JUDGMENT 1. - In all these writ petitions the petitioners have made more or less identical prayers for grant of a declaration that they fulfil the conditions of eligibility for appointment as Sanskrit Teacher Gr. III in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. They have prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider their cases for appointment on the post of Sanskrit Teacher Gr. III and they be given appointment with effect from the date persons less meritorious than them have been appointed. They have also prayed for quashing of the administrative instructions/circular/policy decision taken by the Government for classification of the post of Teacher Gr. III into that of General Teacher Gr. III and Sanskrit Teacher Gr. III and prescription of different qualifications for the two types of posts. 2. Replies have been filed in some of the writ petitions but learned Addl. Advocate General stated that reply filed in Writ Petition No. 2126/93 be treated as common to other writ petitions. In view of the similarity of facts and also in view of the fact that a common question of law is to be determined in all these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by one order. 3. For the purpose of appreciation of the rival cases, it will be proper to refer to the facts set out in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2126 of 1993, Mahaveer Prasad Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan & Another . Facts of other writ petitions are similar and, therefore, it is not necessary to make reference to those facts except their qualifications which are detailed out in a chart enclosed with this judgment and marked as Schedule-A. 4. In Writ Petition No. 2126 of 1993, Mahaveer Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & another the petitioner has stated that he passed secondary examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer in the year 1986. He passed higher secondary examination from the same Board in the year 1987. He then passed senior higher secondary examination from the same Board in the year 1991. This examination he had cleared with Sanskrit as an additional paper. He also passed two year's diploma course which is equivalent to BSTC from Vidyabhawan Kala Sansthan, Udaipur. In support of his claim, he has enclosed certificates Annexures 1 to 4 with the writ petition. He then passed senior higher secondary examination from the same Board in the year 1991. This examination he had cleared with Sanskrit as an additional paper. He also passed two year's diploma course which is equivalent to BSTC from Vidyabhawan Kala Sansthan, Udaipur. In support of his claim, he has enclosed certificates Annexures 1 to 4 with the writ petition. The Director, Sanskrit Education issued advertisement dated 30.5.92 for recruitment on the posts of Teacher Gr. II, Teacher Gr. III, Librarian, Lab. Assistant and Physical Teacher. In the advertisement 60 posts of General Teachers (Male, Female)(Gr. III) and 60 posts of Sanskrit Teachers (Male/Female) (Gr. III) were shown to be available. Petitioner applied for recruitment in pursuance of that advertisement. The petitioner says that when he did not receive any communication regarding his selection and appointment, he approached the Director, Sanskrit Education to know the fate of his application and then he learnt that he has not been given appointment on the ground that he did not pass Praveshika examination. The petitioner further says that he sought a written communication about the rejection of his candidature but it has not been given to him. A number of other persons have been denied appointment on the ground that they do not possess the qualification of Praveshika. None of them has been given in writing that his/her candidature has been rejected on account of his/her having failed to pass the Praveshika examination. Petitioner has further stated that a number of persons less meritorious than him have been appointed as Teachers Gr. III (Sanskrit Education). His plea is that by appointing persons with lesser merit he has been denied the equality before law in the matter of employment. He has been discriminated and his fundamental rights have been violated. It is also the case of petitioner that under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules'), there is no bifurcation in the cadre of Teachers Gr. III and, therefore, it is not open to the Director, Sanskrit Education to make such bifurcation. Moreover the qualification of Traveshika is not prescribed as essential qualification for appointment as Teacher Gr. III under 1978 Rules and, therefore, candidature of the petitioner could not have been ignored on the ground that he has not passed Praveshika examination. 5. III and, therefore, it is not open to the Director, Sanskrit Education to make such bifurcation. Moreover the qualification of Traveshika is not prescribed as essential qualification for appointment as Teacher Gr. III under 1978 Rules and, therefore, candidature of the petitioner could not have been ignored on the ground that he has not passed Praveshika examination. 5. In their reply, the respondents have stated that they have a right to make appointment of teachers subject wise. It has also been stated that qualifications for Teacher Gr. III have been specified in the schedule appended to the Rules but the Department is free to lay down qualifications of Teachers subject wise and since the petitioner does not fulfil the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, he cannot claim appointment. The respondents have asserted that if the Rules are silent or there is a lacuna in the Rules, the Government has exclusive power to fill that lacuna. According to them subject wise qualification of Teacher Gr. II and Teacher Gr. III is for better impairment of education to students by teachers who have got specialised knowledge in the subject. Further case of respondents is that after considering all the applications of eligible candidates, a merit list was prepared. Eligible candidates were called for interview and only then appointment orders have been issued . The petitioner did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility and, therefore, he had no right to be considered for appointment simply because he had secured better marks. The respondents have also stated that students of Praveshika have specialised knowledge of Sanskrit because they learn Sanskrit language right from class III. The scope of their knowledge of Sanskrit is far more wide and comprehensive than that of students of secondary pass with Sanskrit as an additional subject. In the additional pleas the respondents have stated that appointment of Teachers in various Government schools are made in accordance with Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules. Appointment of Sanskrit Teachers are made in accordance with 1978 Rules. These Rules classify the posts only in two cadres, namely, Teachers Gr. II and Teachers Gr. III. The Government has from time to time issued administrative circulars directing that appointment of Teachers in various Government institutions should be made subject wise. The Government has further issued circulars for imparting Sanskrit Education in primary and secondary schools. These Rules classify the posts only in two cadres, namely, Teachers Gr. II and Teachers Gr. III. The Government has from time to time issued administrative circulars directing that appointment of Teachers in various Government institutions should be made subject wise. The Government has further issued circulars for imparting Sanskrit Education in primary and secondary schools. According to circular dated 31.5.93, Sanskrit is being taught from class I and this shows that the students have