JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners, holders of State Trade Certificates (Cutting and Tailoring) (hereinafter referred to as STC (C&T) have filed this writ petition with the averments, in short that the de-recognition of STC (C&T) as equivalent to Basic School Training Certificate (BSTC) is null and void and recognition of the diploma of the Art and Craft of Vidhya Bhawan Institute, Udaipur as equivalent to BSTC and not of the STC (C&T) is discriminatory and praying that the opposite parties be directed to consider their candidature for the posts of primary school teacher treating their certificates of STC (C&T) as equivalent to BSTC. In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court on the point of equivalence of the STC (C&T) with BSTC and the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Andhra Kesri Educational Society v. Director, School Education, AIR 1989 SC 183 and Ram Sukh v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1990 SC 2592 , holding that training in teaching is essential for a primary school teacher, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of larger bench to decide the following legal issue:- "Whether after decision of the Apex Court in Ram Sukh's case (supra), training in craft could at all be treated as training in teaching as implicit in the rules and as envisaged in Ramsukh's case and if so, whether the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as general category teachers even though craft is not being taught as a subject in the Primary Schools run by Panchayat Samitis of Rajasthan." By order dated December 20, 1992, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench to decide this reference. 2. To avoid confusion, it may be mentioned here that the course which used to be imparted to the candidates preparing for teaching primary school students was earlier known as Basic School Training Certificate (BSTC) Course and also as School Training Certificate (STC) course. It is now known as (sic). The various Courses of Trades which are conducted by State Council for Vocational Training and National Council for Vocational Training are known as State Trade Certificate (STC)/National Trade Certificate (NTC) Courses. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised preliminary objection that there was no necessity for making this reference, it is incompetent and as such it should not be answered. The various Courses of Trades which are conducted by State Council for Vocational Training and National Council for Vocational Training are known as State Trade Certificate (STC)/National Trade Certificate (NTC) Courses. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised preliminary objection that there was no necessity for making this reference, it is incompetent and as such it should not be answered. He contended that the point regarding the said equivalence was first of all decided in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2664/87 Harpal v. State, on 19.1.88 and subsequently in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3250/88 Jagdish v. State and Writ Petition No. 3251/88, Jessa Ram v. State, decided by a common order dated 26.5.89 , the earlier decision given in Harpal's case was not considered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1458/88, Babulal v. State, decided on November 17, 1988 taking contrary view, thereafter, there have been several decisions taking the view similar to the view taken in Harpal's case and the judgment given in Babulal's case was per incurium and as such it is not binding. He relied upon Anil Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1353 , The Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 , Jaiwant Rao v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 250 , Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 RLW 184 and Nityanandan Kar v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1134 . It was next contended by him that the courts do not decide academic and technical questions regarding the equivalence of one course with the other course. He relied upon Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University AIR 1986 SC 1448 . He further contended that the decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 177/90 State v. Shyamlal, decided on 12.9.90 has been challenged by the State Government in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3495/91 and the petitioner Babulal has also filed a Special Leave Petition against the said decision of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they are likely to be heard in near future and as such the reference need not be answered. It was also contended that Item No. 2 of the Schedule of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Rules (in short 'the Rules') simply mentions 'Matric Trained' as the qualification for the post of primary school teacher, the word 'trained' is of very wide amplitude and it is not confined to BSTC only. He further contended that the State Government had issued order No. 96 (63) Sa. Pra. Sa. 71 dated February 8, 1973 (Annexure 11) recognising the Diploma issued by the Vidhya Bhawan Handicrafts Institute Udaipur in Art and Handicrafts as equivalent to BSTC, order No. F. 9(5) GA/111/74 dated December 11, 1974 (Annexure P/1) recognising the certificates of Industrial Examinations of the Rajasthan Government equivalent to Art and Handicraft diploma of Vidhya Bhawan, Udaipur and letter No. F. 39/14/Gr.II/siksha/91 dated November 19, 1987 (paper No. A11/38) directing that the holders of State Trade Certificate (STC (C&T)) may be appointed as Primary School Teachers in general category. He also contended that the courses taught during the training of BSTC and STC are the same and the de-reorganition of STC(C&T)/NTC(C&T) as equivalent to BSTC is void, being discriminatory. He also contended that the courses taught during the training of BSTC and STC are the same and the de-reorganition of STC(C&T)/NTC(C&T) as equivalent to BSTC is void, being discriminatory. He lastly contended that in Civil Writ Petition No. 2664/87 Harpal v. State, decided on 19.11.88 , (2) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3250/88 Jagdish v. State, decided on 26.5.89 , (3) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3251/88 Jessa Ram v. State, decided on 26.5.89 , (4) D.B. Special