JUDGMENT 1. - In all the above writ petitions the dispute is with regard to the recognition of education obtained by the petitioner from Primary Teachers Education School, Moti Doongari Road, Jaipur. The name of that institution is stated to have been subsequently changed to Smt. Geeta Bajaj Balika Mandir Purv Prathmic Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyalaya, Moti Doongari, Jaipur. The petitioners applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III as General Teacher and their candidature was not considered as according to the respondents the certificate so obtained was not considered equivalent to BSTC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the letter dated 13.9.94 which was written by the Director and Special Secretary wherein certain guidance were sought and it was informed that unless a final decisions is taken in the matter, their letter for withdrawal of the recognition dated 30.6.93 may be considered to be withdrawen and the recognition may be continued. Thereafter, the Deputy Director has written a letter on 16.9.1992 to Bal Mandir Purva Prathmic Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalay, Moti Dungri that the final decision would be taken after getting the evaluation and discussions with SIERT Udaipur. Ultimately, the letter dated 15.11.1994 was issued by the Director and Special Secretary, Gramin Vikas and Panchayat Raj Department in which reference to the earlier order dated 30.6.1993. 23.6.1994 and 1.7.1994 was given and the educational qualification was not considered equivalent to the candidates who were found eligible for teaching. These letters were withdrawen on 30.9.1994 on the ground that the discussion are made from the educational department. It was stated that a decision has been taken and in accordance with the circular dated 19.10.1994, the candidates who have obtained the education from Bal. Mandir Purva Prathmic Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalay. Moti Dungri, could be considered eligible for appointment as General Teacher. In the letter dated 19.10.1994, the Deputy Secretary, Education Department has written to the Director that in the part appointment was given to the teachers in general category and therefore, those teachers may, be considered eligible for appointment in the general category. 3. On behalf of the respondents, it is. stated, that the training of preliminary education has not been recognised for primary school and the candidates who have obtained the training cannot be appointed as teacher in Panchayat Samiti. 3. On behalf of the respondents, it is. stated, that the training of preliminary education has not been recognised for primary school and the candidates who have obtained the training cannot be appointed as teacher in Panchayat Samiti. In the letter dated 1.7.94 written by the Director and Special Secretary, Gramin Vikas and Panchayat Raj Department to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore in which it was written that the education Purva Prathmic obtained by the petitioners did not make them eligible for appointment as Teacher Gr. III. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that Purva Prathmic Shikshak Prashikshan is meant for teaching the students in respect of upto 5th standard while BSTC course is from Class I to Class VIII. The primary schools which are run by the Panchayat Samiti and are only upto 5th standard have adopted the guidelines which have been given by the Government now. 5. I have considered over the matter. There appears to he a dispute with regard to recognition of the qualification obtained from Bal Mandir Purva Prathmic Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalaya and it was for that reason that the recognition was withdrawn. Subsequently, the letter withdrawing the recognition was also withdrawn. By letter dated 16.9.1994 the (Gamin Vikas and Panchayat Raj Department has written the Secretary that the educational qualification given by the institution would be evaluated by SIERT Udaipur and final decision would be taken in the regard.No document has been produced before me from which it may be evident that any exercise was taker to evaluate the educational qualification. The order for recognition has ultimately been issued. If it was issued without -recognition evaluation then it could only be considered to be an arbitrary exercise on the part of the respondents as the Government is not expected to work at its whims or to withdraw recognition at any time. No document has been produced before me that evaluation was taken from SIERT, Udaipur. The special Secretary Education is directed to look into the matter and see that evaluation is got done from SIERT Udaipur. No document has been produced before me that evaluation was taken from SIERT, Udaipur. The special Secretary Education is directed to look into the matter and see that evaluation is got done from SIERT Udaipur. If it is found that the education imparted by the said institution is in confirmity and equivalent to BSTC, then appropriate order may be passed in this regard and if it is found that the said educational qualification is not equivalent to BSTC or there is distinction between the educational qualification obtained by the petitioner, then, those all the candidates who have obtained degree of BSTC then in such a situation clear instructions be issued by the Government that the educational qualification so imparted by the institution is not recognised or considered equivalent for giving appointment of the post of General Teacher. The appointment whether is given by the Panchayat Samiti, or the Education Department makes no difference if a candidate is qualified and similarly a candidate is not qualified then the appointment cannot be given by either of the two department. This exercise may be done within three months. The Special Secretary, Education would also see the circumstances under which the recognition has been given to the institutions vide order dated 15.11.94 for getting the evaluation done from SIERT Udaipur and the compliance report be sent to this Court within 4 months. 6. All the writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions.Writ Petition Disposed. *******