to undertake a very extensive and comprehensive study of Sanskrit which includes knowledge of Sanskrit grammar, literature, language etc. Praveshika examination is conducted by the Board of Secondary Education and a candidate who takes up the study of Praveshika has to further undertake comprehensive study from class IX onwards. On the other hand, candidates who have passed secondary examination with Sanskrit as an additional paper have a limited knowledge in Sanskrit. Respondents have also referred to the recommendation of the Sanskrit Commission appointed by the Government of India. It has been asserted that the Sanskrit Commission has recommended that there should be uniform course of study of Sanskrit from pathshala level. Keeping in view this, the State Government decided to divide the cadre of Teachers Gr. II and Teachers Gr. III by classifying them into General Teachers and Sanskrit Teachers. Various advertisements have been issued on 24.8.90, 30.5.92 and 7.6.93 which have been placed on record as Annexures R-6, R-7 and R-8 and it has been stated that issuance of such advertisements in different years is by itself sufficient indication of the prevailing practice of making selection of teachers subject wise. 6. Main argument of Shri Prahalad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that once the rule making authority has exercised its powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and has framed rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the subordinate services in the Sanskrit Education Department, it is not open to the Government to issue administrative orders/circulars/instructions modifying or varying these Rules. If the Government feels that Rules do not fulfil the objectives with which they are framed, the only course open to the Government is to amend the Rules and amendment in the Rules can be made only by exercising power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If the Government feels that Rules do not fulfil the objectives with which they are framed, the only course open to the Government is to amend the Rules and amendment in the Rules can be made only by exercising power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In substance Shri Singh argued that the Government has no authority to amend statutory Rules by issuing executive instructions. He urged that the administrative power of the Government cannot be used to bye-pass or supersede or amend rules framed under proviso to Article 309. Alternative submission of Shri Singh is that there is no lacuna in the Rules which was required to by filled by issue of administrative orders. The rules specifically categorised the posts of Teachers and enumerated qualifications which the candidate is required to possess for being eligible to be considered for appointment. The Government cannot in the garb of exercising its administrative power issue instructions which are contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Rules. He then argued that the circular dated 1.12.67 cannot be relied upon by the respondents because the said circular has not been saved by the rule making authority. In fact by virtue of Rule 37 of 1978 Rules, circular dated 1.12.67 will be deemed to have been repealed. If the rule making authority intended to save that circular, nothing prevented it from making specific provision to that effect in the Rules of 1978. Shri Singh argued that the rule making authority was not oblivious of the fact that some instruction has been already issued by the Government laying down the qualifications for appointment of Teachers and if despite full knowledge about such circular the rule making authority has designedly ignored such circular, it is not open to the respondents to rely upon the circular dated 1.12.67 for bringing about division of the cadre of Teachers Gr. III. He further submitted that all the petitioners have passed Sanskrit as a compulsory/additional subject. A number of them have passed Shiksha Shastri course where Sanskrit is a teaching subject and, therefore, there is no reason to think that the petitioners will not be able to effectively teach the subject of Sanskrit to the students. Shri Singh argued that persons far less meritorious than the petitioners have been appointed and the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination. 7. Shri Singh argued that persons far less meritorious than the petitioners have been appointed and the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General has heavily relied on the circular dated 1.12.67 (Annexure-R.1) and argued that subject-wise classification of the posts of Teachers existed prior to the enactment of 1978 Rules and the same continued even after enactment of those Rules. Shri Bhandari argued that a candidate who passes Praveshika examination is required to undergo study of Sanskrit subject continuously whereas a candidate passing secondary examination has a mere limited knowledge of the Sanskrit subject. Keeping in view the requirement of service, the Government has thought it proper to make subject wise classification of the cadre of Teachers and nothing has been done by the Government which violates the constitutional code of equality. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that persons who do not have specialised knowledge of the subject are not properly equipped to teach language to the children and it will not be in the interest of public at large to put the fate of these children in the hands of persons having limited knowledge. Subject wise classification of the posts of Teacher Gr. H and Teachers Gr. 111 have been made only in order to make the Rules more viable, practicable and effective. Thus, these circulars cannot be treated as inconsistent with the Rules. Rather they are supplementary to the Rules, argued Shri Bhandari. He placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 , Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India & others, AIR 1972 SC 995 , Bhajan Das Swami v. The State of Punjab & others, 1974 (1) SLR 453 , Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. The State of Punjab & others, AIR 1975 SC 984 , Dr. Satyabrata Dutta Choudhary v. State of Assam & others, AIR 1976 SC 487 , M.P. Pandey v. Union of India & others, 1979 (3) SLR 72 , Comptroller & Auditor General of India and others v. Mohan Lal Mehrotra & others, AIR 1991 SC 2288 and State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia & others, 1991 (5) SLR 82 . 8. 8. Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 have been made by the Governor for regulating recruitment to the posts in, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service. Rule 2 of these Rules contain definition of various terms. Rule 2(a) defines "Appointing Authority", Rule 2(e) defines "Direct Recruitment". Rule 4 provides for composition and strength of service. Rule 6 specifies the methods of recruitment. Rule 7 deals with reservation of vacancies for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Rule 8 contains provision regarding nationality. Rule 10 provides for determination of vacancies. Rule 11 contain the provision regarding age requirement. Rule 12 refers to academic and technical qualification and experience. Rule 13 specifies the requirement of character. Rule 14 fulfils the requirement of physical fitness. Rules 15 and 16 contain provisions which disqualify a candidate from recruitment to the service. Part IV of the Rules contains procedure for direct recruitment. Part V contains procedure for appointment by promotion. Part VI deals with appointment, probation and seniority. Part VII contains Rules 33, 34, 35 which provide for scale of pay; increments during probation; regulation of pay, leave, allowances and