Appeal No. 177/190 State v. Shyamlal, decided on 12.9.90 , (5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5798/91 Rajaram v. State, decided on 22.1.92 , (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1614/89 Shyamlal Joshi v. State, decided on 12.1.90, (7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 64/91 Manoharlal Tailor v. State, decided on 23.1.92 , (8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 537/89 Jagdish Prasad v. State , similar Writ Petitions, decided on 23.6.91 , (9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1614/86 Shaktiraj Singh v. State , similar writ petitions, decided on 16.1.87, (10) Sohanlal v. State, 1992 (1) WLR 63 (Raj) , (11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1414/85 Narainlal Jat v. State, decided on 31.8.90 , (12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 122192 Jita Ram v. State and (13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3525/88 Jagdish Prasad v. State, decided on 1.9.89 , it has been held that State Trade Certificate (STC) and National Trade Certificate (NTC) are equivalent to Basic School Training Certificates(BSTC), the decision given in Babulal v. State, taking contrary view, has not rightly been followed and there exist no good ground for upsetting this well settled law.4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no substance, mere admission of Special Leave Petition filed in other cases neither ousts the jurisdiction of nor debars this Hon'ble Court to hear and decide the cases involving the same points, it cannot be said as to when these matters would be heard and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reference is quite comittment, as been made on account of the decision given in Andhra Kesri Educational Society v. Director, School Education, AIR 1983 SC 183 and Ram Sukh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 SC 2592 , minimum qualification for the recruitment of primary school teachers Grade III (general category) is Matric trained, for the recruitment of primary school teacher in the general category they should possess Basic School Training Certificate (BSTC) and candidates having STC (C&T) or NTC (C&T) are not qualified for being appointed as Teachers Gr. III general category. They further contended that there is no course of tailoring or cutting in the primary schools, BSTC course is of two years and the State Trade Certificate and National Trade Certificate courses are of one year only, their syllabus are totally different and distinct, in the STC/NTC Course, training is given in various kinds of Trades and, on the contrary, in BSTC course, training is given in the technique of teaching, there is no post of Craft Teacher in primary in schools and holders of STC/NTC can teach craft subjects only like cutting and tailoring etc. They also contended that STC/NTC are not equivalent to BSTC as has been notified by the Government in their Notifications No. F. 139/15-12/Gra.vik/Pra-3/Group/81/74 dated January 7, 1985, paper No. A9/34, No. F.139(15-42)-Gra.vi.Pa/Shiksha/18/2768 dated November 6, 1985 (Annexure R/1), No. F.139(14)Gr.Vi.Pa./shiksha/88/795 dated April 6, 1988 (annexure R/2), No F. 139(1415)Gra.vi/Pa/shiksha/89/1275 dated Aug. 11, 1989 (annexure R/3) and No. F.138(14)Gr.vi/pa/shiksha/86/5633 dated October 30, 1992 (paper No. A10/32) and earlier notifications have been withdrawn. They further contended that the Deputy Director (Primary Education), Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur was not competent to recognise the equivalence of the said two courses and the said letter Annexure P/10 has also not recognised that the two courses, namely, BSTC and STC(C&T) are equivalent. They further contended that the Deputy Director (Primary Education), Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur was not competent to recognise the equivalence of the said two courses and the said letter Annexure P/10 has also not recognised that the two courses, namely, BSTC and STC(C&T) are equivalent. They relied upon Andhra Kesri Educational Society v. Director of School Education, AIR 1989 SC183 , Ram Sukh v. State, AIR 1990 SC 2592 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1453/88 Babulal v. State of Rajasthan and others, decided on November 17, 1986. 5. The first question for consideration is whether the reference made to the Full Bench was neither necessary nor justified ? It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned single Judge has observed while making the reference that there were differences of opinion in between various Division Benches of this Court, in fact it was not so, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2664/87 Harpal v. State was first decided on January 9, 1988 holding that the holders of STC (C&T)/NTC (C&T) are trained and as such they could be appointed as primary school teachers, the decision given in D.B. Writ Petition No. 1458/88 Babulal v. State on November 17, 1988 did not consider the decision given in Harpal's case, as such it was per incurium and had no binding effect, accordingly subsequent decisions noted in para 2 (supra) followed the decision dated January 1, 1988 given in Harpal v. State and as such the judgments of various Division Benches are not contrary. There is no great force in these contentions. It is not in dispute that the decision given in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1458/88 Babulal v. State decided on November 17, 1988 is contrary to decisions given in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3250/88 Jagdish v. State , and No. 3251/88 Jessa Ram v. State decided on May 26, 1989 by a common order and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 177/90 State v. Shyamlal decided on September 12, 1990. It can thus well be said that there are contrary judgments on the point in dispute. It can thus well be said that there are contrary judgments on the point in dispute. Proviso (b) of Rule 55, Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 provides that a Judge, may if he thinks fit refer a case which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone on any question or questions of law arising therein for a decision to a Bench of two Judges. Rule 59 of the Rules runs as under : "59. Reference of a case to a larger Bench:- The Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any questions of law formulated by a bench hearing a case. In the latter event, the decision of such Bench on the question or questions so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the case and that Bench shall follow that decision on such question or questions and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any, arising therein." 