{k.kkFkhZ vko;drkuqlkj iwoZ izkFkfed fo|ky;h Lrj ds ckydksa dks leqfpr ekxZnkZu ns lds rFkk muds KkusfUnz;ksa ds fodkl esa lgk;d cu ldsaA 4- izfk{k.kkFkhZ mPp izkFkfed Lrj dh fo"k; oLrq dk vH;kl djrs gq, dyk fk{k.k esa n{krk mRiUu djus dh n`f"V ls d{kk/;kiu lEcU/kh fofo/k fLFkfr;ksa dk Kku ,oa vH;kl izkIr dj ldasA 5- izfk{k.kkFkhZ dks kSf{kd] lg kSf{kd ,oa vU; fo|ky;h izzo`fr;ksa ls lEcfU/kr fofHkUu i{kksa ls ifjfpr djkuk rkfd og vius fo|ky; esa bu izo`fr;ksa dk dqkyrk ,oa n{krkiwoZd vk;kstu dj ldsaA 6- izfk{k.kkFkhZ esa ,slh psruk mRiUu djuk fd os ckyd&ckfydkvksa esa visf{kr vocks/k] dkSky] :fp;ka] vfHko`fr;kW] thou ewY; vkfn fodflr djus dh n`f"V ls fk{k.k dk;Z dk vk;kstu dj ldsaA 7- izfk{k.kkFkhZ esa ckyd&ckfydkvksa ds izfr ldkjkRed n`f"Vdks.k fodflr djrs gq, ,sls dkSky ls dkSky fodflr djuk fd os ckydksa dh oS;fDrd ,oa lkekftd leL;kvksa dks le> dj mu rd igqWpk lds ,oa ;Fkko;d ijkekZ ns ldsaA 8- izfk{k.kkFkhZ fofHkUu izdkj ds ikB:iksa ,oa fk{kd dkSkyksa dh tkudkjh ,oa vH;kl izkIr dj fofHkUu fo"k;ksa dk n{krkiwoZd v/;kiu dk ldsaA 9- izfk{k.kkFkhZ kkjhfjd fk{kk] LokLF; fk{kk] lektksi;ksxh mRiknd dk;Z ,oa dyk fk{kk dk cky thou ds fofHkUu i{kksa ij izHkko dk Kku izkIr dj nSfud fk{k.k dk;Z esa mldk lQyrk iwoZd ykHk ys lds rFkk rRlEcU/kh izo`f;;ksa dk lapkyu dj ldsaA 10- izfk{k.kkFkhZ fo|ky; Lrj ij vuqHkwr leL;kvksa dk lek/kku <wa<us dh n`f"V ls fØ;kRed kks/k djus dh {kerk vftZr dj ldssA 11- izfk{k.kkFkhZ vius fo|ky; esa v/;;ujr fofk"B ckydksa dh fofk"Vrkvksa dk vfHkKku dj lds rFkk fk{k.k dk;Z esa ;Fkksfpr iz;kl dj fofk"V ,oa oafpr oxZ ds ckydksa dk izHkkoh fk{k.k dj ldsaA 12- izfk{k.kkFkhZ d{kk fk{k.k esa vuqHkwr vko;drkvksa ds vk/kkj ij vf/kxe lkexzh ds fuekZ.k ,oa miyC/k vf/kxe lkexzh dk d{kk fk{k.k esa izHkkoh <ax ls iz;ksx dj ldsaA 13- izfk{k.kkFkhZ esa fk{k.k O;olk; ds izfr vkLFkk ,oa O;kolkf;d leqUu;u ds izfr :>ku iSnk gks lds rFkk vPNs fk{kd ds xq.k ,oa mlls lekt dh vis{kkvksa ds izfr tkx:drk iSnk gks ldsA 14- izfk{k.kkFkhZ fk{kk ,oa fo|ky; izcU/k esa lEc) fofHkUu i{kksas dh tkudkjh djrs gq, muls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[kksa ds la/kkj.k ,oa vuqj{k.k vuqHko vftZr dj ldsA 15- izfk{k.kkFkhZ izkFkfed fk{kk ds lkoZtuhdhdj.k ds lanHkZ esa vukSipkfjd fk{kk ,oa rRlEcU/kh fofHkUu izk;kstuksa ls ifjp; izkIr dj lds rFkk oafpr leqnk; dk loZs{k.k djus] leL;k vf/kxe izlax dh jpuk djus dh ;ksX;rk fodflr dj ldsaA 16- izfk{k.kkFkhZ fk{kk {ks= dh vfHkuo izo`fr;ksa] fopkj.kkvksa ,oa dk;Z ;kstukvksa ls ifjfpr gksdj fk{k.k dk;Z esa vko;drkuqlkj iz;ksx dj ldasaA 17- izfk{k.kkFkhZ lkeqnkf;d thou esa fk{k.k O;olk; ls lEcfU/kr nkf;Roksa dks fuHkkus dh ;ksX;rk vftZr dj lds rFkk fo|ky; ,oa lekt dh chp e/kqj ,oa fudV lEcU/k LFkkfir djus ds ;ksX; cu ldasaA 18- izfk{k.kkFkhZ esa lekt lsok ,oa uSfrd vkpj.k ds izfr n`<+ fu"Bk iSnk dj lds rFkk vius ckydksa ds le{k uSfrd fk{kk ls lEcfU/kr i{kksa dks izLrqr djus dh ;ksX;rk mRiUu gks ldsaA 19- izfk{k.kkFkhZ ckydksa dh miyfC/k Lrj dk vfHkKku djus dh n`f"V ls fofHkUu izdkj ds tkap i= cukus ,oa ewY;kadu dh vfHkuo fo|kvksa dk iz;ksx djus esa n{krk izkIr dj ldsaA 20- izfk{k.kkFkhZ nSfud fk{k.k fodkl vf/kxe dk;Z djus ds nkSjku ckydksa dh detksfj;ksa dk irk yxk dj mudks nwj djus dh n`f"V ls mipkjkRed fk{k.k dj ldsaA 21- izfk{k.kkFkhZ fodklkhy Hkkjr dh vkkkvksa ,oa vkdka{kkvksa ds vuq:i fofHkUu mUur fk{k.k rduhdksa ,oa midj.kksa dk iz;ksx dj ldus dh ;ksX;rk vftZr dj ldsaA I have abstracted the above to show what a standard syllabus for teachers training should consist of and what objectives, it is required to fulfill. To my mind, the S.T.C. Certificate, Ex. P. 1 to Ex.P. 7 filed by petitioner do not in any way even touch the fringe of a standardised teachers training course and obviously these certificates have no claim to be treated as teachers training certificates in any sense of the term. 13. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that for appointment as primary school teachers, it was not necessary to have any training at all. He contended that under the existing Rules, it was sufficient that the petitioners were matriculates or held equivalent qualifications, i.e. Higher Secondary Qualification. In this context, he invited me to examine the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Pari-shads Service Rules, 1959 (for short the Rules). I have carefully gone through the Rules and find that the contention has no legs to stand upon. Under the Rules, a Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service has been constituted. Primary School Teachers have been included in this service by virtue of Rule 4, the relevant entry being at S.No. 3. Rule 10 of the Rules deals with recruitment, direct recruitment being one of such modes. Rule 11 lays down that a recruit to the various categories of service must possess the minimum educational or technical qualification and experience detailed in schedule to the Rule. This schedule under went revision from time to time. This very question pertaining to repesed schedule and its importance was raised in an earlier writ petition and was negatived by a learned single Judge of this Court (See Sarda Panchayat Samiti vs. State of Raj ) (3). The learned single Judge deciding the writ traced a detailed history of the various amendments in the rules and categorical found that now there exists only one category of teachers viz. matric trained teachers. This very question was agitated before a Full Bench of this Court in Bhensrodgarh Panchayat Samiti vs. State of Raj. (4) and the finding of the learned single Judge was categorically affirmed. In view of this categorically finding, 1 need not repeat the history of various amendments culminating in the aforesaid position. Shri Chaudhary tried to urge that the Full Bench decision has not correctly dealt with the various amendments and the judgment is per incuriam. (4) and the finding of the learned single Judge was categorically affirmed. In view of this categorically finding, 1 need not repeat the history of various amendments culminating in the aforesaid position. Shri Chaudhary tried to urge that the Full Bench decision has not correctly dealt with the various amendments and the judgment is per incuriam. I fail to find any such infirmity in the Full Bench decision and 1 do not agree that the judgment has been rendered in ignorance of any legal provision. 1 may here state that the position was already clinched on this aspect by decision of the apex Court in Ram Sukhs case (supra) which precisely dealt with the case of primary school teachers of Panchayat Samities in Rajasthan Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended before me that judgments in Sarda Panchayat Samiti (supra) and Bhensrodgarh Panchayat Samiti (supra) and Ram Sukhs case (supra) were rendered per incuriam But this argument is not open to him before this bench which is bound by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court as also by the decision of the apex Court A Co-ordinate bench alone can entertain such a plea. This aspect has also been discussed in quite some details in Bhensrodgarh Panchayat Samiti case and I need not dilate any further upon this aspect of the matter. Suffice it to say that I am bound by decision rendered in Sarda Panchayat Samiti as affirmed by the Full Bench in Bhensrodgarh Panchayat Samiti. 14. Now I may deal with the contention that at certain points of time, the certificates obtained by petitioners were recognized by the State Govt as training equivalent to teachers training and it was lator on that the recognition was withdrawn. The stand of petitioners is that they had obtained their certificates during this interval and hence subsequent de-recognition could not affect their right of being considered and appointed on basis of such certificates. Reliance is placed in this regard on judgment of the apex court in Suresh Pal vs. State of Haiyana (5). The stand of petitioners is that they had obtained their certificates during this interval and hence subsequent de-recognition could not affect their right of being considered and appointed on basis of such certificates. Reliance is placed in this regard on judgment of the apex court in Suresh Pal vs. State of Haiyana (5). Reliance has also been placed upon certain decisions of this Court which relying upon ratio of Suresh Pal have held that N.T.C. certificates was equivalent to B.S.T.C. certificate for purposes of appointment on the post of teachers in Primary Schools run by Panchayat Samitis in Rajasthan Before 1 deal with these precedents, 