pension; removal of doubts and repeal and saving. For the purpose of all these cases, it will be proper to quote Rules 2(a), 2(e), 4, substantive part of Rule 6, 12, 25, 36 and 3.7. These rules are; "2(a) "Appointing Authority" means the Director of Sanskrit Education Department, Rajasthan and includes in relation to any post in the Service, such other officer or authority who may, with the approval of the Government, be specially empowered by the Director to exercise the powers and functions of the Appointing Authority; 2(e) "Direct Recruitment" means recruitment made according to the procedure prescribed in Part-IV of these rules; 4. Composition and strength of the Service (1) The nature of posts included in the Service shall be as specified in Column 2 of the Schedule. Composition and strength of the Service (1) The nature of posts included in the Service shall be as specified in Column 2 of the Schedule. (2) The strength of posts in the service shall be such as may be determine by the Government, from time to time; Provided that: (1) the Government may create any post, permanent or temporary from time to time, as may be found necessary and may abolish or allow to lapse any such post in the like manner without thereby entitling any person to any compensation; (2) the Appointing Authority may leave unfilled or hold in abeyance any post permanent or temporary, from time to time, without thereby entitling any person to any compensation. 6. Methods of Recruitment:- (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in these rules, recruitment or appointment to posts in the Service shall be made by the following methods in the proportion as indicated in Column 3 of the Schedule: (a) by direct recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these rules; and (b) by promotion in accordance with Part V of these rules; 12. Academic and Technical Qualification and Experience:- A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts enumerated in the Schedule shall in addition to such experience as is required, possess:- (i) the qualifications given in Column 4 of the schedule; and (ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and any one of the Rajasthani dialects. 25. Appointment to the Service:- Appointment to the posts in the Service by direct recruitment or by promotion as the case may be, shall be made by the Appointing Authority on occurrence of substantive vacancies from the candidates selected under rule 23 in order of merit and from the persons selected under rule 24 in accordance with these rules and persons adjudged suitable under proviso (iii) to rule 6 of these rules. 6. Removal of doubts:- If any doubt arises relating to the application, interpretation and scope of these rules, it shall be referred to Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, whose decision thereon shall be final. 37. 6. Removal of doubts:- If any doubt arises relating to the application, interpretation and scope of these rules, it shall be referred to Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, whose decision thereon shall be final. 37. Repeal and saving:- All rules and orders in relation to matters covered by these rules in force immediately before the commencement of these rules are hereby repealed: Provided that any action taken under rules and orders so superseded shall be deemed to have been taken under the provisions of these rules." 9. An analysis of the above quoted Rules show that appointment to the subordinate service posts in the Sanskrit Education Department can be made by the Director of Sanskrit Education or any other officer or authority who may be delegated with the power of appointment by the Director with the approval of the government. Recruitment to the service can be made by direct recruitment and by promotion. For direct recruitment the procedure prescribed in Part IV of the Rules is to be followed and for promotion, procedure prescribed in Part V of the Rules is to be followed. The posts against which appointment can be made are those which are specified in Column 2 of the Schedule appended to the Rules. For direct recruitment a candidate is required to fulfil the qualifications as given in Column 4 of the Schedule. Schedule appended to the Rules is divided into three groups. Group A refers to selection scale. Under this group post of Lecturer of Acharya/Shastri College is included. Group B deals with senior scale. This includes within itself the post of Head Master Praveshika Vidyalaya/Senior Teacher. Group C relates to junior scale. This group includes the posts of Sub-Dy. Inspector/Had Grade Teacher; Physical Training Instructor IInd Grade; Librarian IInd Grade; Teacher in Arts IInd Grade, Teacher in Crafts find Grade; Teacher Grade III and Physical Training Instructor IIIrd Grade. Group C of the Schedule is also quoted below to show that in its wisdom the rule making authority has not considered it necessary to classify the post of Teacher Gr. III subject wise. For the post of Teacher Gr. Group C of the Schedule is also quoted below to show that in its wisdom the rule making authority has not considered it necessary to classify the post of Teacher Gr. III subject wise. For the post of Teacher Gr. II different classification has been made only in so far as the post of Teacher in Arts and Teacher in Crafts are concerned: S.No. Name of the post Method of recruitment with percentage Minimum academic qualification and experience for direct recruitment Post or posts Which which promotion is to be made Minimum qualification and experience for promotion Maximum age-limit for direct recruitment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Sub. Dy. Inspector/IInd Grade Teacher 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment Trained Graduage or Trained Shastri or equivalent qualification IIIrd Grade Teacher Graduate or Shastri or equivalent Examination with Degree or Diploma in Education or Shiksha Shastri 28 yrs. 2. Physical Training Instructor IInd Grade 100% by promotion Graduate with Degree/Diploma in Physical Education from a recognised Institution IIIrd Grade Physical Training Instructor Graduate with Degree/Diploma in Physical Education from a recognised Institution 28 yrs. 3. Librarian IInd Grade 100% by direct recruitment Graduate with Degree/Diploma in Library Science from a recognised institution 28 yrs. 4. Teacher in Arts IInd Grade 100% by direct recruitment Graduate in Arts with Drawing as one of the Optional Subject or Diploma in Drawing or equivalent examination recognised by the Govt. 28 yrs. 5. Teacher in Crafts IInd Grade 100% by direct recruitment Graduate in Arts or Science with Degree/Diploma in Crafts or equivalent Technical Degree or Matriculation with certificate in Crafts Training plus 5 yrs. Teaching experience of Crafts. 28 yrs. 6. Teacher Grade III 100% by direct recruitment Secondary/Praveshika or any equivalent qualification recognised by the Government with certificate or Training. 