6. It has been observed in Jaishree v. Raj Diwan, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 83 at page 88 last para, as follows : "The better course would be for the Bench hearing the case to refer the matter to a Full Bench in view of the conflicting authorities without taking upon himself to decide whether it should follow the one Bench decision or the other. We have no doubt that when such situations arise, the Bench hearing cases would refer the matter for the decision of a Full Court." The learned Single Judge has acted accordingly and referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench.7. There is yet another aspect of the matter. A Bench can well refer a matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting Larger Bench for reviewing an earlier decision in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressing contrary view. There is a reference of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Sukh v. State, AIR 1990 SC 2592 in the question referred to this Bench.8. The petitioners have relied upon Devaram v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 RLW 18 , Jaiwant Rao v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 Raj. 250 , Anil Kumar Aneotis v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1353 , Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association and ors. The petitioners have relied upon Devaram v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 RLW 18 , Jaiwant Rao v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 Raj. 250 , Anil Kumar Aneotis v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1353 , Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association and ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 and Nityanand Kar v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1134 . In Nityanand Kar v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1134 and Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1607 , it has been held that settled position of law and traditions followed for decades in the service of the State should not be disturbed. In Anil Kumar Aneotia v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1353 , it has been held that the binding effect of a decision does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered, therefore, not provided that the point with reference to which an argument was subsequently advanced was actually decided. In Jaiwant Rao v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1961 Raj. 250 (FB) , it has been held that a Single Judge is bound by the decision of a Bench of two or more Judges and Division Bench is bound by the decision of other Division Bench and it cannot disregard or ignore unless such decision has been overruled by a Full Bench or the Supreme Court. There can be no quarrel with the principle of law laid down in those decisions but they are not applicable in this case so far as the reference is concerned.9. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reference need not be answered as similar matters are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that orders passed in other similar cases have been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petitions have been admitted. Decision of a case cannot be postponed particularly after it has been argued at length by both the sides on the ground that similar matter have been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.10. It is correct that this Court is not supposed to decide academic and technical questions about the equivalence of various courses. Decision of a case cannot be postponed particularly after it has been argued at length by both the sides on the ground that similar matter have been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.10. It is correct that this Court is not supposed to decide academic and technical questions about the equivalence of various courses. Here the question is whether training in Cutting and Tailoring obtained by the petitioners can be treated as training in teaching as required under the Rules and envisaged in Ramsukh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 SC 2592 and they can be appointed as general category teachers in the primary schools of the Panchayat Samitis despite the fact that Cutting and Tailoring are not being taught in Primary Schools.11. For a proper and correct answer of the reference, it is necessary to quote the relevant rules and circulars. Rule 11 of the Rules as amended upto date runs as under:- "11. A recruit to the various categories of service must possess the minimum educational qualification or technical qualification and experience detailed in Schedule to these Rules. Provided that the widows and divorced women will be given relaxation in qualification of STC for appointment to the post of teacher if they are otherwise eligible and furnish an undertaking to the effect that the qualification of STC shall be obtained within a period of three years. They shall also be eligible for grant of study leave soon after their appointment for acquiring the qualification of STC." 12. Item No. 2 of Schedule of the Rules relates to the Primary Schools. It runs as under:- S. No. Category of Post & grade (if any) Qualification required for direct recruitment Post from which appointment can be made by promotion Minimum experience and qualification required for promotion Remarks 2. Primary School Teacher Matric Trained (i) Holders of untrained Matric Grade (ii) Holders of Trained Middle Grade Must be Matric and trained. No direct recruitment in Grade III & IV will now be made. Trained Matric and Grade III trained middle shall automatically be allowed to the persons fulfilling the qualification laid down for these grades. (2) The minimum qualification required for direct recruitment in respect of women candidates shall be middle standard and condensed course of training conducted by institutions recognised by the State Government or the Central government. 