P. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in both the writ applications, who are working as Non-Formal Education Facilitators at different centres have approached this Court for quashing Annexure-6, the letter of the Deputy Director (Academic), T. E. and SCERT, Orissa dated 21-11-94 and the Rules for admission to the C. T. course of the Government Secondary Training Schools as contained in the prospectus in, Annexure-7 prescribing the minimum eligibility of at least 40% of marks in the High School Certificate Examination excluding marks in extra optional subject, apart from other conditions as laid therein. Both the writ applications involve identical question of law and facts and therefore are heard and disposed of together. ( 2 ) THE petitioners' claim that they were appointed as Non-Formal Education Facilitators in different centres by the District Inspector of Schools provisionally on ad hoc basis with a monthly remuneration of Rs. 105/ -. On the date of the appointment, the petitioners were Matriculates having passed the High School Certificate Examination from Board of Secondary Education, Orissa sometimes in December, 1988 and continuing as such till date, without any break. It is stated that the Rules for admission to C. T. course of the Government Secondary Schools of Orissa during the period 1994-95 and prior to that as per the prospectus for admission of C. T. course in respect of untrained in service teachers, untrained S. C. / S. T. candidates Sikhya Karmi and Non Formal Education Facilitators were the same. The selection of those categories of candidates to undergo C. T. training course was made solely on the basis of length of service in accordance with the prospectus for the year 1994-95. In the meantime, the opposite party No. 1 formulated a principle to extend training facility to the Non-Formal Education Facilitators to undergo C. T. training after 47-87 and it was decided that along with the length of service, the Non-Formal Education Facilitators shall have to fulfil some other conditions. The Director, Teachers Education and SCERT, Orissa intimated the Circle Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal vide letter No. 10519 dated 31-10-94 indicating the guidelines for selection of Non-Formal Education Facilitators/supervisors for admission to C. T. courses during 1994-95, wherein there were no stipulation of minimum qualifying marks which would be the basis for selection into C. T. course of Secondary Training Schools. A copy of the letter is Annexure-4. A copy of the letter is Annexure-4. The Circle Inspector of Schools vide letter No. 11912 dated 27-10-94 intimated all concerned, the decision of the High Court in O. J. C. No. 4973 of 1992 that the persons who were appointed after 4-6-87 were also eligible to undergo C. T. training on the basis of seniority to be drawn up as per the date of engagement and eligibility, subject to availability of seats, against reserved quota for such category of candidates. ( 3 ) THE petitioners alleged that the Director, Teachers Education and SCERT, Orissa vide letter No. 11017 dated 21-11-94 intimated all the. Inspectors of Schools of the State, that the criteria of selection of Non-Formal Education Facilitators to undergo C. T. training would be a minimum of 40% of marks in the H. S. C. Examination along with length of service. The petitioners assert that following this letter, the prospectus for C. T. course have been drawn up in the year 1995-96, which also stipulates that a candidate has to secure 40% of marks excluding extra optional subjects in H. S. C. Examination as the minimum eligibility criteria for C. T. training. It is stated that such stipulations and fixing up of different yardstick for admission to the C. T. course for the petitioners and all concerned, is illegal, arbitrary and high handed action of opposite party No. 2 and contrary to the letter dated 26-9-94 in Annexure-3. The petitioners having secured less than 40% of marks in the High School Certificate Examination, have not been selected whereas Facilitators who are much juniors to the petitioners have been selected for the training only because they have secured 40% of marks at the High School Certificate Examination. It is alleged that the Principle adopted by the authorities are only in respect of Non-Formal Education Facilitators -and not for other candidates is discriminatory, which is evident from Paragraph 3 (1) of the prospectus for the year 199596. The petitioners are drawing Rs. 105/- per month as against the emolument of Rupees 2,000/- for in-service teachers, Rs. 400/- for Sikhya Karmies etc. It is the case of the petitioners that in accordance with the yearstick 1994-95, the petitioners were eligible for admission but because of the principle adopted for the year 1995-96 in Annexures 6 and 7, they are made to suffer for no fault of theirs. 