28 yrs. 7. Physical Training Instructor IIIrd Grade 100% by direct recruitment Secondary/Praveshika or equivalent qualification recognised by Government with certificate in Physical Education 28 yrs. GROUP 'C' JUNIOR SCALEThe aforesaid analysis of the scheme of Rules clearly show that for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade II the qualification required is Secondary/Praveshika or any equivalent qualification recognised by the Government with certificate of training. GROUP 'C' JUNIOR SCALEThe aforesaid analysis of the scheme of Rules clearly show that for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade II the qualification required is Secondary/Praveshika or any equivalent qualification recognised by the Government with certificate of training. It is, therefore, patently clear that the rule making authority has not thought it proper to exclude a person having the qualification of Secondary from appearing for direct recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr. III in the Sanskrit Education Department. However, in the advertisements issued by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan Jaipur the post of Teacher Gr. III has been bifurcated into that of Sanskrit Teacher, General Teacher and Physical Education Teacher. This is evident from perusal of advertisement No. 1/90-91 which has been placed on record as Annexure R. 3, advertisement dated 30.5.92 which has been placed on record as Annexure R. 4 as also advertisement dated 7.6.93 which has been placed on record as Annexure-R. 6. It will be profitable to quote the extracts of the three advertisements in order to appreciate the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the bifurcation of post has been in existence and also to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that till 1991 persons having the qualification of Secondary with optional paper as Sanskrit have been treated as qualified for appointment as a Sanskrit Teacher in the cadre of Teacher Gr. III. III. These extracted portions are:- jktLFkku ljdkj funs'kky;] laLd`r f'k{kk] jktLFkku] t;iqj foKkiu la[;k& 1@1990&91 laLd`r f'k{kk v/khuLFk lsok fu;e] 1978 ds vUrxZr r`rh;@f}rh; Js.kh f'k{kdksa ds f'k{kk l= 1990&91 esa fuEu fooj.kkuqlkj laHkkfor fjDr inksa ds fy;s ftysokj@laHkkxokj ojh;rk lwph rS;kj djus gsrq vkosnu i= fnukad 10-9-1990 rd vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSaA fjDr vkosnu i= 5@& ( ikap ) :i;s dk iksLVy vkMZj funs'kd] laLd`r f'k{kk] jktLFkku] t;iqj ds uke tek djkdj izkIr fd;s tk ldrs gSaA Mkd ls vkosnu i= pkgus okys vH;FkhZ viuk irk fy[kk 25 x 10 ls0eh0 vkdkj dk fyQkQk ftl ij nks :i;s ds Mkd fVdV yxs gksa] e; iksLVy vkMZj ds ,oa izkFkZuki= Hkstdj izkIr dj ldrs gSaA iksLVy vkMZj ,d ekg ls iwoZ dk dz; fd;k gqvk ugha gksA dz0la0 in dk uke osreku fo"k; osrueku ftyk@laHkkx dk uke U;wure 'kS{kf.kd@iz'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk 1- r`rh; Js.kh f'k{kd + + + ( d ) laLd`r f'k{kd 1200&2050 jkT; ds leLr ftys izosf'kdk@lSd.Mjh ( oSdfYid laLd`r fo"k; lfgr ) vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk led{k ekU; ;ksX;rk izf'k{k.k izek.ki= ( ,l0Vh0lh0 ) ds lkFk ( [k ) lkekU; f'k{kd 1200&2050 jkT; ds leLr ftys izosf'kdk@lSd.Mjh vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk led{k ekU; ;ksX;rk izf'k{k.k izek.ki= ( ,l0Vh0lh0 ) ds lkFk ( x ) 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk 1200&2050 jkT; ds leLr ftys izosf'kdk@lSd.Mjh vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk led{k ekU; ;ksX;rk] 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk izf'k{k.k izek.ki= lfgr jktLFkku ljdkj funs'kky;] laLd`r f'k{kk] jktLFkku] t;iqj dzekad % fu0la0f'k0 @laLFkk&3@92@25516&626 fnukad % 30-5-92 foKkfIr jktLFkku laLd`r f'k{kk v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1978 ds vUrxZr ,oa jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r ekun.Mksa ds vk/kkj ij f'k{kk l= 1992&93 ds fy;s leLr ftyksa esa laHkkfor fuEu fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnui= vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSaA vkosnu i= lEcfU/kr fu;kstu dk;kZy;@lekt dY;k.k foHkkx@lSfud dY;k.k cksMZ ds dk;kZy; esa fnukad 16 twu] 1992 rd vo'; igqWap tkus pkfg;sA lHkh dk;kZy; izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dh lwph lfgr fnukad 19-6-92 rd bl dk;kZy; esa igqWapkos rFkk fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds ckn izkIr vkosnu i=ksa ij dksbZ fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dh ojh;rk lwph 31-3-93 rd izHkkoh jgsxhA bl dk;kZy; dks lh/ks izkIr vkosnu i=ksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA dzz0la0 in osrueku U;wure ;ksX;rk laHkkfor fjDr in 1 2 3 4 5 r`rh; Js.kh f'k{kd + + + 6- lkekU; v/;kid ( iq:"k@efgyk ) 1200&2050 ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku ls lSd.Mjh ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk mlds led{k ekU; ijh{kk lkFk esa f'k{kd izf'k{k.k izek.ki= lfgrA 60 in 7- laLd`r v/;kid ( iq:"k@efgyk ) 1200&2050 ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku ls izosf'kdk ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk led{k ekU; laLd`r ijh{kk rFkk f'k{kd izf'k{k.k izek.k i= lfgrA 60 in 8- iqLrdky;k/;{k 950&1680 ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ ls gk;j&lSd.Mjh ;k mik/;k; lkFk esa iqLrdky; foKku esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekU; izek.ki= 34 in 9- iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;d 950&1680 ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku ls iwoZ vk;qosZn ds lkFk mik/;k;@ofj"B mik/;k; ;k foKku fo"k; ds lkFk gk;j lSd.Mjh@lhfu;j gk;j lSd.Mjh 85 in 10- 'kkjhfjd f'k{kd 1200&2050 izosf'kdk vFkok lSd.Mjh vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk led{k ekU; ;ksX;rk] 'kkjhfjd f'k{kd izf'k{k.k izek.k i= lfgrA 60 in jktLFkku ljdkj funs'kky;] laLd`r f'k{kk] jktLFkku] t;iqj foKkfIr 2@93 jktLFkku laLd`r f'k{kk v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1978 ,oa rRlEcU/kh la'kks/ku esa of.kZr izko/kkukuqlkj o"kZ 1993&94 fnukad 1-4-93 ls 31-3-94 rd dh vof/k esa bl foHkkx ds vUrxZr lapkfyr jktdh; fo|ky;ksa@egkfo|ky;ksa esa iqujhf{kr osrueku 1989 dh osru J`a[kyk 1200&2050 ( Ldsy ua0 9 ) ,oa 950&1680 ( Ldsy ua0 6 ) esa fuEukafdr inksa dks lh/kh HkrhZ ls Hkjs tkus gsrq iSuy rS;kj djus ds fy;s jktLFkku jkT; ds fdlh Hkh ftys esa fu;kstu dk;kZy; esa iathd`r ,oa fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk/kkjh vk'kfFkZ;ksa ls fu/kkZfjr izi= esa 30-6-1993 rd vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSA fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds i'pkr~ izkIr gksus okys vkosnu i=ksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA 2- inksa dh U;wure ;ksX;rk ,oa osrueku ( d ) lekU; f'k{kd ( 1200&2050 ) ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku ls lSd.Mjh ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk blds led{k ekU; ijh{kk f'k{kd izf'k{k.k izek.ki= lfgrA ( [k ) laLd`r f'k{kd ( 1200&2050 ) ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku ls vaxzsth fo"k; lfgr izosf'kdk ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk blds led{k ekU; laLd`r ijh{kk f'k{kd izf'k{k.k izek.ki= lfgrA ( x ) 'kkjhfjd f'k{kd ( 1200&2050 ) izosf'k{kk vaxzsth lfgr vFkok lSd.Mjh vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk blds led{k ekU; ;ksX;rk] 'kkjhfjd f'k{kd izf'k{k.k izek.ki= lfgrA ( ?k ) iz;ksx'kkyk ( 950&1680 ) fdlh ekU;rk izkIr cksMZ ls foKku fo"k; ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ;k foKku fo"k; ds lkFk lhfu;j mPprj ek/;fed ;k ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku ls iwoZ vk;qosZn ds lkFk mik/;k;A These advertisement show that upto year 1991 a person having the qualification of Praveshika/Secondary with optional subject of Sanskrit or qualification declared/recognised as equivalent by the Government with a training certificate, was eligible for appointment as General Teacher. A person having qualification of Praveshika/Secondary or any other qualification recognised as equivalent by the Government with certificate of Physical Education, was eligible for appointment as Physical Training Teacher. In 1992 qualification of Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan or qualification recognised as equivalent by the Government with Teacher's Training Certificate, was made essential for General Teacher (Gr. III), for Sanskrit Teacher qualification of Praveshika from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan or Sanskrit Examination recognised as equivalent by the Government of Rajasthan with Teacher's Training Certificate came to be provided as