13. Trained Matric and Grade III trained middle shall automatically be allowed to the persons fulfilling the qualification laid down for these grades. (2) The minimum qualification required for direct recruitment in respect of women candidates shall be middle standard and condensed course of training conducted by institutions recognised by the State Government or the Central government. 13. This Schedule contains three Notes relating to the posts of Primary School Teachers. It would be best to quote them here. They run as under:- FIRST : "The minimum qualification for direct recruitment in respect of women candidates recruitment shall be Matric and STC trained or any other qualification declared equivalent to Matric trained by the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan. Provided that in case of non-availability of trained women candidates in Tribal districts of Dungarpur and Banswara and Desert Districts of Barmer and Jaisalmer, the minimum qualification may be untrained Matric or equivalent. SECOND : Provided that candidates who have possessed Secondary/Higher Secondary examination or possess any other qualification declared equivalent to them by the Government in the Education Department and are undergoing training in the regular B.S.T.C. course or in the Short-term courses hold at the various centres started by the State Education Department shall also be eligible to apply for direct recruitment to the posts of Primary School Teachers advertised under Advertisement No. 42 dated 9.4.73 for the academic session 1972-93 only but final selection shall be made only after they pass the above courses and subject to their being otherwise found suitable by the Commission. THIRD : Whenever certain qualifications are specified, it shall include such qualifications which may have been declared equivalent by the State Government as equivalent to any such qualification." 14. Various Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Service (Pay Scale) Rules granted higher initial pay to B.Ed. degree holders and one advance increment to those who acquire B.Ed. degree while in service. 15. The FIRST NOTE, quoted in para 13/supra, provides that minimum qualification for direct recruitment in respect of women candidates shall be Matric and STC (School Training Certificate) trained or any other qualification declared equivalent to Matric trained by the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan and not Matric and State Trade Certificate trained. degree while in service. 15. The FIRST NOTE, quoted in para 13/supra, provides that minimum qualification for direct recruitment in respect of women candidates shall be Matric and STC (School Training Certificate) trained or any other qualification declared equivalent to Matric trained by the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan and not Matric and State Trade Certificate trained. It further provides that in case of non-availability of trained women candidates in tribal districts of Dungarpur and Banswara and desert districts of Barmer and Jaisalmer, the minimum qualification may be untrained matric or equivalent. The proviso to Rule 11 also provides relaxation in qualification for STC for widows and divorced women for three years only. No relaxation has been provided for the male candidates. There is no reference of State Trade Certificate (STC) and National Trade Certificate (NTC) either in the proviso of Rule 11 or in the SECOND NOTE, quoted in para 13/supra. The said proviso requires that qualification of School Training Certificate (STC) shall be obtained within three years by widows and divorced women. The Second note provides that candidates undertaking training in regular BSTC course or in short term courses held at various centres started by the State Education Department shall also be eligible for direct recruitment to the post of Primary School Teacher, as advertised in Advertisement No. 42 dated April 9, 1973 in the academic session 1973-74 and their selection will depend on their passing BSTC and, on the contrary, there is a specific reference of BSTC (Basic School Training Certificate) in it.16. The word "trained" has not been defined in the Rules. Words used in a Statute are presumed to have been used in their popular sense and they should be given their ordinary, natural and familiar meanings. Popular sense means that sense which people conversant with the subject matter would attribute it. Unless there is clear and cogent ground, the ordinary and natural sense of a word is to be preferred. A word may have two meanings, one of a restrictive nature and the other of the comprehensive character. It then becomes necessary to know its exact connotation. In such a case we have to turn not only to the context in relation to which it is used but also to the scope and object of the enactment and the reason of the rule contained therein. It then becomes necessary to know its exact connotation. In such a case we have to turn not only to the context in relation to which it is used but also to the scope and object of the enactment and the reason of the rule contained therein. A construction that results in absurdity or anomaly has to be rejected and preference is to be given to that construction which avoid such result. The job of a primary school teacher is to teach tiny tots in primary schools of the villages as per prescribed syllabus and not to teach art or handicrafts or any trade. They are not taught there. Letter dated January, 7, 1985 (paper No. A9/34 or A10/14) of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur clearly states that the course of Basic School Training Certificate (BSTC) and State Trade Certificate (SCT) are quite different and distinct. The learned Single Judge has quoted in extenso in his order the object, syllabus and duration of the (Hindi matter) (New Hindi equivalent of B.S.T.C.) from Poorva Shikshak Prashikshan Shiksha Kram) (Government of Rajasthan Publication). Its comparison with the subjects mentioned in petitioners' certificates Annexures P/1 to P/7 leave no manner of doubt that no training is imparted or courses are taught in the subjects in the State Trade Certificate (STC) Course which are trained and taught in the B.S.T.C. Course. The Certificates Annexures P/1 to P/7 simply show that the petitioners have been trained in art of cutting and tailoring