1 may trace the history of recognition and de-recognitions pertaining to qualifications for primary schoolteachers. Ex P 11 is circular dated 8.2.73 whereby the certificate course of Vidhya Bhawan Udaipur was accorded equivalence to the B.S.T.C. course (teachers training course run by Govt) with effect from the date Vidhya Bhawan had started a course equivalent to the said B.S.T.C. course. This clearly spells out that recognition was accorded to that course of Vidhya Bhawan which was to be of the same type as B.S.T C. course run by the Govt. Thus, recognition was accorded to a parellel course of teachers training run by Vidhya Bhawan. Ex. P. 13 is copy of a circular dated 11.12.74 whereby certificates of Industrial Examinations of Rajasthan Govt. were accorded equivalence to Arts and Handicrafts Examination of Vidhya Bhawan, Udaipur. The circular does not specify if this recognition was accorded in connection with teachers training qualification reouisite for primary school teachers. It may be stated that the certificate of Industrial Examination was not a teachers training course at all. Then came order dated 7.1.85 issued vide circular No. F/139/15-52 xzk-fo-iz@iz-kk- 3@xzqi 81/74 which clarified that B.S.TC. and N.T.C. were different courses altogether and N.T.C. had been recognised only for teaching craft (m|ksx) and N T.C. holders were not eligible to be appointed as teachers in Panchayat Samities. This was followed by another Govt. circular dated 6.11.85 issued vide F/139/ 15-42/ xzk- fo- i-@fk{kk 18/2768 which reiterated the position that N.T.C. holders were not eligible to be appointed as Teachers in Panchayat Samiti Schools. Then came another circular Ex. P-8 dated 11.6.87 which said that certificate in Cutting and Tailoring issued by State Technical Vocational Training Council were to be treated as equivalent to National Trade Certificate for Cutting and Tailoring. Then came another circular Ex. P-8 dated 11.6.87 which said that certificate in Cutting and Tailoring issued by State Technical Vocational Training Council were to be treated as equivalent to National Trade Certificate for Cutting and Tailoring. It appears that the entire mischief was created by a letter Ex.P. 10 issued by Deputy Director in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department whereby he informed certain Vikas Adhikaris that the qualification in question was also recognised for appointment of teachers in general category. It may be stated that it was not a circular or Govt. order but was merely expression of opinion of a Minor minion of the Govt. However, the subject matter of the letter indicated that the letter was in connection with appointment of teachers in Craft, Physical Education, Drawing and Painting. This letter could not amount to a conscious decision of the Govt. to recognise N.T.C. as training for primary school teachers. This was followed by an order issued by Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur (Ex.P. 9 dated 1.7.89) whereby it was stated that a recommendation had been made to State Govt. that S.T.V.T, holders may be given similar opportunities of employment as were available to N.C.V. T. holders and the State Govt. had accepted the recommendation and all the departments were required to amend their service Rules so as to make S.T.V.T. holders eligible for appointment to different services. Now, this makes it abundantly clear that an amendment was envisaged in various Service Rules. However, the fact is that the Rules were never amended to incorporate N.C.V.T. or S.T.V.T. as a qualification for appointment as Primary School Teacher- 15. On the contrary, the Govt. has come out with a categorical order dated 30.10.1992, which deserves to be quoted in extenso. However, the fact is that the Rules were never amended to incorporate N.C.V.T. or S.T.V.T. as a qualification for appointment as Primary School Teacher- 15. On the contrary, the Govt. has come out with a categorical order dated 30.10.1992, which deserves to be quoted in extenso. It reads:- ^^jktLFkku ljdkj xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx dzekad% ,Q@30 ¼14 7½ xzkfoi@fk{kk@86@5633 fn- 30-10-92 % % ifji= % % xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx ds