JUDGMENT In this case a question arose whether B.Ed. Degree can be said to be a non-trained as because the same is not a Junior Basic Training/Primary Teachers’ Training Certificate. 2. Petitioner in this case was holding a permanent post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school and officiating as the Head Teacher and that he is stated to be disqualified for being considered in the post of Head Teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that the is entitled to get the benefit of 'A' category who has obtained B.Ed Degree. The Chairman, South 24-Parganas Primary School Council issued a notice, dated December 19, 1996 for cancelling the benefit of 'A' category who have obtained B.Ed. Degree on the ground that the B.Ed Degree cannot come within the scope and purview of the definition of the word 'trained candidate'. ‘Trained candidate’ has been defined in Section 2(n) of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 which means ‘a candidate who has obtained Junior Basic Training/Primary Teachers’ Training Certificate or equivalent issued by the authority of the Director or any other Officer empowered in this behalf by the Government’. Section 18 of the Act provides that ‘the Council shall appoint head teachers from a panel of senior-most primary teachers possessing requisite qualifications as laid down under the rules and who obtained a Junior Basic Training Certificate and shall appoint a head teacher in every primary school within the jurisdiction of the Council. 3. It is a cardinal principle of rules of interpretation that Judges’ duty is to interpret and apply the law, but not to change it to meet the Judges idea of what Justice requires. In this connection references may be made to the observations made by Lord Justice Denning in (1) Magoy G.R. St. Mellong R.D.C. v. New Port Corporation reported in (1950)2 All ER 1226 as hereunder :- "...... We do not sit here to pull the language of Parliament and of Ministers to pieces and make nonsense of it. That is an easy thing to do, and it is a thing to which Lawyers are too often prone. We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and of Ministers and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis." 4. We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and of Ministers and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis." 4. If the contention of the respondents is accepted in the instant case and the trained candidates only mean the holder of Diploma and/or Certification in Training and not the holder of a Degree from any University, in that event, in my view, that would be an absurd result which was not the intention of the legislature and it is well-settled principle that a Court cannot seek to construct an absurd result and it is a principle of legal policy that law should be just and the Court's decision should for the ends of Justice. 5. In (2) Coutts & Co. v. I.R.C., 1953 AC 267 Lord Reid at page 281 held as hereunder:- "In general if it is alleged that a statutory provision brings about a remit which is so startling, one looks for some other possible meaning of the statute which will avoid such a result, because there is some presumption that Parliament does not intend its legislation to produce highly inequitable results......It is also the basic principle of legal policy that law should serve the public interest. The Court when considering in relation to the facts of the instant case, which of opposing constructions of the enactment would give effect to the legislative intention, should presume that the legislature intended to observe this principle. It should, therefore, strive to avoid adopting a construction which penalises a person where the legislature's intention to do so is doubtful, or penalises him in a way which was not made clear." 6. Lord Scarman observed in (3 Burmah Oil Co. Ltd's case, 1979 All ER 700 at page 736 as hereunder :- "Where a literal construction would seriously damage the public interest, and no deserving person would be prejudiced by a strained construction to avoid this, the Court will apply such a construction." 7. Applying these cardinal principles of rules of interpretation, in my view, to hold that a person who has obtained a Bachelor Training Degree from a University is inferior to that of a Junior Basic Training/Primary Teachers’ Training Certificate would result in unworkable, impractical, inconvenient, anomalous or illegal proposition. 8. Applying these cardinal principles of rules of interpretation, in my view, to hold that a person who has obtained a Bachelor Training Degree from a University is inferior to that of a Junior Basic Training/Primary Teachers’ Training Certificate would result in unworkable, impractical, inconvenient, anomalous or illegal proposition. 8. In (4) Gill v. Donald Humber Stone & Co. Ltd., (1963) 1 WLR 929 at page 933 Lord Reid observed as hereunder :- ''If the language is capable of more than one interpretations, we ought to discard the more natural meaning if it leads to an unreasonable result, and adopt that interpretation which leads to a reasonably practicable result." 9. In the instant case, if the analogy given by the Chairman of the Council is accepted, in that event, higher qualifications and higher educational attainments would create a disqualification and that would be on the face of it subversive to the cause of education. Trained candidates, in my view, should include the B.Ed. Degree which is a higher qualification and not merely a trained basic training certificate. The Court can take a judicial notice of it that before obtaining a B.Ed. Degree one has to be a student of any recognised B.Ed. College on full time basis and not a slip short training and giving a certificate. Cause of education is a paramount consideration and that interpretation given by the Chairman of the Council in this behalf cannot be accepted as a higher degree cannot said to be an inferior than that of persons who have no degree and have less academic qualifications. 10. Rules of Interpretation followed by the respondents cannot be a procrustean on method which means seeking to enforce uniformity by forceful or ruthless methods. The method which was adopted in the past and the name of legendary robber who fitted victims to a bed by stretching them or cutting off parts of them. 11. Accordingly, no reasonable man with ordinary prudence can hold that basic training and primary teachers’ training certificate holders are competent than that of B.Ed. Degree holders. Accordingly, the word 'equivalent' used in sub-section (n) of Section 2 of the Act includes the B.Ed. Degree. Hence, in my view, the Chairman of the South 24-Parganas Primary Council’ decision that the expression ‘trained candidate’ does not include B.Ed. Degree holders. Accordingly, the word 'equivalent' used in sub-section (n) of Section 2 of the Act includes the B.Ed. Degree. Hence, in my view, the Chairman of the South 24-Parganas Primary Council’ decision that the expression ‘trained candidate’ does not include B.Ed. Degree cannot be sustained in law, and, accordingly, the same is quashed as it cannot be said that a person who has passed the School Final Examination and obtained a Basic Training Certificate from some Training Institute can be said to be the best suited teacher for primary students than that of a Graduate having a B.Ed. Degree and who must be considered to be superior. Person who has obtained higher training cannot be said to be disqualified and it cannot be the intention of the legislature that B.Ed. Degree obtained from a University amounts to a disqualification on the ground that the same is inferior to Junior Basic Training/Primary Teachers’ Training Certificate or equivalent. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitioner must be held to be eligible for appointment as Headmaster of the Primary School in question and be must be treated as 'A' Category Teacher forthwith. 13. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 14. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Let a certified xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioner expeditiously and on urgent basis if applied for.