only. They have not been trained for teaching primary school students. It is often said that at times it is easy to teach a University student than a primary school student.17. Amongst the teachers and concerned persons, 'trained' means persons holding Basic School Training Certificate (B.S.T.C.) or School Training Certificate (S.T.C.) or B.Ed. degree or who have undergone some short term course held by the Education Department in teaching. Training in other subjects or trade or in other vocation of life will not enable such a trainee to teach children in village primary schools as teacher holding B.S.T.C. or B.Ed. degree can teach them. This is clear from the Schedule of the Rules and also from the Pay Scale Rules. In Item No. 1 relating to the Village Level Workers, it is mentioned in Columns Nos. 3 and 5 "Trained in both basic and extension". degree can teach them. This is clear from the Schedule of the Rules and also from the Pay Scale Rules. In Item No. 1 relating to the Village Level Workers, it is mentioned in Columns Nos. 3 and 5 "Trained in both basic and extension". In Item No. 4 relating to Vaternary Compounders, it is mentioned "with six months training at Vaternity and Husbandry School, Jodhpur". Thus the Schedule speaks of specific trainings according to the nature of the posts. It is not disputed by the petitioners in their writ petition that Matric and BSTC/STC (Basic School Training Certificate/School Training Certificate) are the minimum required qualifications for the post of a primary school teacher under the Rules.18. The syllabus of BSTC Course and State Trade Certificate Course are quite different and distinct. The Officer Incharge of the case Shri Mohanlal, Senior Deputy Inspector and Shri R.C. Gupta, Deputy Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department Rajasthan, Jaipur have stated in their affidavits (papers No. A 13/1-20 and A 15/1-3) that there is vast difference between the syllabus of the said Two Courses. National Trade Certificate/State Trade Certificate holders are only trained in a particular trade like Fitter trade, Moulder trade, Welder trade, Tailoring and Cutting trade, Smithy trade, Carpentry trade etc. The syllabus for the trade of Cutting and Tailoring under the State Council for Vocational Training is as follows:- "Period of Training : One Year THEORETICAL INSTRUCTIONS : 1. Trade introduction, history of dress. 2. Growth of clothing and its importance. 3. Sewing threads their numbers, sizes and uses with relation to needle and cloth. 4. Textile fabric, such as cloth - cotton, silk, wool, linon, rayon and their standard width. 5. Selection of texture of fabric for gents, ladies and children. 6. Sewing machine its different parts, makes, types and uses. 7. Care and maintenance of sewing machine and safety measures uses. 8. Operation of adjustment and their uses. 9. Drafting, Cutting, Sewing and pressing Tools and Equipment and their uses. 10. Basic stitches : (a) Tacking plain (b) Basting (c) Back stitch (d) Over casting (e) Horring Pene (f) Marking Stitch (g) Button Hole (h) Padding Stitch 11. Decorative stitches, Running stitches, Satin stitches, Lazy Daisy Stitches, Chain Stitch, Stem Stitch. 12. Different kinds of seems pleats, darts, gathers and button hole. 13. 10. Basic stitches : (a) Tacking plain (b) Basting (c) Back stitch (d) Over casting (e) Horring Pene (f) Marking Stitch (g) Button Hole (h) Padding Stitch 11. Decorative stitches, Running stitches, Satin stitches, Lazy Daisy Stitches, Chain Stitch, Stem Stitch. 12. Different kinds of seems pleats, darts, gathers and button hole. 13. Trimming material used in tailoring, Bottons, threads, Zips, Buckles, Hooks, Lining and Interlining. 14. Technical Terms : Closing of Button hole, chesing of seems, Crease, Dart, Fish, Gathers, inlay, Turning, Slit, Stend & fell, Button Stand, Guttan Hole Stand, puff. 15. Human body, its various parts, their formation/movements and functions, Effect of movements on the garments. 16. Bight Head Theory. 17. Eight types of Figures. 18. Relation between inches and cms. 19. Different methods of taking measurements, Sequence of taking measurement and its application in drafting and cutting. 20. Measuring Size chart with neck measure and average to lecrence to be made. Construction Scale based on : (a) Height and Girth (b) Chest or breast and girth (c) Shoulder Dimensions. 21. Construction, inds and advantages of paper patterns. 22. Knowledge for creation of bust shape by dert manipulation fullness of styles and seems. 23. Importance of Balance marks, Knatches or grains indicated on patterns. 24. Methods of Cutting Garments keeping in view grainline, layout inlays and balances including handling of various types of materials. 25. Estimation of different garments according to the width of cloth. 26. Characteristics of well finished garments. 27. Kinds of repairing: Mending, Patching and darning. 28. Shrinking of various fabric, allowances, precautions. 29. Different kinds of stains and methods of removing them. PRACTICAL TRAINING 1. Handling of Drafting Tools and Equipments and their proper use. 2. Measuring practice of chest measuring system and direct measuring system. 3. Principles of drafting in Milton cloth and pattern paper. 4. Knowledge of basic stitches and button holes etc. 5. Knowledge of seems, Tucks, Plants, Darts, Edges Feathering. 6. Knowledge of Drafting, laying and Layout, keeping inlays, turning, margin and seem allowances. 7. Drafting and cutting of paper pattern of the following garments for different age groups size : I. CHILDREN GARMENTS Drafting and cutting : (i) Baby Sbemise Set. (ii) Zabke set (iii) Pantee Suit. (iv) Combination Suit and Ramper. (v) Sun suit, Bloomer set, Frocks, Ordinary Designed. Frilled and Panel Frocks. 