v/khu ek= izkFkfed fo|ky; gS ftuesa fk{kk ikB~;Øe fgUnh] xf.kr] lkekU; foKku o lkekftd Kku gS] v/;kid d fy, lkekU; kSf{kf.kd izfkf{kr v/;kid dh vko;drk gSA m|ksx] dyk] laxhr] kkjhfjd fk{kk vkfn i`Fkd fo"k; ugha gS vr% bl dk;kZy; }kjk izlkfjr vknsk Øekad ,Q@39 ¼14&15½ xzkfoi@fk{kk@71@2671 fnukad 6-8-84 ftlesa m|ksx ijh{kkvksa ds izek.k i= dks fo|k Hkou mn;iqj dh gS.MhØkV dyk gLrdyk fMIyksek izek.k&i= dks fk{kk foHkkx }kjk lapkfyr cqfu;knh izfk{k.k ds led{k ekuk Fkk iw.kZ :i ls okfil fy;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh bl dk;kZy; ds vknsk Øekad ,Q@39 ¼15&42½ xzkfoi@fk{kk@81@276 fnukad 28-1-85 ftleas >jidj Vªsfuax dkWyst cEcbZ ls izkIr fMIyksek/kkjh iapk;r lfefr;ksa esa fu;qDr gsrq ;ksX; ekus x;s dks Hkh iw.kZr% okfil fy;k tkrk gSA bl dk;kZy; ds vknsk ,Q@39 ¼15&42½ xzkfoi@izk@&3@fk{kk@81@74 fnukad 7-1-85 ds }kjk vkbZ-Vh-vkbZ }kjk iznRr lfVZfQdsV/kkjh vH;FkhZ iapk;r lfefr;ksa esa fk{kd in ds ;ksX; u ekuus dks funsZfkr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk vknsk ,Q@39 ¼15&42½ xzkfoi@fk{kk@81@2768 fnukad 6-11-85 }kjk uskiy VªsM lfVZfQdsV /kkjh v/;kidksa dh lsok,a rqjUr izHkko ls lekIr djus ds fy, funsZfkr fd;k x;k Fkk ;s vknsk izHkkokhy gSA blh Øe esa bl dk;kZy; ds vknsk ,Q@9 ¼14&½ xzkfoi@fk{kk@87@8305 fnukad 10-8-87 }kjk jktdh; m|ksx izfk{kky; ijkqjke }kjk t;iqj fo|k Hkou dyk laLFkku mn;iqj ds nks o"khZ; izfk{k.k dks fk{kk foHkkx dh rjg Ckh-,l-Vh-lh- ds led{k ekus tkus ds vknsk dks iapk;r lfefr fk{kdksa ds p;u gsrq okfil fy;k tkrk gSA D;ksafd ,sls izfkf{kr vH;FkhZ lkekU; v/;kid ftudh iapk;r lfefr esa vko;drk gS i<+kus gsrq l{ke ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr bl dk;kZy; }kjk iwoZ esa fdlh izdkj ds izlkfjr vknsk ftuesa ,u-Vh-lh-@,l-Vh-lh- ¼LVsV VªsM lfVZfQdsV½ fo|k Hkou dyk laLFkku] mn;iqj jktdh; m|ksx izfk{kky; ijkqjke }kjk t;iqj rFkk vU;kU; laLFkkuksa }kjk iznRr fdlh Hkh izdkj ds m|ksx laxhr] kkjhfjd fk{kk] fp=dyk izfk{k.k dks iapk;r lfefr;ksa ds v/;kidksa ds p;u esa ch-,l- Vh-lh- ds led{k ekuk gS ds vfrØe.k eas vknsfkr fd;k tkrk gS fd ,sls fdlh Hkh izdkj ds izfk{k.k iapk;r lfefr;ksa ds v/;kidksa ds fy;s ;ksX; ugha ekus tkosA ;fn iapk;r lfefr;ksa esa m|ksx] laxhr] fp=dyk ] kkjhfjd fk{kk ds izfkf{kr v/;kid vLFkkbZ :i ls dk;Zjr gks rks mudh lsok,a fu;kekuqlkj uksfVl nsdj lekIr dj nsaA lkFk gh orZeku eaas v/;kidksa dh p;u izfØ;k py jgh gks rks ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u ugha fd;k tkosA vr% leLr ftyk LFkkiuk@eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk lfpo] ftyk ifj"knksa dks funsZfkr fd;k tkrk gS fd v/;kid@v/;kfidkvksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq foKkiu esa gh mYys[k dj nsa fd fdlh Hkh izdkj ds m|ksx] laxhr] fp=dyk] kkjhfjd fk{kk vkfn uskuy VªsM lfVZfQdsV /kkjh izfkf{kr vH;FkhZ] iapk;r lfefr;ksa ds v/khu izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu gh izLrqr u djsaA ,l Mh@& funskd ,oa fofk"B kklu lfpo] xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx] jktLFkku] t;iqjA izfrfyih fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gS%& 1- futh lfpo] fodkl vk;qDr] jktLFkku] t;iqjA 2- futh lfpo] fk{kk lfpo] jktLFkku] t;iqjA 3- funskd] izkFkfed ,oa ek/;fed fk{kk] jktLFkku] chdkusjA 4- leLr ftyk dysDVjA 5- leLr eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh ,oa lfpo ftyk ifj"knA 6-leLr fodkl vf/kdkjh] iapk;r lfefr;kaA 7- vknsk i=koyhA ,l Mh@& mi funskd ¼izkFk- fk{kk½ jktLFkku] t;iqjA 16. Hence, the position is that no conscious decision was ever taken to recognise the State Trade Certificate as equivalent to teachers training for appointment in Panchayat Samities or general teachers, though it does appear that specialised courses like S.T.C. were recognised as good qualification for teaching specialised subjects like craft, music, physical education and drawing and painting. At this very juncture, 1 may note that under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service. Rules 1971 craft teacher grade third had been recognised as a separate category altogether. Likewise, there is a separate category of Physical training teachers grade third under the Rules. No such separate categories exist under the Rules in question and the Govt. Circular dated 3010.1992 makes it explicit that Panchayat Samiti Schools do not require teacher in the said categories, When it is so and these subjects are not at all taught in the Panchayat Samiti Schools, it is idle to contend that teachers with such specialised training should be thrust upon Panchayat Samiti Schools, particularly when they are ill equipped, rather not at all equipped to teach as general category teachers. Rural education has already received a low priority in the scheme of things and imposition of such teachers in Panchayat Samiti Schools would result in denying to the thousands of children a right and proper atmosphere of education, which properly trained teachers alone could create and generate. 