JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRA SHEKHARA DAS, J.:---When the controversy involved in this petition arose, the pet`itioner was working as a Teacher in the primary section in the third respondent school, St. Joseph's High School, Calangute. She is a Bachelor of Arts with special subject of English and also having a Degree in Education. The petitioner is also a holder of Diploma in French language from Alliance Francais. While so, the petitioner came across an advertisement in the daily 'Navhind Times' dated 14th February, 1988, which was published by the third respondent school, notifying a vacancy of part-time permanent Post Graduate Teacher to teach Geography and French in Higher Classes. The advertisement reads as follows :--- "Wanted a part-time Graduate Teacher (permanent post) to teach Geography and French in Higher Classes. Apply : Immediately to Principal, St. Joseph's High School, Calangute." 2.The petitioner alongwith three other persons applied for the post, including the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent was selected though she was not having B.Ed. qualification at the time of selection. Therefore, the third respondent management had to apply for relaxation of Training Qualification to the Director of Education under Rule 81 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986, (hereinafter called "the Rules"). As per the proceedings of the Director of Education dated 31st March, 1988, the approval was given for the appointment of the fourth respondent with a condition that the fourth respondent should attain the training qualification within five years. The petitioner challenges the selection and appointment of the fourth respondent in this writ petition. 3.It is averred on behalf of the third respondent that though the fourth respondent was not having a B.Ed. qualification she was satisfying the subject requirement and therefore, the Selection Committee selected her. The minutes of the Selection Committee will go to show that all the candidates were asked to take class each in French and Geography and the same was observed by the Selection Committee members individually and points were awarded for introducing the lesson, explanation, questions, clarity and effectiveness. When all these points were totalled the fourth respondent scored highest. Strangely enough, it is also averred in the reply filed on behalf of the third respondents that after the four candidates gave their demonstration lessons to the students, the students were confidentially requested to give their preference and not even a single student had approved the petitioner's lesson. When all these points were totalled the fourth respondent scored highest. Strangely enough, it is also averred in the reply filed on behalf of the third respondents that after the four candidates gave their demonstration lessons to the students, the students were confidentially requested to give their preference and not even a single student had approved the petitioner's lesson. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lotlikar, has submitted that when there are trained teachers, the untrained teacher could not have been selected and/or applied for relaxation under Rule 81. The relaxation can be sought only in cases where trained and qualified hands are not available. He further argued that the petitioner was arbitrarily singled out to mete out illegal preference to the fourth respondent. He disputes the contention of the Management that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification, the subject requirement. He therefore assailed the appointment and approval of appointment given in favour of the fourth respondent. Mr. Lotlikar also contended that as far as the minority school is concerned, every Selection Committee should consist of an observer deputed by the Department of Education. In this case, no such observer has been deputed and therefore, the selection of the fourth respondent is contrary to the Rules. 5.Learned Counsel for the management, Mr. D'Costa, has challenged the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the respondents being a minority school have the power to pick and choose the candidates for appointment of teachers in their school, of course in conformity with the rules. He asserts that there is no violation of the rules. The fourth respondent was selected by the Selection Committee objectively and they found themselves satisfied that she was the only candidate who satisfied the subject requirement, who was present for the interview and therefore, the management had no choice but to select the fourth respondent after obtaining approval and relaxation from the Director of Education. He further contended that the application for relaxation has been done in accordance with law particularly as authorised by Rule 81 of the Rules. 6.Mr. Lotlikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, also contended that there was no necessity for the management to apply for relaxation of training qualification in respect of respondent No. 4 when the petitioner herself could fulfil all the conditions required under the rules and also subject requirement. 6.Mr. Lotlikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, also contended that there was no necessity for the management to apply for relaxation of training qualification in respect of respondent No. 4 when the petitioner herself could fulfil all the conditions required under the rules and also subject requirement. The subject requirement as notified by the management is to teach Geography and French. The petitioner is a graduate in Arts and is competent to teach Geography. Apart from that the petitioner is also having a Diploma in French. When the petitioner was available and did satisfy the necessary qualifications for part-time Graduate teacher, it was on extraneous consideration that the fourth respondent was selected and appointed. 7.Having heard the counsel appearing on both sides and going through the records of the case. We find that there are irregularities in making the appointment of the fourth respondent. Firstly, the advertisement itself as extracted above, does not satisfy the requirement of law. Rule 78 of the Rules prescribes the minimum qualification for teaching staff. As per this Rule, a Degree in Education is a must, apart from a Degree from a recognised University. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the management to notify at least the minimum qualifications required under the Rules. It is particularly so, because in order to apply for relaxation of qualification, one condition that has to be satisfied before making such an application is that there must not be qualified candidates available. Before proceeding further with discussion in this matter, it is necessary to extract Rule 81(1) as follows :--- "Rule 81(1):---Power to relax qualifications--- (1)The Director of Education, may, in case of non-availability of trained or qualified teachers in particular subjects, relax the minimum qualifications prescribed for such period as the Director may think fit provided that no such appointments shall be made, except with the previous relaxation of the Director of Education." The aforesaid sub-rule unmistakably lays down that in order to exercise the power by the Director, he must be satisfied that the management has made all efforts to get a qualified teacher. The question of relaxation of minimum qualifications comes only after the non-availability of trained and qualified teachers is established. Unless such a situation is established by the management, it cannot apply for relaxation of qualification of a candidate selected by the management by their own volition. The question of relaxation of minimum qualifications comes only after the non-availability of trained and qualified teachers is established. Unless such a situation is established by the management, it cannot apply for relaxation of qualification of a candidate selected by the management by their own volition. 