JUDGMENT 1. - The special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated January 5, 1993 by which he has disposed of the writ petition of the appellant with the observation that in case regular selection has taken place and selected incumbent is appointed, the services of the petitioner can be terminated. The facts of the case giving rise to this special appeal may be summarised thus. 2. By its order dated August 2, 1990 (Annexure 1), the respondent No. 1 appointed the petitioner-appellant who is M.A.B.Ed. as a Third Grade Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2050 in Mook and Baghir Vidhyalaya, Udaipur (respondent No. 2) for the period from August 9, 1990 to May 16, 1991. By office order dated May 16, 1991 (Anx. 2) the respondent No. 1 intimated the petitioner-appellant that her service has come to an end. An advertisement (Annexure 3) was issued by the Secretary of the respondent No. 2 for inviting applications for filling up three posts of III Grades Teachers and one post of Craft Teacher. The petitioner also applied in pursuance of this advertisement. The Selection Committee could not finalise the appointments. By office order dated July 1, 1991 (Anx. 4), the petitioner was temporarily appointed for three months from July 1, 1991 to September 30, 1991 on fixed salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. She submitted representations Annexures 6, 7, 8 and 10 for regularisation of her services and grant of regular pay scale. Her services have neither been regularised nor extended. Thereafter, she filed the writ petition for her confirmation as a regular III grade teacher on the regular pay scale with effect from August 9, 1991 and for making payment of the arrears of the difference amount of pay with interest. 3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 admit that their school is governed by the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1963, it is a school for education of deaf and dumb students, the petitioner was temporarily appointed upto May 16, 1991 by order Annexure 1, advertisement Annexure 3 was issued but the selections could not be finalised due to the absence of one of the members of the selection committee and she was again appointed as a III grade teacher from July 1, 1991 for three months on the fixed pay of Rs. 1000/- per month. 1000/- per month. It has further been averred that by order dated November 15, 1991 (Annexure R 1/1) her services have been continued till further orders on the fixed salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. She is an untrained teacher. Writ petition is not maintainable, she cannot be given regular appointment in violation of the Rules under the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1963, the State Government has also discontinued the grant of this post because of appointing untrained teacher vide Annexure R 1/3. 4. In her rejoinder, the petitioner averred that she is a trained teacher, other persons have duly been appointed as teacher in this school possessing the same qualification and the right of equal pay of equal work is a constitutional right. 5. In the reply to the stay application, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a copy of the letter No. Zi.Sri.Adhi/Ud/Vidhi/Vimla Lodha/Yachika/5152-53 dated March 23, 1992 (Annexure R 1/5) issued by the District Education Officer (Girls Institutions), Uaipur and addressed to the Secretary of the respondent school stating that the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification and the earlier letters issued by him are cancelled. 6. In her additional rejoinder the petitioner stated that Smt. Nirumpama B.Sc., B.Ed. was also appointed as III grade teacher and was subsequently promoted as II grade teacher despite the fact that she was not possessing the qualification of C.T.D. or B.Ed. or D.C.D. as is clear from the Annexures 12 and 13 and she has now become overage. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as said above. 8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is wholly contrary to the settled legal principles, she is trained and qualified she was duly selected by the selection committee but formal order could not be issued, Smt. Nirupama Poonamia B.Sc. B.Ed. has been selected and is in the service of the respondent school as II grade teacher and if her services are not extended and regularised she would suffer irregular injury as she has now become overage and letter annexure R 1/5 contains wrong informations. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Advocate duly supported the order under challenge. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner-appellant is M.A.B.Ed. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Advocate duly supported the order under challenge. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner-appellant is M.A.B.Ed. It is not her case that she was trained to teach deaf and dumb students. Advertisement Annexure 3 clearly required that candidates for the posts of Senior and III grade teachers should be trained in teaching deaf and dumb students. On the representation annexure 7 of the petitioner, the District Education Officer forwarded it to the respondent school with the endorsement to the effect that if she is appointed as a teacher in the school his office has no objection. By letter dated September 29, 1991 (Annexure 11) he directed the respondent school to proceed with the matter of the petitioner as per the said endorsement. The relevant portion of the letter No. Zi.Shi.Adhi./Ud/Vidhi/Vimla Lodha/Yachika/ 5152-53 dated March 23, 1992 (Annexure R-1/5) issued by the District Education Officer (Girls institutions), Udaipur addressed to the Secretary of the respondent school runs as under:- bl izdj.k esa iw.kZ rF;ksa dh tkap djus ij ;g Li"V gqvk gS fd vkidk fo|ky; ,d Js.kh dk fo|ky; gS ftlesa lkekU;r% izf'k{k.k ch-,M- ds ctk; cf/kj f'k{kk esa ch-,M-] lh-Vh-Mh-] Mh-,M- ;k Mh-lh-Mh- gksuk vko';d gS( tks mDr Jhefr foeyk yks<+k ds ikl fo'ks"k izf'k{k.k dh ;ksX;rk ugha gksus ds dkj.k bl dk;Zy; }kjk mijksDr of.kZr i= fnukad 11 flracj 1991 ,oa 29&9&91 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A tkWap djus ij ;g Hkh Li"V gqvk gS fd mDr Jhefr foeyk yks<+k ds xr o"kZ Hkh vkids fo|ky; ds vuq:i izf'k{k.k ;ksX;rk ugha gksus ds dkj.k vuqnku ;ksX; ugha ekuk x;k gS] rFkk ;gh ckr bl o"kZ Hkh mDr v/;kfidk ij izHkko'kkyh gS A It refers to the said endorsement dated September 11, 1991 made on Annexure 7 and the letter dated September 29, 1991 (Annexure 11). It is clear from the above quoted portion on of the letter Annexure R 1/5 that the petitioner- appellant does not possess necessary training for teaching deaf and dumb students. In Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education and others, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 183 at page 188 para 20, it has been observed as follows:- ''It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subject to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. In Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education and others, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 183 at page 188 para 20, it has been observed as follows:- ''It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subject to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill trained or sub-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 teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration.'' Similarly, in Ram Sukh and others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 592, it has been observed as under:- ''The untrained teachers can never be proper substitute to trained teachers. We are, therefore unable to give any relief to the petitioners.'' The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the services of the petitioner can be terminated in case regular selection has taken place and the selected incumbent is appointed. Thus there is no force in the special appeal.Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. *******