JUDGMENT : 1. The present appellant has come up before the Court impugning the judgment and order dated 13.1.95 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court, dismissing a writ application filed by the writ petitioner-appellant, whereby his services were terminated by the respondents on the basis of the State Government's letter dated 7.4.94, following a judgment of the Apex Court. 2. The writ petitioner-appellant entered into the service as a Teacher Grade-III after qualifying in a Trade Certificate Course, granted by the Government of Rajasthan which admittedly was not treated as equivalent to Basic School Training Course (in short 'B.S.T.C.') or a training qualification recognised as equivalent to B.S.T.C. by the State Government. 3. In State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Lal Joshi and others, reported in JT 1993 (6) SC 454 and also reported (1994) 1 SCC 593 it was decided by the Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that those persons who were holders of National Trade Certificate could only be eligible for appointment to the post of Craft Teacher in the craft for which they hold the N.T.C., but they cannot be appointed as General Teachers. They can only be appointed General Teachers after they have secured the prescribed training qualification under the Rules. In that context, the judgment of the High Court which duly recognised such Teachers holding the Craft Training Certificates to be equivalent to B.S.T.C. or some other required training which was equivalent thereto, stood set aside. Supreme Court referred in this judgment some earlier decision in respect of appointment of Primary School Teachers in Ramsukh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 189, where it was said as follows:''..... We are not less sympathetic to the petitioners who are out of job but wecannot 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 primary school teachers are of utmost importance in developing child's personality in the formative years. It is just not enough to teach the child alphabets and figures, but much more is required to understand child psychology and aptitudes. They need a different approach altogether. Only trained teachers could lead them properly. The untrained teachers can never proper substitute to trained teachers" 4. It is just not enough to teach the child alphabets and figures, but much more is required to understand child psychology and aptitudes. They need a different approach altogether. Only trained teachers could lead them properly. The untrained teachers can never proper substitute to trained teachers" 4. It was, however, made clear in the said judgment of Shyam Lal Joshi (ibid) that in the event the writ petitioners obtain the necessary training qualification prescribed under the Rules, they become entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of General Teachers, and if they apply for such appointment, restriction regarding the maximum age for such appointment may be relaxed provided they obtain the necessary training qualification within a period of three years from the date of the judgment. 5. Shri Rastogi, learned Advocate for the appellant contended before us that the distinguishing feature of the present case was to the effect that the writ petitioner filed a writ petition being SBCWP No. 117/92 which was decided on 11.2.92 by a learned Single Judge of this Court wherein it was deemed inter alia that the petitioner had the requisite qualification for being appointed as Teacher Grade-III. That judgment not having been appealed against by the respondents, has reached the stage of finality and that being so, the order of dismissal impugned pursuant to the latter decision of the Supreme Court would clearly be out of jurisdiction and contrary to law. 6. As the matter stands now, the writ petitioner's service was terminated on the basis of a circular which was issued by the Government pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Lal Joshi (ibid). Even though the writ petitioner secured an interim order in his favour staying operation of the order pertaining to termination of his service, it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that in fact his service has been terminated and the Division Bench also passed an order on 11.9.96 making it clear that his services having been terminated, the stay petition stood rejected. As the matter stands now, the writ petitioner-appellant is not in service. 7. We were shown a judgment of the Supreme Court arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8889 to 8892 of 1995 in Smt. Chhoti Devi and Ors. As the matter stands now, the writ petitioner-appellant is not in service. 7. We were shown a judgment of the Supreme Court arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8889 to 8892 of 1995 in Smt. Chhoti Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and others , where the Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 1.3.1996 in a similar case, set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed the High Court to dispose of the appeals as filed on behalf of the appellants, against the second order of termination, afresh in the light of the observations made that any later judgment of the Supreme Court would not take away the effect or finality of the judgment in favour of the other appellants who had already secured a judgment from the Single Judge of the High Court, against which no appeal was filed on behalf of the State Government. 8. Supreme Court by its judgment dated 12.2.96 in State of Rajasthan and others v. Trilok Singh in SLP (Civil) No. 5525/95, made it clear that in its opinion, no clarification in respect of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Shyam Lal Joshi (ibid) 1994 (1) SCC 593 : JT 1993 (6) SC 454 was called for and the High Court was directed to deal with the matter and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. That was a case where a particular Primary School Teacher in similar circumstances had neither been allowed to function nor he had been paid any salary, where his termination of service was stayed by the High Court and learned Single Judge granted leave to the writ petitioner to seek a clarification from the Supreme Court in the context of the decision of Shyam Lal Joshi's case (ibid). 9. A Division Bench of our High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 23/92 State of Rajasthan and others v. Daneshwar Suman, decided on 3.8.95 following the decision in Shyam Lal Joshi's case (ibid) allowing the appeal of the State of Rajasthan and reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, directed inter alia that if the writ petitioner-respondent obtains the requisite qualification within a period of three years from the date of judgment, he would be granted benefit of age relaxation, and further directed that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. while considering the case of the petitioner for admission to the B.S.T.C. course the authority concerned would consider the case of the writ petitioner respondent with due sympathy. 10. As the matter stands now, keeping in view the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment, as stated earlier, we are not a position to order reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service but we would direct, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to keep one post of General Teacher Grade-III vacant for him so that on completing the necessary BSTC or any other course equivalent thereto within this period, he can get back into service. The age bar would not stand as an impediment in this regard and the State Government would be duty bound to employ the petitioner in his previous position. As regards admission to BSTC, for the appellant petitioner, or some other equivalent course, the appropriate authorities would take into consideration his case as a special one with due sympathy which he deserves. It is our earnest desire that the writ petitioner should be admitted by the appropriate authorities conducting BSTC Course in the next session. 11. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.