8.As aforesaid, though several contentions have been raised, we will deal with the first contention addressed by the Counsel for the petitioner, which will be sufficient according to us to dispose of the writ petition itself. Rule 78 of the Rules prescribes the minimum qualification of teachers who work in Schools recognized and/or aided. Rule 74 of the Rules lays down an elaborate procedure for the Constitution of the Selection Committee and also the manner of selection of teaching staff. Rule 75 deals with the relaxation of any essential qualification for recruitment of any employee. Rule 81 also deals with the power of relaxation of qualification by the Director of Education. Both these Rules, i.e. 75 and 81 deal with relaxation of qualification of teaching staff. Rule 75, of course, deals with the relaxation of qualification of an employee who has already been appointed and who is competing for a post newly notified by the management, because the "employee" has been defined under section 2(g) of the Goa, Daman Diu Education Act to mean a teacher and includes every other employee working in a recognized school. Therefore, it is clear that Rule 75 deals with relaxation of qualifications of employees already working in the school for their continuance of the existing post or when they apply for newly notified posts and Rule 81 deals with the power of relaxation in making new recruitment to the teaching staff. The proviso to Rule 75 reads as follows :--- "Provided that the Director of Education shall not give relaxation to the training qualifications are available and when they satisfy the subject requirements as notified by the School." A restriction has been imposed on the Director to give relaxation in respect of employees, that before according relaxation, unless he is satisfied that trained candidates are not available and those candidates do not satisfy the subject requirement, such relaxation should not be granted. The same conditions have also been imposed as far as the relaxation in respect of recruitment of new staff under Rule 81 of the Rules. The same conditions have also been imposed as far as the relaxation in respect of recruitment of new staff under Rule 81 of the Rules. In both the Rules, if candidates having requisite qualifications are available, relaxation should not be granted in favour of any other candidate. As far as the new recruits are concerned, before any relaxation is to be made, it should be established that trained teachers qualified in subject requirement are not available. One of the generally recognized modes of ascertaining the availability or non-availability of trained qualified hands is to advertise in a local newspaper or some other methods known to law, mentioning the requirement of qualifications and experience necessary for the teachers prescribed under the Rules. Therefore, Rule 81 makes it mandatory on the part of the management while calling for applications, to notify the essential qualifications as prescribed under the Rules. 9.As we pointed out earlier, in this case the requirement was that of a qualified part-time permanent teacher. As per the Rules, qualification prescribed for that post is a training in Education from a recognized University and a Degree. However, the advertisement in question as extracted above, did not contain such a requirement under the Rules. It is not clear what is the minimum qualification required for the post. The said advertisement only notified about the work to be carried out by the teacher after recruitment and it does not contain minimum qualifications essentially required as per the Rules. In the absence of any particulars regarding the minimum requirement of qualifications for selection of teachers, one cannot say that the management has ascertained the availability of qualified teachers. Relaxation cannot be applied for as a matter of course and such relaxation of qualification of teacher cannot be ordered by the Directorate mechanically. We should always bear in mind that relaxation of qualification of teachers is done by compromising with standard of teaching. Rule making authority provides provision for relaxation only to meet the contingency of non-availability of qualified candidates. For this reason provision for relaxation under Rules 75 and 81 should be used very sparingly and cautiously; that too in exceptional and special circumstances. This will be the case with regard to the minority schools like the respondent No. 3 also. Rule making authority provides provision for relaxation only to meet the contingency of non-availability of qualified candidates. For this reason provision for relaxation under Rules 75 and 81 should be used very sparingly and cautiously; that too in exceptional and special circumstances. This will be the case with regard to the minority schools like the respondent No. 3 also. Under the scheme of this Act and the Rules, management of the minority schools has not been placed on a different plane as regards the qualification of the teachers. Therefore, we cannot say that the present advertisement in question is far from ambiguity. As the advertisement did not clearly spell out the minium required qualifications and experience of a teacher, as per Rules, the Director of Education cannot come to the conclusion that the management has established the non-availability of trained and qualified teachers. It is in these circumstances that we have to observe that the ascertaining of qualified hands is a sine qua non for the exercise of the power of relaxation. Unless the management established before the Director of Education to his satisfaction that qualified teachers under the Rules are not available in the market, then only the Director can relax the Rules. Therefore, since such an attempt has not been made by the managements, it has to be held that the relaxation given by the Director of Education is illegal and cannot be acted upon. If the relaxation is illegally given then the approval given to the fourth respondent cannot be acted upon because the selection of the fourth respondent itself is vitiated by illegality and irregularity. For the purpose of disposing of this writ petition, as we pointed out earlier, we need not go into the other questions posed in this writ petition. 10.The next question is what relief can be given to the petitioner and what is the effect of setting aside the approval of appointment of the fourth respondent at this distance of time. The fourth respondent has been working in the school for the last eight years and it is reported that in the meantime she has attained training qualification so that she has become a fully qualified teacher and relaxation is no more necessary for her continuance. Secondly, it is also reported that the part-time post has been abolished and a full-time post has been created. Secondly, it is also reported that the part-time post has been abolished and a full-time post has been created. Therefore, in the changed circumstances, it is a futile exercise on our part to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to quash the appointment of respondent No. 4 at this distance of time. In the circumstances, we are disinclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 eventhough we find that what has been done by the Director of Education in relaxing the qualification of the fourth respondent is illegal. But, however, we hasten to observe in this case that the petitioner should have been considered for appointment in case the fourth respondents appointment were to be set aside, because she was the only candidate better qualified than any other candidate called for interview. Taking into account these circumstances and taking into account the long lapse of time, we hope and trust that the petitioner will be considered for appointment for next vacancy of Graduate teacher arising, if she satisfies the legal requirements. 11.With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. *****