essential qualification. For Physical Training Teacher, qualification of Praveshika or Secondary or qualification recognised as equivalent by the Government with certificate of Physical Teacher's training has been prescribed for Physical Training Teacher. In 1993 for Sanskrit Teacher the qualification of Praveshika with English subject from Board of Secondary Education or Sanskrit examination declared equivalent by the Government of Rajasthan with Teacher's Training certificate, has been made essential. Apart from this difference in the qualification in the three advertisements, it is clear that a person having passed Secondary examination with optional subject of Sanskrit, was eligible to be come a Sanskrit Teacher till 1991 but now a person possessing qualification of Secondary pass with Sanskrit subject has altogether been rendered ineligible even though he may be possessing other Sanskrit qualifications. In fact a look at schedule 'N appended to this judgment shows that most of the petitioners possess Teacher's Training certificate in Sanskrit subject. The question which is required to be determined by this Court is as to whether the respondents have authority to prescribe qualifications other than those specified in the schedule appended to the Rules of 1978. While Shri Prahlad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the Government does not have power to amend or modify the Rules by issuing administrative instructions, Shri Bhandari, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the Government has power to supplement the Rules by issuing administrative instructions. Although there can be no manner of doubt that the Government has power to issue administrative/executive instructions in the matters where no Rule has been framed or where the Rules are silent but this power cannot be used for issuing instructions which encroaches upon the fields occupied by the Rules or which are inconsistent with the Rules. Although there can be no manner of doubt that the Government has power to issue administrative/executive instructions in the matters where no Rule has been framed or where the Rules are silent but this power cannot be used for issuing instructions which encroaches upon the fields occupied by the Rules or which are inconsistent with the Rules. If administrative instructions/orders are in conflict with the statutory Rules, such instructions/orders are liable to be declared as void. The Government does not have powers to issue instructions or administrative order to add or superimpose conditions of eligibility in addition to those which are specified in the Rules. Similarly it cannot lay down qualifications which are less rigorous than those specified in the statutory Rules. The settled principle of law is that executive cannot creep into a field where legislature or the rules making authority has already enacted a law or has framed the Rules. 10. In our constitutional scheme, recruitment to the public services and particularly to Government services is required to be made in accordance with the Act of the legislature enacted in exercise of the power under main provision of Article 309 or Rules framed by the President or Governor or any other duly authorised officer in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution. Once such Act or the Rules have been framed, recruitment to the service can be made only in accordance with those Rules. Similarly service conditions of employees appointed up to a particular post are regulated by the provisions contained in the statute. The Government cannot by issuing administrative orders or instructions make an addition to such statutory instrument nor can it modify or vary the provisions contained in the statute. 11. In State of Haryana v. Shamsher Jang Bahadur, AIR 1972 SC 1546 , the Supreme Court was dealing with a case involving claim of promotion to the post of Assistant in Punjab Civil Secretariat on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. The Government had issued administrative instructions providing for a test by the Public Service Commission for judging the suitability for promotion and it was declared that such a post will be competitive for one group of persons and qualifying for another group of persons. The respondents successfully challenged these Government instructions. The Government had issued administrative instructions providing for a test by the Public Service Commission for judging the suitability for promotion and it was declared that such a post will be competitive for one group of persons and qualifying for another group of persons. The respondents successfully challenged these Government instructions. In appeal before the Supreme Court the decisions of the courts below were up-held and in the process their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: "Where the administrative instructions issued by- the Government add to the qualifications already prescribed by rules relating to promotion framed under Art. 309 the instructions would undoubtedly affect the promotion of concerned officials and they would thus relate to their conditions of service. The Government is not competent to alter by means of administrative instructions the conditions of service prescribed by these rules." 12. In S.L. Sachdeva v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 562 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the Government cannot super-impose conditions of eligibility by issuing administrative orders. That was a case in which the rules provided for classification on the basis of length of service. However, the administrative instructions issued by the Director General of Posts and Telegraph provided for a test for determining the eligibility of the candidates for grant for selection scale. While holding that the administrative instructions were ultra-vires to the rules, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: "Apart from this consideration, we are unable to understand how the Director General could issue any directive which is inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules of 1969 framed by the President in the exercise of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. Those Rules do not provide for the kind of classification which is made by the Director General by his letters to the Heads of respective Circles of the new Organisation. It may be recalled that the Recruitment Rules only provide for a classification on the basis of the length of service in the new Organisation. Any directive which goes beyond it and superimposes a new criterion on the Rules will be bad as lacking in jurisdiction. No one can issue a direction which, in substance and effect amounts to an amendment of Rules made by the President under Article 309. That is elementary. Any directive which goes beyond it and superimposes a new criterion on the Rules will be bad as lacking in jurisdiction. No one can issue a direction which, in substance and effect amounts to an amendment of Rules made by the President under Article 309. That is elementary. We are unable to accept the learned Attorney Generals submission that the directive of the Director General is aimed at further and better implementation of the Recruitment Rules. Clearly, it introduces an amendment to the Rules by prescribing one more test for determining whether UDCs drawn from the Audit Offices are eligible for promotion to the Selection Grade/Head Clerks Cadre.