M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 appoint the petitioners on the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in the district Tehri garhwal. ( 2 ) I have heard learned counsels for the parties. It is alleged in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that the petitioners have been selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Assistant teachers in Primary School but are being arbitrarily denied appointment. Petitioner No. 1 has done his M. Sc. and B. Ed. and the other petitioners are also Graduates/post Graduates and have got B. Ed. qualification. The respondent No. 1, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Tehri Garhwal published an advertisement in a daily newspaper "amar Ujala" on 5-1-1995 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools for district Tehri garhwal. The necessary qualifications have been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition which includes the requirement that the applicant should be a trained teacher holding b. T. C. /b. Ed. /lt. qualification. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioners have these qualifications and hence they were called for interview on 17-2-1995. True copy of the advertisement is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In Paragraph 6 of the writ petition it is alleged that in response to the said advertisement only those candidates had applied who had b. Ed. qualification since all the trained B. T. C. teachers had already been absorbed as Assistant masters in various primary Schools and as a consequence to the said advertisement 418 candidates wore selected by the Selection Committee. The procedure for selection and appointment has been given in paragraphs 6-A to 6-I of the writ petition. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is alleged that vide letter dated 6-12-1995, the respondent No. 1 informed the president of the District Trained Unemployed Teachers Association that out of the 118 candidates selected whose qualifications are B. Ed. /l. T. 260 have already been given appointment and the rest will be given appointment in the coming vacancies. True copy of the said letter is Annexure 3. /l. T. 260 have already been given appointment and the rest will be given appointment in the coming vacancies. True copy of the said letter is Annexure 3. In paragraph 9 for the writ petition it is alleged that the Secretary Basic education U. P. vide letter dated 9-9-1994 to the Education Director Basic U. P. has clarified that in view of scarcity of B. T. C. trained teachers, it was decided that B. Ed. /l. T. qualified candidates will also be appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools and Basic schools. True copy of the letter dated 9-9-1994 is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. In paragraph 12 it is alleged that there are many vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in district tehri Garhwal and that the select list has not been exhausted and hence the appointments should be made from that list before any further advertisement is made. In paragraph 13 It is alleged that in gross violation of the normal standard procedure the respondent No. 1 has given another advertisement published in dainik Jagaran dated 30-11-1995 inviting applications from candidates who are trained in physical Education for appointment as Assistant Teachers in primary Schools. True copy of the advertisement is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In paragraph 14 it is alleged that this advertisement is absolutely arbitrary as a physical Instructor is only trained to teach students about physical training, and he is not trained to impart general education in a class room. In paragraph 14-D of the writ petition, it is alleged that the respondent has not yet issued appointment letter for the post of Assistant Teacher in favour of the remaining 158 selected candidates. In paragraph 14-E of the writ petition it is alleged that on 24-11-1995 the U. P. Govt. issued a circular that the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools should be filled up by the untrained candidates on non-availability of trained candidates. True copy of the circular letter in Annexure-5-A to the writ petition. In paragraph 15, it is alleged that consequent to the aforesaid advertisement certain candidates were selected and appointments have been made by the respondent No. 1 of 38 such candidates who are merely trained in physical training. A list of such appointed candidates who were appointed on 30-1-1396 is annexure-6 to the writ petition. In paragraph 15, it is alleged that consequent to the aforesaid advertisement certain candidates were selected and appointments have been made by the respondent No. 1 of 38 such candidates who are merely trained in physical training. A list of such appointed candidates who were appointed on 30-1-1396 is annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is contended that these appointments of Physical Instructors as assistant Teachers are wholly arbitrary and illegal. In paragraph 18 it is alleged that aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent No. 1 one Sri Rabindra Mohan Ghildiyal who was also in the select list and was B. Ed. trained teacher moved writ petition No. 37188 of 1995 in this court in which an interim order was passed and subsequent thereto Ravindra Mohan alongwith five others B. Ed. trained Teachers who were in the aforesaid select list were appointed in various Primary Schools in district Tehri Garhwal vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is alleged that there was violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the respondents are bound to appoint the petitioners. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Inspector of Schools, Tehri Garhwal. In paragraph 4-A of the same it has been stated that on account of non-availability of sufficient number of B. T. C. trained candidates in the Uttarakhand Region, the Government took a decision and issued an order on 9-9-1994 stating that a candidate who had B. Ed, or L. T. training in uttarakhand Region will also be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in primary Schools. True copy of the G. O. is Annexure C. A.-1 to the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 4-B of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Tehri Garhwal issued an Advertisement dated 11-1-1995 for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers inviting applications and in pursuance thereto 496 candidates who possessed B. Ed. /l. T. training also applied along with the B. T. C. candidates. In paragraph 4-C it is stated that after the interview 40 candidates from general category and 20 from reserved category were appointed as assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in the District. Subsequently, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari issued appointment letters to 54 more candidates and further on 21-9-1995, 33 more candidates from general category were appointed. In paragraph 4-C it is stated that after the interview 40 candidates from general category and 20 from reserved category were appointed as assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in the District. Subsequently, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari issued appointment letters to 54 more candidates and further on 21-9-1995, 33 more candidates from general category were appointed. ( 4 ) IN paragraph 4-D of the counter-affidavit it is stated that in total 320 candidates were appointed as Assistant Teachers by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Tehri Garhwal. All these appointments were made from the yearwise list of B. Ed. and L. T. trained candidates upto the year 1993. The petitioners having completed their B. Ed. training in the year 1994 were not selected. Subsequently, a further advertisement was made on 30-11-1995 under which the persons possessing C. P. Ed, training could also be considered for appointment. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that only those candidates were selected as Assistant Teachers who completed their B. Ed. /l. T. training upto the year 1993. In paragraph 8, it is stated that after the appointment of 39 untrained Assistant Teachers from the candidates having C. P. Ed. (Certificate in Physical Education) training, there is no vacancy left in the district. ( 5 ) A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners annexing copy of the advertisement dated 17-2-1995 as well as the Circular dated 24-11-1995. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, this petition deserves to be allowed. The allegation in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that the petitioners have been selected by the Selection Committee for the post of assistant Teachers in primary Schools has not been denied in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. Hence it has to be taken that the petitioners have been duly selected. It is not understandable how appointments could have been made of untrained teachers when the petitioners who have B. Ed. /l. T. training qualification had already been selected. The plea that the petitioner had done their B. Ed. in 1994 is not at all tenable. Having been validly selected, the petitioners were entitled to get appointment but it is strange that untrained teachers or physical instructors were appointed instead of trained teachers like the petitioners. A perusal of annexure-4 to the writ petition shows that candidates having B. Ed. in 1994 is not at all tenable. Having been validly selected, the petitioners were entitled to get appointment but it is strange that untrained teachers or physical instructors were appointed instead of trained teachers like the petitioners. A perusal of annexure-4 to the writ petition shows that candidates having B. Ed. /l. T. qualification were entitled to be considered for appointment and hence it cannot be said that the petitioners were not eligible. Since more than half of the selected candidates in the list were given appointment it is not understandable why the petitioners who are in the same list were not given appointment and instead untrained persons were appointed. In my opinion. this amounts to discrimination end violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the decision of The supreme Court in Union of India v. I. S. Khatri, 1992 Supp. (5) SCC 84. It is surprising that the persons who were only physical instructors were given appointment as Assistant Teachers in primary Schools when trained teachers like the petitioners were available. In my opinion, appointment of physical Instructor as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools is wholly illegal as they do not possess the requisite qualification. At any event, such physical instructors could only have been considered after absorbing the petitioners and others having B. Ed. qualification. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. A Mandamus is issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Assistant teachers in Primary Schools in District Tehri Garhwal expeditiously after cancelling the appointments of untrained teachers of C. P. Ed. certificate holders to the extent necessary to adjust the petitioners. .