400/- for Sikhya Karmies etc. It is the case of the petitioners that in accordance with the yearstick 1994-95, the petitioners were eligible for admission but because of the principle adopted for the year 1995-96 in Annexures 6 and 7, they are made to suffer for no fault of theirs. The prayer of the petitioners thus is that the letter of the Deputy Director (Academic) T. E. and S. E. R. T. dated 21-11-94 in Annexure-6 and the prospectus for admission to the C. T. course for Government Secondary Training Schools for 1995-96 are liable to be quashed is being illegal and discriminatory. ( 4 ) THE Deputy Director in the Directorate of Teachers Education and SCERT, Orissa has filed a detailed counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2, denying the allegations and refuting the claim of the petitioners. In short, the stand of the opposite parties is that the Government vide letter No. 27744 / EYS. dated 4-6-87 had withdrawn the facility of sponsoring the Non-Formal Education Facilitators for C. T. training and therefore only those facilitators, who were engaged by the Government prior to 4-7-87 and are continuing as such, are being considered for C. T. training. However, they were never considered as in service teachers because they are neither teachers nor they have been appointed in any service of the Government. Essentially, the Non-Formal Education Facilitators are volunteers and are expected to work for one and half hours a day in addition to their other engagements vide Government Resolution No-33241 dated 297-89. The Government vide letter No- 30170/ BME dated 26-9-94 decided to extend the C. T. training facilities to the Non-Formal Education Facilitators who were engaged even after 4-6-87 subject to conditions and stipulations made therein, keeping in view the fact that they were not teachers and are not doing the teaching work and as such having no teaching experience could not be equated with in-service teachers. Such candidates are required to have the minimum educational eligibility like any other general candidates. But they are selected on the basis of priority of engagement. It is stated that the letter of the Assistant Director, SCERT dated 31-10-94 was a clarification of certain points raised by the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal and was not a general guideline involving the eligibility of the Facilitators. But they are selected on the basis of priority of engagement. It is stated that the letter of the Assistant Director, SCERT dated 31-10-94 was a clarification of certain points raised by the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal and was not a general guideline involving the eligibility of the Facilitators. It is the stand of the opposite parties that the criteria for admission to C. T. course run in Government S. T. Schools in the State for the session 1995-96 as contained at Clause 2 (i) of the prospectus clearly mentions the eligibility as minimum 40% of marks in aggregate at the H. S. C. Examination excluding the extra optional subject and as such, the. Director issued the Circular. The petitioners being not qualified and eligible to be admitted to the C. T. course the question of sponsoring or admitting them do not arise. The letter dated 10-5-95 is not a circular but a letter of clarification only. ( 5 ) HEARD Mr. Sk. Aziz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri N. Frusty, learned Additional Government Advocate. It is submitted by Sk. Aziz, learned counsel for the petitioners that the criteria for admission to the C. T. course fixing 40% marks in aggregate excluding extra optional subject are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that there being no such stipulation in the letter dated 26-9-94 of the Additional Secretary to the Government addressed to the Director in Annexure-3, the stipulation made in Annexures-6 and 7 are liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the parties, we find that the main attack of the petitioners is with regard to fixation of minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination i. e. High School Certificate Examination for entry and admission to the Secondary Training Schools for underwing C. T. course during 1995-96 in Annexures 6 and 7. The learned counsel submits that there is no reason or rhyme for fixing a cut off mark of 40% for admission to the Secondary Training Schools inasmuch as the petitioners being working as Non-Formal Facilitators should be treated as in-service candidates and such restriction should not stand on their way of admission. The learned counsel submits that there is no reason or rhyme for fixing a cut off mark of 40% for admission to the Secondary Training Schools inasmuch as the petitioners being working as Non-Formal Facilitators should be treated as in-service candidates and such restriction should not stand on their way of admission. The Deputy Director (Academic), Teachers Education and SCERT, in his letter under Annexure-6 has clarified and reiterated that the emphasis of the Government with regard to the minimum eligibility criteria of having 40% of marks in H. S. C. Examination excluding extra optional subjects fixed for admission of Non-Formal Education Facilitators etc. to the C. T. courses, conducted by the Government Secondary Training Schools in the State, in terms of the prospectus for admission during the session 1995-96 in Annexure-7 of the writ application. ( 7 ) THUS, the sole point for consideration is as to whether the opposite parties have the power and competence to prescribe a minimum percentage of marks as eligibility for admission into the Secondary Training Schools and if