(underlining is mine) 13. In C.C. Padmanabhan and others v. The Director of Public Instruction and others, 1980 (2) SLR 599 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court declared that merely because the Government had been following a practice contrary to the statutory rules, it cannot be treated as an amendment in the Rules. The Supreme Court observed: "The only argument which Mr. Abdul Khader advanced against the proposition that the post of an A.E.O. lay in a higher category may be stated thus. According to the available rules and instructions an H.S.A., but not an A.E.O., may be appointed to the post of Headmaster of a High School. However, the Government has been appointing A.E.Os. also as headmasters of High Schools which mean that A.E.Os. are equated with H.S.As. Now this is, to say the least, a strange argument. If the rules do not permit A.E.Os. to become headmasters of High Schools but the Government has been posting them as such in contravention of the rules it would not follow that the rules automatically stand amended to be read in conformity with the contravention..." 14. In C.L. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 437 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court declared that where the rule requires retirement at the age of 58 years, the Government could not have issued administrative instructions in the form of Notification prescribing for retirement at the end of the month. Their Lordships observed: "An administrative instruction cannot compete with a statutory rule and if there be contrary provisions in the rule the administrative instructions must give way and the rule shall prevail." 15. Their Lordships observed: "An administrative instruction cannot compete with a statutory rule and if there be contrary provisions in the rule the administrative instructions must give way and the rule shall prevail." 15. In Bindeshwari Ram v. State of Bihar and others, (1989) 4 SCC 465 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing with Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953. These Rules provide for determination of seniority from the date of substantive appointment. Amongst confirmed employees inter se seniority on the lower post was to be determining factor for assigning seniority on the higher post. The appellant had made a claim for assignment of seniority on the basis of some decision taken by the cabinet which was contrary to the Rules itself. While rejecting the claim the Supreme Court observed: "It is settled law that the provisions of statutory rules cannot be modified or altered by executive instructions and it is only in the absence of statutory rules that executive instructions have relevance. 'IS such even if for the sake of argument it may be accepted that on amount of the memorandum to the Cabinet or any other executive instruction the appellant was to be given seniority as claimed by him, it could not be done as in case of a conflict the statutory provisions contained in this behalf in proviso (iii) or Rule 35 of the Rules shall prevail " 16. In N.T. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others, AIR 1990 SC 1233 , the question which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether the Government had power to issue instructions which could be applied on the pending selections. While up-holding the plea of petitioner that the Government had no power to issue administrative instructions which could affect the pending selections, their Lordships held: "A Government Order issued in exercise of statutory powers acquires statutory force, therefore, the provisions contained in the aforesaid Government Order including the provisions of para 11 of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 also acquired statutory character. Though para 11 superseded earlier Government Orders but it expressly saved the pending selections where reservations were already made and advertisement had been issued. Though para 11 superseded earlier Government Orders but it expressly saved the pending selections where reservations were already made and advertisement had been issued. Para 11 being statutory in nature was binding on the Government and the Government had no authority to direct the Commission by means of Administrative Order to revise the Select List in accordance with the amended mode of selection as prescribed under the Government's order dated 9th July 1975. The State Government was bound to give full effect to the provisions of Para 11 and therefore directions contained in its order dated 23rd April, 1976 were illegal." 17. In D.S. Nathawat v. The State of Rajasthan & Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 657 of 1985, decided on 28.10.1985 and in lqbal Ahmed Afridi v. The State of Rajasthan & others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 334 of 1986 decided on 21.4.1986 this Court held that the administrative rules framed by the Government for admission of the students to the Nursing College which prescribes qualifications different than those contained in Section 33(1) of the Rajasthan Nurses, Midwives, Health Visitors, Auxiliary Nurses and Midwives Registration Act, 1964 were ultra-vires to the Rules. The Court declared that while the statutory provisions require the qualification of only 12 years' schooling, administrative rules provided for the qualification of higher secondary with Science Biology. The Court specifically ruled that admission cannot be denied to a candidate who fulfil the conditions of eligibility specified in the Regulations framed under Section 33(1) even though he did not have the qualification of higher secondary with Science Biology. 18. In Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1992 (Raj) 12 , a learned Single Judge of this Court expressed the same view. 19. The principle which may be culled out from the above referred decisions is that if the qualifications have been prescribed in the Rules, it is not open to the Government or other competent authority to issue executive instruction or administrative order superseding or amending those qualifications. 20. The judgments on which Shri Bhandari, Additional Advocate General, has placed reliance, are of no assistance to his case. In Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Supreme Court held that it was open to the Government to issue administrative instructions for the grant of selection scale. That was a case of absence of the Rules. 20. The judgments on which Shri Bhandari, Additional Advocate General, has placed reliance, are of no assistance to his case. In Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Supreme Court held that it was open to the Government to issue administrative instructions for the grant of selection scale. That was a case of absence of the Rules. In Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India (supra), what the Supreme Court has laid down is that in the absence of statutory rules regulating promotion to selection grade posts, the Government was competent to issue administrative instructions so long as those instructions were not inconsistent with the Rules already framed. That was a case in which there were no Rules relating to the grant of selection scale. Their Lordships held that in the absence of the Rules it was within the competence of the Government to issue administrative instructions laying down test for grant of selection scale. Dr. Satyabrata Dutta Choudhary v. State of Assam & others (supra) also there was no provision in the Rules for fixation of inter be seniority. The Supreme Court held that the Government was fully competent to issue administrative instructions and those instructions would help for filling the posts in the absence of service rules. In Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. The State of Punjab & others (supra), what their Lordships have laid down is that when administrative instructions had been issued by the Government for framing the seniority, it was not open to it to make deviation from those instructions without any reason