JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated December 8, 1992 by which the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent has been allowed observing that it is squarely covered by decision given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2502/89 Madhu Santosh v. State of Rajasthan and others on February 2, 1991. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to this special appeal may be summarised thus. The members of the petitioner Association obtained Bachelor Degree in Education (in short B.Ed.) from Mahrishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (In short M.D. University) through correspondence course in the year 1989. The non- petitioner-appellant, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar invited applications for eligible candidates for recruitment on the post of teachers in various Panchayat Samities within its jurisdiction. A select list was issued by it in the year 1991 and appointments were given on its basis. It included certain candidates who had similarly obtained B.Ed. degree from M.D. University through correspondence course. No appointment was made from the reserve list and afresh notification was issued. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 1868 of 1992 and this Court directed for issuing fresh list. It was issued but the members of the petitioner Association were not included in it on the ground that they have passed B.Ed. through correspondence course. 3. The State of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1) did not choose to file its reply to the writ petition. The Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) filed its reply admitting that the M.D. University has been established by an Act of State Legislature of Haryana, it awards B.Ed. degree through correspondence course the State of Rajasthan has not recognised this degree by its order dated July 14, 1988 (Annexure 2) and as such the member of the petitioner Association were not considered for the post of teachers. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition as said above. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that B.Ed. degree (correspondence course) by the M.D. University has not been recognised by the State Government, it has not been considered as equivalent to B.Ed. degree of the University of Rajasthan, a huge number of B.Ed. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that B.Ed. degree (correspondence course) by the M.D. University has not been recognised by the State Government, it has not been considered as equivalent to B.Ed. degree of the University of Rajasthan, a huge number of B.Ed. degrees through correspondence course are being issued every year by the M.D. University, it is creating doubt about its standard and examination, recognition or de- recognition of a degree is done by the State of Rajasthan on the basis of various factors by a Board of Experts and the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the appellant is bound by the executive instructions of the State Government. He relied upon Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1488 and Medical Council of India v. Silas Nelson and others, 1993(3) SCT 580 (SC) : 1993 (3) Judgment Today SC 455 . 6. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- respondent that the Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the Rules) simply require that a candidate for the post of primary school teacher should be matric trained, it does not require that the degree or diploma of training should be duly recognised by the State Government, B.Ed. degree of M.D. University obtained through correspondence course is equally valid, no separate recognition of it is required under any Act, report of the Education Commission had strongly recommended conferment of degrees by the Universities through correspondence course and the notification dated July 14, 1988 relied upon by the respondents had been withdrawn by the State Government by its notification dated April 30, 1993 (Annexure 4). He relied upon Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 933. 7. The Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Rules, 1959 govern this case. Rule 11 deals with the academic qualification and qualifying service. It provides that a recruit to the various categories of service must possess the minimum educational/technical qualification and experience as detailed in Schedule to these Rules. Entry No. 2 of the Schedule of the Rules deals with primary school teachers. Qualification required for direct recruitment is 'Matric Trained'. The words 'Matric Trained' or 'Trained' have not been defined in these rules. Entry No. 2 of the Schedule of the Rules deals with primary school teachers. Qualification required for direct recruitment is 'Matric Trained'. The words 'Matric Trained' or 'Trained' have not been defined in these rules. No equivalent qualification has been specified by the State Government as provided in the Note of the Schedule. The Rules do not required that a certificate or degree qualifying its holder as 'Matric Trained' should be recognised by the State Government or any university of Rajasthan. It is not in dispute that the members of the petitioner. Association have obtained B.Ed. degree from M.D. University through correspondence course. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent showed the detailed course of study of B.Ed. (correspondence course) of the M.D. University. The examination has 8 papers. The syllabus runs in 16 pages. 8. Para No. 17.45 of the report of the Education Commission set up by the Government of India dealing with the correspondence course runs as under:- ''17.45. The correspondence or home-study course is a well trained and tested technique. Experience of correspondence courses in other countries of the world, such as the USA, Sweden, the USSR, Japan and Australia, where they have been used extensively for a long time, as well as the limited and brief experience at the University of Delhi, encourage us to recommend fuller exploitation of the method for a wide range of purposes. There is hardly any ground for the apprehension that correspondence courses are an inferior form of education that what is given in regualar schools and colleges. Experience abroad and experiments in India have shown results which, on balance, tend to strengthen the case for correspondence education.'' As such it cannot be said that the members of the petitioner-Association are not 'Matric Trained' within the meaning of the Rules. 9. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the Notification No. F. 7(1) Edu-3/81 dated July 14, 1988 and No. F. 139(14-15) Ganga/Shiksha/92/1397 dated June 24, 1992 (Annex. R/3) of the Government of Rajasthan stating that the degree of M.D. University obtained through correspondence course has not been recognised by it. The notification dated July 14, 1988 has been withdrawn and cancelled with immediate effect by the State Government vide its notification No. F.7 (1) Edu-3/81 dated April 30, 1993 (Annxure 4). 10. R/3) of the Government of Rajasthan stating that the degree of M.D. University obtained through correspondence course has not been recognised by it. The notification dated July 14, 1988 has been withdrawn and cancelled with immediate effect by the State Government vide its notification No. F.7 (1) Edu-3/81 dated April 30, 1993 (Annxure 4). 10. Letter No. F. 3-1/92-U.3 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) dated September 12, 1992 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur states as under:- ''I am directed to forward herewith a representation dated 27.7.92 of Smt. Savitri Nirmal Pacheri Badi, Disst. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) on the subject mentioned above for appropriation action. It is pointed out that the degrees awarded by the M.D. University, Rohtak (Haryana) are recognised by the Central Government for employment purposes. M.D. University, Rohtak is a state University and is set up by the State Act. As such, the degrees awarded by the said University are recognised for employment purposes and for admission to higher courses of study. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (K.K. Malhotra) Section Officer.'' 11. Letter No. F. 7 (18) Shiksha-3/80 dated November 23, 1991 of the Government of Rajasthan runs is under:- x'g eU=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj ds i= la[;k 26@4@52&lh-,l- fnukad 30&9&52 ckn esa muds i= dzekad 6@7@62 la[;k & Mh fnukad 4&7&1962 }kjk la'kksf/kr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds vUrxZr Hkkjr ljdkj us ,d Li"V vkns'k fn;k gS fd mu leLr fo'ofo|ky;ksa dh] tks ,d dsUnzh; ;k jkT; ljdkj ds vf/fu;e ds }kjk LFkkfir fd;s x;s gS* rFkk fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx ,DV dh /kkjk 351 ^6* ds }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fo'ofo|ky; Lrj ds laLFkku ?kksf"kr fd;s x;s gSa] mud s}kjk iznZ'ku mikf/k;k fu;kstu ds n'f"Vdks.k ds ekU; gksxh A bl izdkj vc fo'ofo|ky; ;k fo'ofo|ky; Lrj dh laLFkkvksa }kjk iznZ'ku mikf/k;ks ^fMxzh*@fMIyksek dh ekU;rk ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk vyx ls dksbZ vkns'k izlkfjr djus dh vko';drk ugha gS A 12. Similar order No. F.1 (7)/18/3 dated July 8, 1988 of the Government of Rajasthan in the Department of Education and letter No. F. 2 (1)/13/dated August 22, 1989 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), New Delhi have been quoted in the judgment given in Madhu Santosh's case, relied upon by the learned Single Judge. 13. 13. It has been observed in Dr.B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 933 at page 936 para 11 as follows:- ''A Post-graduate Medical Degree granted by a University duly established by statute in this country and which has also been recognised by the Indian Medical Council by inclusion to the Schedule of the Medical Council Act has ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country. In the absence of any express provision to the contrary, such a degree does not require to be specifically recognised by other Universities in any State in India before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a state. The Division Bench of the High Court was, in our opinion, manifestly in error in thinking that since the Post-graduate degree possessed by the appellant was not one obtained from the University of Rajasthan, it could not be treated as a valid qualification for the purpose of recruitment in question in the absence of any specific order by the University of Rajasthan recognising the said degree or declaring it as an equivalent qualification.'' 14. Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1448, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, does not help him. In it, the condition for eligibility for admission to B.E. degree course was that the student seeking admission should have passed the two years Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it, the appellant Rajendra Prasad Mathur and others passed Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan and it was not recognised as equivalent by the Karnataka University to the said Pre University examination held by the Pre-University Board, Bangalore. The facts and circumstances of the case reported in Medical Council of India v. Silas Nelson, 1993(3) SCT 580(SC) : 1993 (3) JT SC 455 , are quite different and distinguishable. The Medical Council of India did not decide the question of equivalence and its determination by the High Court was held to be unjustified. It may be true that various Universities of the country might not have recognised the degree of B.Ed. (correspondence course) of M.D. University as equivalnet to the B.Ed. degree of their Universities. The Medical Council of India did not decide the question of equivalence and its determination by the High Court was held to be unjustified. It may be true that various Universities of the country might not have recognised the degree of B.Ed. (correspondence course) of M.D. University as equivalnet to the B.Ed. degree of their Universities. On this ground, it cannot be said that the members of the petitioner-Association are not trained and are not eligible for the post of primary school teachers under the Rules as they exist. The list of equivalence is prepared by Universities for the purpose of giving admission to higher classes/courses to the candidates obtaining degree/diplomas from other Universities. Thus there is no force in this special appeal. 15. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. *******