so, then whether such stipulation is for achieving any purpose and has a nexus in obtaining a better standard and excellence. A similar matter, fixing a minimum eligibility mark for admission in Post Graduate Examination conducted by Utkal University, came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Tushar Kanta Nayak v. Utkal University, reported in (1995) 79 CLT 353 : ( AIR 1995 Ori 162 ) and it was held that the University was well within its power in laying down the criteria for admission of noncollegiate/private candidates to Post-Graduate Examination. It was observed that in the very nature of things, the wisdom of the concerned authorities of the University who are exparts in the field of education and in whom vested the duty and responsibility of maintaining a high academic standard of the courses of study and the degree and diplomas is to be respected. The Court should not interfere with the decision taken by such authority unless the decision is wholly irrational and has no reasonable nexus with the purpose to be achieved. It cannot be said that the eligibility criteria laid down, fixing a minimum percentage of mark in aggregate to be of no nexus with the examination at all. The Court should not interfere with the decision taken by such authority unless the decision is wholly irrational and has no reasonable nexus with the purpose to be achieved. It cannot be said that the eligibility criteria laid down, fixing a minimum percentage of mark in aggregate to be of no nexus with the examination at all. Their Lordships of the Full Bench, on consideration of several decisions of the Apex Court, upheld the decision of the Division Bench in O. J. C. Nos. 365, 964 and 1263 of 1993 wherein the Division Bench declined to quash the eligibility qualification prescribed by the University for admitting candidates to the Post-Graduate Examination. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid Full Bench decision, there cannot be any doubt that the educational authorities have the competence to fix up a minimum eligibility criteria for admission to a C. T. course as has been done in the present case. Considering the matter from another angle, it would be seen that a person, who passes the C. T. Examination successfully, is eligible to be appointed basically as a teacher in Primary and Upper Primary Schools and such a teacher is required to teach the students of tender and impressible age. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education, reported in AIR 1989 SC 183 at para 20 of the judgment observed as follows:"before parting with the case, we should like to add a word more. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the 'engine' of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast of ever changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subject to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subject to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill trained or sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration. " It needs no emphasis that the eligibility criteria for admission to the teachers training courses has to be fixed by the academicians at a high efficiency level and standard keeping in view the expectations of the society from a teacher and his job, requirement. Thus, fixing the minimum qualifying mark of 40% in the aggregate excluding extra optional subject at the High School Certificate Examination, which is a minimum qualification for admission to the C. T. course, is in our opinion, not a stipulation which can be characterised or termed as unwarranted having no nexus of achieving the object of having teachers minimum standard, if not of high standard. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the students of C. T. courses today are the teachers of tomorrow, who would guide and teach the small children of tender and impressible age, who would become the future citizens to lead the nation tomorrow. The country can illafford to have substandard teachers to teach the younger generation at the Primary and upper primary schools. We, therefore, see no infirmity or illegality either in the letter of the Deputy Director (Academic), Teachers Education and SCERT in Annexure-6 or the Rules for admission into the Government Secondary Training School of the State in Annexure-7. ( 8 ) IN the result, for the reasons discussed above, we find no justification for interfering in the matter in the present writ applications. ( 8 ) IN the result, for the reasons discussed above, we find no justification for interfering in the matter in the present writ applications. Rather, we are of the considered opinion that it is high time that the educational authorities of the State should rethink in the matter to fix up rigorous and high educational standards for admission into the training courses and take appropriate and effective steps in making adequate and elaborate arrangements in imparting high and rigorous training to the teachers-students, in order that the State in particular and the country in general can march ahead and lead by educated and cultured youths in the social structure. The writ application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) SUSANTA CHATTERJI, Actg. C. J. , I agree. Petition dismissed. .