or justification. The principle laid down in that case has nothing to do with the point involved in the present case. In Bhajan Das Swami v. The State of Punjab & others (supra), the petitioner had challenged eligibility of respondent No. 4 who did not have knowledge of Sanskrit of Shastri standard, while rejecting the argument that the Government did not have power to relax the rules, the Punjab & Haryana High Court further held that when the rules contemplated giving of preference to persons having higher qualification, it was permissible for the Government to make them essential qualifications. That principle has also no relevance to the facts of the present case. That principle has also no relevance to the facts of the present case. In M.P. Pandey v. Union of India (supra), the rules merely provided for probation of two years but administrative instructions were issued providing for maximum limit of the period in which a person could be kept on probation. A learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court held that the executive instructions prescribing maximum permissible limit of probation was not inconsistent with the rules and, therefore, once a person had completed the maximum period of probation prescribed in the administrative instruction, he could not, therefore be reverted. In Comptroller & Auditor General of India and others v. Mohan Lal Mehrotra & others (supra), the Supreme Court has upheld the administrative instructions issued by the Government providing for reservation. The Court noted that Indian Audit & Accounts Department (Administrative Officers, Assistant Accounts Officers and Assistant Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules, do not provide for any reservation and, therefore, it was open to the Government to issue administrative orders prescribing reservation in favour of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It is thus, clear that none of the decisions relied upon by the learned Addl. Advocate General is of any assistance to the case set up by respondents because in none of these cases the court has upheld the power of Government to issue administrative orders/executive instructions which may have the effect of directly or indirectly amending or modifying the statutory rules or which may be inconsistent with the Rules. 21. Shri Bhandari's argument that the action of respondents in bifurcating the cadre of Teachers Gr. III as specified in the schedule appended to the Rules, needs to be considered. Shri Bhandari has argued that the bifurcation of the cadre into two sub-cadres, is merely an act supplemental to the Rules. By making reference to the Circular dated 1.12.67 (Annexure-R.1) he submitted that even before coming into force of the Rules, the Government had taken a decision to bifurcate the cadre. Shri Bhandari submitted that this practice has been in vogue for last number of years and, therefore, even if it is contrary to the Rules, the court will not up-set this practice. In this context it is necessary to observe that Annex. R.1 was issued 11 years prior to the framing of the Rules. Perusal of Annex. R.1 shows that it was a letter issued by the Govt. In this context it is necessary to observe that Annex. R.1 was issued 11 years prior to the framing of the Rules. Perusal of Annex. R.1 shows that it was a letter issued by the Govt. in Education Department to the Addl. Director, Primary & Secondary Education. After taking note of the fact that for recruitment on the posts of Ibacher Gr. III(Gen. Edu.) minimum qualification prescribed was metric trained and that persons having equivalent qualification like Praveshika with BSTC were not considered eligible, a direction was given to prescribe Praveshika with English as one of the minimum conditions of eligibility. The Government also directed that for appointment of Sanskrit Teachers in the Middle Schools, Praveshika in Sanskrit or qualification recognised as equivalent thereto should be treated as essential qualification. However, no requirement of training was prescribed. It was further laid down by the Government that for Middle Schools, which had more than six sections, appointment of one Sanskrit Teacher must be made and for those Schools having less than six sections, a General Teacher with Praveshika (Eng. and BSTC) be appointed. When 1978 Rules were enacted, Rule 37 was incorporated in the same. By virtue of Rule 37 of the Rules, orders etc. in relation to the matters covered by 1978 Rules were repealed. Logical consequence of this repeal was that the Government order dated 1.12.67 also stood repealed. Therefore, after 1978, order dated 1.12.67 is not available to the respondents for supporting the plea that qualification of Praveshika has rightly been treated as an essential qualification for recruitment of Teacher Gr. III (Sanskrit) In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 46 of 1989, Poonam Chand v. State & Ors., decided on 23.11.1992 along with two writ petitions at the Principle Seat of the High Court, a Division Bench of this Court had considered a more or less similar argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that an administrative order issued by the Government can be treated as laying down criteria for fixing of the seniority of persons appointed to subordinate service in the P.W.D. While rejecting the argument of the learned Govt. Advocate that such an administrative order could be issued by the Govt., the Division Bench observed: "Learned Govt. Advocate urged that Annex. 6 can be taken to lay down criteria for fixing up seniority of the petitioners and their likes. Advocate that such an administrative order could be issued by the Govt., the Division Bench observed: "Learned Govt. Advocate urged that Annex. 6 can be taken to lay down criteria for fixing up seniority of the petitioners and their likes. We are unable to agree with this contention because the bare reading of Ann. 6 shows that this has nothing to do with the seniority of the Overseas/Junior Engineers or Engineering Subordinates. Annex. p pertains to fixation of the pay scales of the Overseas and Engineering Subordinates Estimators, Computers and Surveyors grade I under Scale No. 16 in schedule III to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay scales) Rules, 1961. Moreover, qualifications mentioned in Annex. 6 are not the qualifications prescribed in the Raj. Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973 nor were they qualifications prescribed on the basis of which the persons were initially selected for ad hoc, officiating and temporary appointments within the meaning of proviso 'C' to Rule 6 of the said Rules. Rule 36 of 1973 Rules deals with repeal and saving and reads as follows : "Repeal and Saving: All rules and orders in relation to matters covered by these rules and in force immediately before the commencement of these rules are hereby replaced: Provided that any action taken under the rules and orders so superseded shall be deemed, to have been taken under the provisions of these rules." Even if for a moment, it is considered that Raj. Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 61 laid down qualification for appointment for Overseers and Engineering Subordinate etc. as envisaged by Annex. 