17. Now, I may deal with the precedents cited at the bar. Learned counsel for the petitioners greatly relied upon a D.B. decision of this Court in Jagdish vs. State(6) and Jess Ram vs. State(7) decided by a common order dated May 26, 1989. These were cases where petitioners held degree of B.A. followed by State Trade Test Certificates. Initially, they got appointment as teachers in Panchayat Samities but their services were sought to be terminated on the ground that they were not qualified to be appointed as teachers. The Division Bench interferred and quashed the orders terminating the services of the petitioners and directed their reinstatement, treating them to be qualified. It appears that in doing so, the Division Bench relied upon an earlier judgement of anotner Division Bench decision rendered in case of Harpal Singh vs. State (8) decided on 19.1.1988. The Division Bench interferred and quashed the orders terminating the services of the petitioners and directed their reinstatement, treating them to be qualified. It appears that in doing so, the Division Bench relied upon an earlier judgement of anotner Division Bench decision rendered in case of Harpal Singh vs. State (8) decided on 19.1.1988. It appears that an earlier decision of this very D B. consisting of Hon"ble D.L. Mehta and S.S Vyas, Judges (as they were) rendered on 17.11.1988 in Babu Lal vs. State of Raj (9) was not brought to their notice when they decided Jagdish and Jess Rams case. In Babulals case, they had already taken a view that N.T.C./S.T.C. holders were eligible to be appointed only as craft teachers and not at general category teacher. In that case also services were terminated but the D.B. declined to interfere holding that N.T.C. holders were not entitled to be appointed as teachers in Primary Schools. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon D.B. decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 177/90 (10) decided on 12.9.90. 18. The aforesaid narration goes to show that there is a conflict of opinion even amongst Division Bench decisions of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that I should hold D.B. decision rendered in Babulals case (supra) as per incuriam but he forgets that it is only a bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction which can hold a judgment per incuriam. In my opinion, sitting singly, I can not do so. If any authority is needed for this proposition, reference may be made to Bhensrodgarh Panchayat Samiti (F.B.) supra, which has discussed this aspect in great details. 19. At this very juncture, I may mention some more pertinent facts. It appears that some similar trained teachers approached the Honble apex Court by way of filing a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India Jeeta Ram vs. State of Raj. (11). In that case, services of the petitioners were threatened to be terminated. Their Lordships, upon an application for interim relief being made, directed issue of notices to respondents and further respondents not to terminate their services but gave liberty to State of Rajasthan to absorb such petitioners as teachers in craft subjects. A similar order was passed in the S.L.P. filed against judgment rendered in Shyamlals case by a D.B. of this Court (supra). 20. A similar order was passed in the S.L.P. filed against judgment rendered in Shyamlals case by a D.B. of this Court (supra). 