7. Drafting and cutting of paper pattern of the following garments for different age groups size : I. CHILDREN GARMENTS Drafting and cutting : (i) Baby Sbemise Set. (ii) Zabke set (iii) Pantee Suit. (iv) Combination Suit and Ramper. (v) Sun suit, Bloomer set, Frocks, Ordinary Designed. Frilled and Panel Frocks. (vi) Jean Suit and Slacks (vii) Shirts (Ordinary and piece and Belted) (viii) T. Shirts (ix) Boys shirts II. LADIES GARMENTS Drafting and Cutting : (i) Pantee (ii) Chemisale (iii) Petticoat (iv) Blouse, plain, chaulicut (v) Magin sleeves. (vi) Ladies kurta (vii) Shirts (viii) Churidar pyjamma, Bell Bottom and parallel (ix) Night Suit (x) Nighty (xi) Maxi III. GENTS GARMENTS Drafting and cutting : (i) Plain and Sports Underwear (ii) Vests (iii) Pyjamma ordinary (iv) Aligarh Point style (v) Kurtas - Nehru, Kalidar and Bengali (vi) Gandhi Cap (vii) Gent shirts, Tie coller, Pole coller and Tennis coller. (viii) Knickers, Plain, One piece and belted. Belted scout shirt, Shirt, Bush-shirt and Zee shirt (ix) Night suit (x) Trouser - plain, one piece, top (xi) Plain and bell bottom. (xii) Jacket, larger suit for basket and ready-made trade with different types of sleeves and collers. (xiii) Balle suits (xiv) Nehru Jacket (xv) Sports Jacket." vide paper No. A13/20 attached with the affidavit of Shri R.C. Gupta. Similarly paper No A13/16 gives the syllabus of N.T.C. Course.19. The syllabus of the Basic School Training Certificate course is as under : [Hindi portion omitted] vide paper No. A/13/4. A comparative study of the above quoted two syllabus show that the courses are quite different and distinct from each other.20. In their affidavits, Shri Mohanlal Officer incharge and Shri R.C. Gupta, Deputy Secretary have stated that the syllabus of the primary school of Education Department is also applicable to the primary schools of the Panchayat Samitis and the following syllabus has been prescribed : "First and Second Classes : (a) Mother tongue. (b) Mathematics. (c) Environmental studies. (d) Socially useful productive work. (e) Art Education (f) Health and Physical Education. Class IIIrd to Vth : (a) Hindi (b) Mathematics (c) Environmental studies. First (Social Studies) Environmental studies : S. Second (Science) (4) Socially useful productive work (5) Art Education (6) Health and Physical Education. (7) Third language." 21. (b) Mathematics. (c) Environmental studies. (d) Socially useful productive work. (e) Art Education (f) Health and Physical Education. Class IIIrd to Vth : (a) Hindi (b) Mathematics (c) Environmental studies. First (Social Studies) Environmental studies : S. Second (Science) (4) Socially useful productive work (5) Art Education (6) Health and Physical Education. (7) Third language." 21. The learned counsel for the petitioners greatly relied upon 4th, 5th and 6th items of the above noted syllabus of the primary schools relating to Art Education, Socially Useful Productive Work and Physical Education. He contended that the persons holding craft certificates can well teach these subjects to the students of the primary schools. There is no force in this contention. The Directorate of Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner has issued 'SHIKSHA KRAM' (Primary Education). The necessity, importance, object and requirement of these subjects have been given at pages 111 to 113, 124 to 126 and 136 to 139. They run as follows:- [Hindi portion omitted] 25. The syllabus prescribed for State Trade Certificate (Tailoring and Cutting) Course do not include subjects and topics which are taught in the BSTC Course. This is further clear from the class-wise syllabus of these subjects given in this book. On their basis, it can also be said that craft subject is not available in Primary Schools under the Panchayat Samitis.26. There is also no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Circulars No. 9/63/Sa/Pra/Sa/71 dated Feb. 8, 1973 and No F.9(5)/CA/111/74 Dated Dec. 11, 1974 have not been withdrawn by the competent authority and they are still in force. The administrative department relating to the primary teachers under the Panchayat Samitis is the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide Item No. 5 of Schedule 24 of the 'Rules of Business' "All establishment matters relating to the officers and staff under the administrative control of the department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj except matters allotted to the Appointment, General Administration and Finance Department." Item No. 26 of Schedule II relating to General Administrative Department is a residuary entry. It is applicable only when other Schedules are totally silent. Item No. 10 of Schedule 25 (Education Department) relates to recognition of degrees and diplomas and not to certificates.27. It is applicable only when other Schedules are totally silent. Item No. 10 of Schedule 25 (Education Department) relates to recognition of degrees and diplomas and not to certificates.27. Great reliance was placed by the petitioners on the order dated November 19, 1987 (Annexure P/10) to show that Sate Trade Certificate (STC (C&T)) holders are eligible for appointment to the post of a primary school teacher in the general category also. It would be best to quote here this letter in extenso. It runs as under : [Hindi portion omitted] It mentions "Ukta Yogyata". There is no mention of any qualification in this letter. It is not clear as to how "UKTA" has been used. The subject of this letter is "Selection of Trade, Physical Education, Music and Drawing teachers for the posts of Grade III Teachers". Admittedly, a copy of the D.O. Letter No. 783 dated November 19, 1987 written by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Dhondh (Sikar) in respect thereof this reply (Annexure P/10) was written, has not been filed. This letter (Annexure P/10) has been written by the Deputy Director (Primary Education), Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Dhondh (Sikar). It cannot be treated as a declaration of the State Government regarding equivalent qualification of 'Matric trained' within the meaning of the THIRD NOTE of the Schedule of the Rules (para 13/supra). It has not been issued in the name of the Governor as required under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India. It is also not authenticated as required under Rule 12(1) of the Rules of Business for Rajasthan. No step was taken by the petitioners to show that the said order (Annexure P/10) was issued only after complying with the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution and relevant rules of Rules of Business for Rajasthan. Letter Annexure P/10 is not in the form as the order Annexure P/13 is. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the entire mischief was created by this letter Annexure P/10 and was simply an opinion of a 'Minor Minion' of the Government.28. Letter Annexure P/10 is not in the form as the order Annexure P/13 is. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the entire mischief was created by this letter Annexure P/10 and was simply an opinion of a 'Minor Minion' of the Government.28. Reliance was also placed on the letter dated December 11, 1974 (Annexure P/13) of the Government of Rajasthan in the General Administrative Department granting recognition to the certificates of Industrial Examinations of the Rajasthan Government equivalent to the Art and Handicraft Examination of the Vidhya Bhawan, Udaipur and letter No. F. 139/14-15/Savip/Education/1/2671 dated April 6, 1984 (having reference of Annexure P/13) recognising the Engineering (Carpet and Furniture Making) Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer as equivalent to the said examination of Vidhya Bhawan, Udaipur. There is no reference of State Trade Certificate (STC) or National Trade Certificate (NTC) in any of these letters. It is correct that Rajasthan Government has recognised the Art and Handicraft Examination of Vidhya Bhawan, Udaipur as equivalent to BSTC training imparted by the Education Department vide order dated February 8, 1973 annexure P/11. Even applying the rule of mathematics for a moment for the sake of arguments, these two letters Annexure P/11 and P/13 taken together do not go to declare that the certificates of Industrial Examination of the Rajasthan Government are equivalent to Basic School Training Certificate (BSTC). At the risk of repetition, it may be mentioned that no order of the Government has been shown recognising State Trade Certificate or National Trade Certificate as equivalent to Basic School Training Certificate as required under the Third note of the Schedule of the Rules, quoted in para 13/supra. This 'Note' categorically requires that there should be specific declaration of the equivalent qualification directly. It does not contemplate indirect equivalence or application of the mathematical Rule that A=B and B=C and, therefore, A=C.29. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is very much doubtful that certificate of Industrial Examination is equivalent to State Trade Certificate. The petitioners have filed their certificates Annexure P/1 to P/7. In all these certificates, it is mentioned in the bracket 'Regular Non Engineering Trade' below the heading "State Trade Certificate". It has no where been stated either in the writ petition or in the written arguments that the Industrial Examination, Certificates and the State Trade Certificate are one and same.30. The petitioners have filed their certificates Annexure P/1 to P/7. In all these certificates, it is mentioned in the bracket 'Regular Non Engineering Trade' below the heading "State Trade Certificate". It has no where been stated either in the writ petition or in the written arguments that the Industrial Examination, Certificates and the State Trade Certificate are one and same.30. Rajasthan Government in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj issued circular No. F. 139/15-42/Gravip/Prashashan/3/Group/8/74 dated January 7, 1985, paper No. A9/9 All/36 and No. FIN 15-42/Gravip/Shiksha/18/2768 dated November 6, 1985 (annexure P/1), clarifying that there is a difference in the course of BSTC (Basic School Training Certificate) and STC (State Trade Certificate). State Trade Certificate has been recognised for the purpose of teaching trade only and the holders of State Trade Certificate are not eligible for appointment as primary school teachers (general category) and the services of the teachers so appointed be terminated with immediate effect. By letter No. F.7(3)/Edu/3/87 dated June 11, 1987 (Annexure P/8), the State Government in the Department of Education simply mentioned that State Trade Certificate has been recognised as equivalent to National Trade Certificate. Thereafter, Circulars No. F-109/14-15/Gravip/Shiksha/88/795 dated April 6, 1988 (Annexure R/2) No. 1275 dated August 11, 1989 (Annexure R/3), and No. F.130/14-15/Gravip/Shiksha/86/5633 dated October 30, 1992 were issued by the Government of Rajasthan again notifying that the holders of State Trade Certificate are not eligible for the appointment of Primary School Teachers. The last Circular No. F.130/1415/Gravip/Shiksha/86/5633 dated October 30, 1992 has made the position very clear. It has withdrawn earlier circulars, relied upon by the petitioners. It would be best to quote it here. It runs as under : [Hindi portion omitted] 31. The above interpretation of the word 'Trained' is also in conformity with the following weighty observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court made in Andhra Kesri Education Society v. Director, School Education, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 183 at page, 188 para 20, and in Ram Sukh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 592 at page 594 paras 6 and 7:- "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 teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers 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 emergised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected to 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 fissiparous tendencies and attitudes 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 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." "We are not less sympathetic to the petitioners who are out of job but we cannot forget the welfare of those who are not before the Court. They are the tiny tots who require proper handling by well trained teachers. The Court had an occasion to observe about the need for proper training to teachers in the interests of students. In Andhra Kesri Education Society v. Director of School Education, (1983) 4 JT 341 at 436 : AIR 1989 SC 183 to which one of us was a party, this Court made a passing reference : "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 emergised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefiter." These observations are equally relevant to primary school teachers with whom we are concerned. The primary school teachers are of utmost importance in developing a child's personality in the formative years. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefiter." These observations are equally relevant to primary school teachers with whom we are concerned. The primary school teachers are of utmost importance in developing a child's 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 ill-trained teachers can never be proper substitute to trained teachers. We are, therefore, unable to give any relief to the petitioners." 