6, it stood repealed when the 1973 Rules came into force because 1973 Rules laid down the qualifications for the purpose of appointment by virtue of proviso 'C' to Rule 6 which are no. (1) Qualifications prescribed in the Rules namely the qualifications laid down in the schedule or no. (2) The prescribed qualifications on the basis of which persons were selected for ad-hoc/officiating/temporary appointment and the second category relates to qualifications on the date the petitioner & their likes were selected on ad-hoc, officiating and temporary appointment and it is not in dispute that at that time there were no prescribed qualifications at all. Viewed in this light, Annex. (2) The prescribed qualifications on the basis of which persons were selected for ad-hoc/officiating/temporary appointment and the second category relates to qualifications on the date the petitioner & their likes were selected on ad-hoc, officiating and temporary appointment and it is not in dispute that at that time there were no prescribed qualifications at all. Viewed in this light, Annex. 6 does not come in the way of the petitioners and their likes and it cannot be construed as laying down qualifications for regularisation of ad-hoc, officiating and temporary appointees under The Raj. Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973." 22. In view of the discussion made here in above and the judgment of the Division Bench, it is held that Circular dated 1.12.67 cannot be made basis for upholding the action of respondents in advertising qualifications other than those enumerated, in the Rules of 1978.Insofar as the argument of Shri Bhandari based on past practice is concerned, I may once again refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.C. Padmanabhan & Ors. v. Director, Public Instructions & Ors. (supra) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have categorically rejected the submissions that a practice which is being followed in contravention of the Rules, cannot lead to an amendment in the Rules. 23. Another argument of Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for State, relates to the desirability of prescribing Praveshika as only qualification for recruitment for Sanskrit Teachers. Shri Bhandari submitted that for teaching Sanskrit students, a person who has passed Praveshika is more suitable than a person who has passed Secondary School examination. He submitted that a candidate who undertakes Praveshika examination has already undergone study of Sanskrit subject right from the beginning whereas a candidate who is merely Sr. Secondary with an optional subject of Sanskrit, does not undergo similar study of Sanskrit subject. On the basis of this difference, Shri Bhandari argued that a candidate who possess qualification of Hr. Secondary will not be well equipped to teach Sanskrit subject and it will be to the detriment to the interest of the community if persons with limited knowledge are allowed to be appointed as Sanskrit Teachers. On the basis of this difference, Shri Bhandari argued that a candidate who possess qualification of Hr. Secondary will not be well equipped to teach Sanskrit subject and it will be to the detriment to the interest of the community if persons with limited knowledge are allowed to be appointed as Sanskrit Teachers. Decision taken by the the Government to give appointment to those candidates who are possessing qualification of Praveshika only, is in the larger interest of the community and, therefore, even if it is contrary to the Rules, the court must not interfere, argued learned counsel. He further submitted that for last many years persons having qualification of Praveshika only are being appointed and, therefore, this long standing practice adopted by the Government must not be interfered with by the court. He referred to the paper of the Board of Secondary Education regarding Praveshika 1992 examination. Shri Prahlad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the Board of Secondary Education has itself permitted candidates who have passed Secondary examination to appear in the Praveshika examination. According to Shri Singh, syllabus laid down by the Board for the year 1992 cannot be treated as relevant for the purpose of recruitment in pursuance of advertisement dated 30.5.92. Shri Singh pointed out that if candidates who have undertaken study of Sanskrit as their subject in the lower standards are permitted to appear in the Praveshika examination, there is no reason to uphold the prescription of qualification of Praveshika as the only essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Sanskrit Teacher. 24. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, I do not find any merit in the plea advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General. Insofar as the Rules are concerned, they do not envisage subject wise classification of the cadre of Teacher Gr. III. Such bifurcation can be found amongst the posts in Group 'C' and not in Group 'D' of the schedule. In the category of Teacher Gr. III only the post of Physical Education Teacher has been separately prescribed. Thus, the Rules do not support the bifurcation of the cadre. III. Such bifurcation can be found amongst the posts in Group 'C' and not in Group 'D' of the schedule. In the category of Teacher Gr. III only the post of Physical Education Teacher has been separately prescribed. Thus, the Rules do not support the bifurcation of the cadre. Even if this bifurcation is upheld on the ground that for last many years the posts of General Teacher and Sanskrit Teacher is being advertised separately, I find little justification for accepting the plea of Shri Bhandari that only those possessing qualification of Praveshika can prove to be better Teachers. No material has been placed before the Court to show that up to 1991 i.e. before 1992 candidates possessing qualification of Praveshika or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government were eligible and others were not so eligible. In fact the advertisement No. 1/90-91 clearly negatives the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. That advertisement shows that as late as in 1991, persons having Praveshika/Secondary with optional subject of Sanskrit or qualification declared equivalent by the Government with a training certificate were considered eligible for appointment. That advertisement is sufficient to show that till 1991 persons having qualifications other than Praveshika were eligible and were being appointed as Teacher Gr. III (Sanskrit). If in the past such persons have been appointed as Teacher Gr. III (Sanskrit) there is no reason to exclude the candidature of petitioners particularly when the action of respondents has been found to be contrary to the Rules. 25. On the basis of the above discussion, the writ petitions succeed and they are hereby allowed. It is declared that exclusion of the candidates possessing qualification as specified in the schedule appended to the Rules of 1978 for the purpose of recruitment of lbacher Gr. III (Sanskrit), is ultra vires to the Rules of 1978. Respondents No. 2 is directed to consider the case of petitioners for appointment as Teacher Gr. III (Sanskrit) according to their merit, in case they have already not been appointed. This exercise must be undertaken and completed within a period of two months of the submission of certified copy of this order. Those of the petitioners who are found meritorious qua persons already appointed in pursuance of the advertisement dated 305.92, should be deemed to have been appointed with effect from the date of appointment of less meritorious persons. This exercise must be undertaken and completed within a period of two months of the submission of certified copy of this order. Those of the petitioners who are found meritorious qua persons already appointed in pursuance of the advertisement dated 305.92, should be deemed to have been appointed with effect from the date of appointment of less meritorious persons. However, they shall be entitled to pay and allowances only from the date of their joining the duty on the basis of their order of appointment. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petitions Allowed. *******