20. Shri P.P. Chaudhary strenuosly contended that the controversy raised before this Court stands concluded by judgment of the apex Court rendered in AIR 1987 SC 2027 as held in at least two single Bench decisions of this Court viz , Judgment of Honble the Chief Justice in Manohar Lal Tailor vs. State (12), Judgment of Honble J.R. Chopra, J. in Shyam Lal Joshi vs. State of Raj. (13) and Judgment of my learned brother G. S. Singhvi, rendered in a batch of writ petitions viz Jagdish Prasad vs. State (14) and nine other writ petitions decided on (date illegible) and judgment in State Vs. Shyamlal (supra). But, all these judgments have no application to the changed scenario inasmuch as that a conscious decision has been taken not to appoint any crafts teacher in Panchayat Samiti Schools because craft is not taught as a subject in these schools. 21. Shri P.P. Chaudhary submitted that this decision could only be prospective and not retrospective and hence selection process, which was commenced by issuing the advertisement in question, could not be stultified by such a decision of the government, not to fill up the posts. Shri Vijay Bishnoi submits that even if the decision is taken to be prospective, after issue of Notification dated 30.10 1992, no appointment to the post of teachers in Primary Schools of Panchayat Samities could be made from amongst persons, who did not possess teachers training as implicit in the relevant provisions of the Rules. 22. I have considered the rival contentions carefully. First of all I may allude to Suresh Pals case. In that case petitioners had obtained training for Physical Instructors in an institute recognised for this purpose. However, later on the State of Haryana de-recognised this training. It was held that this de-recognition during the course of training should not disentitle the petitioners for being considered for appointment as physical instructors. In the present case, the petitioners never received any training for teaching primary classes. They did receive a training in cutting and tailoring, a subject no longer taught in Primary Schools in Panchayat Samities. It was held that this de-recognition during the course of training should not disentitle the petitioners for being considered for appointment as physical instructors. In the present case, the petitioners never received any training for teaching primary classes. They did receive a training in cutting and tailoring, a subject no longer taught in Primary Schools in Panchayat Samities. The order stating that no appointment were to be made in craft as a subject was not available before the Honble the Chief Justice and other Honble Judges of this Courts when the aforesaid decisions were rendered. In my opinion, when crafts teachers are no longer required, the petitioners and their likes cannot be appointed to Panchayat Samiti Schools on the basis of their training in crafts sans training in primary school teaching. 23. I am aware that there is large scale unemployment in the country. The view I have taken may add to the misery of unemployed youth like the petitioners. But, the future of the children in the State is at stake. They are our destiny. No comptomise can be made where their education is concerned. Hence, appointment of petitioners as teachers in general category cannot be countenanced. The executive government may find out ways and means to employ them as craftsman, where their services may be needed. 24. I could have disposed of the writ petition finally on the aforesaid premises but since there is conflict of opinion among D.B. decisions on a vital point involved, hence dictates of judicial propriety demand that I request the Honble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench of at least three Judges to consider the following legal issue : (i) Whether after decision of apex Court in Ram Sukhs case (supra) training in craft obtained by the petitioners could at all be treated as training in teaching as implicit in the Rules and as envisaged in Ram Sukhs case and if so, whether petitioners are entitled to be appointed as general category teachers even though craft is not being taught as a subject in Primary Schools run by Panchayat Samities of Rajasthan? The matter may, therefore, be placed before Honble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench as suggested at an early date. After the larger bench has answered the matter may be listed before the Court.