32. All the certificates Annexures P/1 to P/7 show that the petitioners did the said course in the following years : S. No. Name of the petitioner Anx. No. Session 1. Ram Chandraswami P/1 1986-87 2. Sajjan Singh P/2 1986-87 3. Mukra Ram P/3 1988-89 4. Jeev Raj P/4 1986-87 5. Gumana Ram Sihag P/5 1986-87 6. Khuma Ram P/6 1987-88 7. Tulcha Ram P/7 1988-89 It is thus clear from the above table that all the petitioners did their courses after July, 1986. Two Circulars, referred to in para 30/supra, were issued on January 7, 1985 and November 6, 1985. They clearly notify that STC (State Trade Certificate) holder will not be eligible for the appointment to the post of primary school teachers. Despite this, they took admission. Thus there is no question of applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel.33. Any order made under Note Third of the Schedule of the Rules, quoted in para 13/supra, by the State Government declaring STC (Cutting and Tailoring) or the other similar certificate as equivalent to BSTC cannot be said to be reasonable and in public interest particularly in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Kesri Educational Society v. Director of School Education, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 183 and Ramsukh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 SC 952 . It is very difficult to visualise as to how these STC (Cutting and Tailoring) holders would teach tiny tots in primary schools of the villages and strive towards excellence as enjoined upon them under Article 51A(j) of the Constitution when admittedly they have not received any training in teaching. It is not the case of the petitioners that the BSTC or B.Ed. degree holders are not available. It is not the case of the petitioners that the BSTC or B.Ed. degree holders are not available. It has been observed in M/s. Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 para 14, as follows:- "Where any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest discussed above and is found to he wanting in the quality of reasonableness or lacking in the element of public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid." It has further been observed in para 15 as under:- "Where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of largesses, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with some standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The Government action must not be arbitrary, or capricious but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reasons and relevance. This rule was enunciated by the Court as a rule of administrative law and it was also validated by the Court as an emanation flowing directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 1." On these grounds, the letter Annexure P/10 and other similar letters declaring STC (C&T), NTC (C&T), STC (other Trades), NTC (other Trades) and similar other certificates equivalent to Basic School Training Certificate are null and void.34. In S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1614/89 Shyam Lal Joshi v. State of Rajasthan decided on January 21, 1990 , the petitioners took admission in the NTC Course and passed it before the modification orders dated January 7, 1985 (paper No. A9/34) and November 6, 1985 (Annexure R/1) were issued and principles of promissory estoppel was applied, relying upon Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) SCC 445 . In the judgment given in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1614/86 Shaktiraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others and other similar writ petitions, decided by a common order dated January 16, 1987, other entries of the Schedule and Notes (quoted in para 13/supra) and the syllabus of the various Courses were not considered. The cases were decided in favour of Shaktiraj Singh and other petitioners on the principle of promissory estoppel. The cases were decided in favour of Shaktiraj Singh and other petitioners on the principle of promissory estoppel. It was held that the petitioner's services may be terminated on the availability of trained teachers and directions were issued that in future persons holding Diploma from Zarapkar Tailoring College, Bombay would not be appointed. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3250/88 Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan and 3251/88 Jessa Ram v. State of Rajasthan, decided by common order dated May 26, 1989 , termination orders were set aside, placing reliance on the letter dated November 19, 1987 of the Deputy Director (Primary Education) (Annexure P/10 in the instant case) and the said decision dated January 16, 1987. In these cases, popular and common meaning of the word 'Trained' was not taken into consideration, other items and Notes of Schedule of the Rules were not noticed and syllabus of the various courses were not compared. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3525/88 Jagdish Prasad v. State and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1444/85 Narain Lal Jat v. State and other writ petitions were similarly decided on August 31, 1990. S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 537/89 Jagdish Prasad v. State and six other writ petitions have been decided on the basis of the said letter of the Deputy Director dated November 19, 1987 (Annexure P/10 in this case) and the aforesaid decisions. In these cases also, said Items and Notes of the Schedule of the Rules and syllabus of the various courses were not considered. Similar is the position of order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 64/91 - Manohar Lal Tailor v. State of Rajasthan. Therefore, we approve the view taken in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1458/88 - Babulal v. State, decided on November 17, 1988 and express our disagreement with the contrary view taken in other cases referred to in para 3/supra.35. We have, therefore, no hesitation to answer the reference in negative. 36. Accordingly, both the parts of the question, quoted in para 1/supra, formulated by the learned Single Judge and referred to us are answered in negative.Reference answered.