JUDGMENT 1. - This batch of Writ Petitions may be conveniently decided jointly by it common order as identical questions of law and facts ;sere involved in them. 2. The petitioners herein, had applied for the appointment as Primary School teachers Gr. III in rural schools under Panchayat Samitis pursuant to different advertisements issued by the District Establishment Committees in the year. 1996. After clearing Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. The petitioners passed Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examination. They have also completed teachers training course conducted by the Education Department of the State Government, known as in Basic School Training Certificate (B.S.T.C) course or School Training Certificate (S.T.C.) course, now known as 'Shiksyak Prashikshan Parikkha' Their application forms were rejected on the ground of their being ineligible for not possessing requisite academic qualification. As per the respondents, a candidate to be eligible for the appointment as Primary School teacher was required to pass i Senior Secondary, while the petitioners had passed Senior Secondary (Vocational) which, according to them, is not equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic). The petitioners, therefore, are challenging the action of the respondents, seeking relief for issuance of it proper direction it) consider them to he eligible for appointment as Primary School teachers in pursuance to various 211 advertisements issued by the District Establishment Committees. 3. On behalf of the petitioners it hen been vehementy contended that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Pal ishad Service Rule,. 1969 (for short 'the Rules of 1959') govern the recruitment in question and in terms of rule 11 read with Schedule, appended to the Rules, the minimum qualification prescribed for the appointment as Primary School teachers is Matric (Secondary) with B.S.T.C./S.TC. training or any other qualification declared equivalent by the Education Department of the State Government. Learned counsel contended that all the petitioners have passed Secondary School and also completed B.S.T.C. or S.T.C. training course conducted by the Education Department as such, they are eligible to be appointed as Primary School teachers having requisite qualification as per the Rules. That the State Government, in exercise of powers under second proviso to rule-17 of the Rules of 1959. has issued general directions to all the District Establishment Committees in connection with sections of school teachers Gr. III and last such directions were issued vide Circular/communication dated 20.7.96. That the State Government, in exercise of powers under second proviso to rule-17 of the Rules of 1959. has issued general directions to all the District Establishment Committees in connection with sections of school teachers Gr. III and last such directions were issued vide Circular/communication dated 20.7.96. As per these directions, the minimum qualification for the eligibility has been prescribed as Secondary with five subjects including Hindi, Math, English and Senior Secondary with B.S.T.C. or B.Ed. or equivalent examinations as recognised by the Education Department and the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, According to the learned counsel, the State Government is not competent to change the qualification prescribed as per the Rules of 1959 by 'issuing administrative instructions or directions. That the State Government can change the prescribed qualification only by making necessary amendment in the Rules. Hence, qualification of Senior Secondary prescribed as per the above directions is without authority of law and the same cannot be given effect for determining eligibility of the candidates. It is further submitted that as per above directions also, the petitioners are eligible as they have the requisite qualification of Sr. Secondary with B.S.T.C./S.TC. training. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have passed Sr. Secondary (Vocational) examination which is recognised equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) examination by the Board of Secondary Education as well as the Education Department of the State Government. In this connection, it was pointed out that students passing Sr. Secondary (Vocational) examination are eligible to take admission in B.S.T.C., or for higher education, in Degree Courses. It was then, pointed out that qualification of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) with B.S.T.C. is found eligible for appointment to the post of teacher Gr. III by the Education Department under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short the rules of 1971) taking the qualification as equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic). It was submitted that as per the Rules of 1971, appointment of Gr. III teachers in Education Department are made 250r. by direct recruitment and 75% by transfer from Panchayat Samitis' schools of the district concerned. Thus, having two different qualifications for appointment of teachers Gr. III by direct recruitment and by transfer from the schools of Panchayat Samitis would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that State Departments are at variance on the question of equivalence to Sr. Thus, having two different qualifications for appointment of teachers Gr. III by direct recruitment and by transfer from the schools of Panchayat Samitis would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that State Departments are at variance on the question of equivalence to Sr. Secondary (Vocational) examination. The Education Department is treating such qualification equivalent to Sr. Secondary, while the Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development is not treating so. It was submitted that question of equivalence has to be decided primarily by the Board of Secondary Education in the present case which is an expert body and not by the Court or any department of the State having no expertise knowledge in this regard. The Board of Secondary Education has examined the matter, on a reference made by the State Government, in its meeting held on 1.8.95 and decided Sr. Secondary (Vocational) to be equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) qualification of the Board. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the Order/Circular dated 11.4.96 issued by the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and subsequent amendment made in directions dated 20.7.96 vide order dated 19.11.96 are illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 4. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that Senior Secondary is the minimum qualification for appointment as Primary School teacher and the State Government was competent to raise educational qualification in exercise of powers under second proviso to rule-17 in order to provide better qualified teachers with higher education. Learned counsel contended that Primary School teachers have a significant role in developing child's personality in the formative years and they need a different in the formative years and they need a different approach altogether which can be possible only if they are better qualified and trained. It was also contended that the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj has independent entity and is competent to prescribe minimum qualification for selection of school teachers who impart teaching in rural areas and even the Education Department is treating Sr. Secondary (Vocational) as equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic), the action of the respondents cannot he said to be arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable. Then, it was pointed out that decision in this connection has been taken by the Department on the basis of a decision in the case of Miss. Secondary (Vocational) as equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic), the action of the respondents cannot he said to be arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable. Then, it was pointed out that decision in this connection has been taken by the Department on the basis of a decision in the case of Miss. Usha Rani v. State (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3638/93 and batch) decided on September 30, 1993 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, has taken the view that Higher Secondary (Vocational) examination cannot be treated as Higher Secondary (General). The said decision has been affirmed by the Division Bench. Learned counsel also urged that vocational course imparts knowledge to the students only in particular vocations and the same cannot he treated equivalent as an academic course. It was further pointed out that the Certificate of National Trade Certificate (N.T.C.) has been held by the Supreme Court not to be a complete training and a teacher receiving training in a particular craft/vocation could teach particular craft/vocation only. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Lal Joshi and others, AIR 1994 SC 1409 and a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Chandra Swami v. State of Rajasthan and another, 1993 (1) WLC 741 . 5. On giving careful consideration to the above submissions, I find that respective contentions of the learned counsel give rise to the following questions - (1) Whether minimum qualification prescribed for the appointment to the post of Primary School teacher, which is Matric/Secondary with S.T.C./B.S.T.C. training or equivalent as per the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1959, could be raised as Sr. Secondary or equivalent examination by the State Government in exercise of powers under second proviso to rule-17 of the Rules? (2) Whether Senior Secondary (Vocational) qualification is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) of the Board? Question No. 1 6. There is no dispute between the parties that the Rules of 1959 shall govern the present recruitment's. Otherwise also, the law is well settled by now that the vacancies of a particular year are to he filled up by the process of selection as per the rules prevalent at the time of advertisement of the vacancies and any amendment subsequent to the advertisement shall he prospective. In other words, eligibility of a candidate has to be considered as per the existing rules. Consequently, qualifications prescribed for the post of a Primary School teacher Gr. III in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 is not relevant for our purposes. As per the Rules of 1959, minimum qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Primary School teacher is Matric with S.T.C. or equivalent qualification declared by the Education Department. However, contention on behalf of the respondents is that the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by second proviso to rule-17, has raised the minimum academic qualification from Matric/Secondary to Sr. Secondary and it was with in competence of the State Government in order to get better teachers with higher qualification. There is no quarrel that primary education of a child is vital and of great importance. There is also no dispute that better qualified and properly trained teachers can give better results in primary school education in comparison to less qualified or untrained teachers. Primary education, being in formative years of a child, needs proper understanding of the psychology and aptitude of the child and at this stage it is not enough to teach them alphabets and figures. At initial stages of a child, it is easier to cultivate and develop values of a good character and personality. In Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education, A.I.R. 1989 SC 18 : (1988) 4 JT 431 , the Apex Court of the country has rightly observed as under- "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 needed to be endowed and energised with needs potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motives into action the benefiter." 7. The action of the State Government in raising minimum academic qualification for appointment of a Primary School teacher from Matric/Secondary to Sr. Secondary may be laudable to get better qualified teachers but the question is whether it could be clone, without amending the qualification prescribed in the Rules of 1959, by issuing instructions or directions to the District Establishment Committees purporting to be in exercise of powers under second proviso to rule-17. 8. Secondary may be laudable to get better qualified teachers but the question is whether it could be clone, without amending the qualification prescribed in the Rules of 1959, by issuing instructions or directions to the District Establishment Committees purporting to be in exercise of powers under second proviso to rule-17. 8. The second proviso in Rule 17 inserted by the State Government vide Notification dated 22.2.91, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section-79 of the Act of 1959, is as under- "Provided further that the District Establishment Committee shall make selections for the various posts in accordance with general directions given by the Government from time to time without calling for interview, if so, provided under those Rules." 9. The legality of the aforesaid proviso and competence of the State Government to amend the rule by inserting the proviso is not under challenge in these writ petitions. The only question that calls for consideration is as to whether the State Government could raise minimum academic qualification for the, appointment of a Primary School teacher Gr. III by issuing instructions or directions under the aforesaid second proviso without making necessary amendment in the Rules of 1959 which prescribes the qualification as Matric/Secondary. A perusal of the proviso shows that it empowers the State Government to give general directions to District Establishment Committees for making selections for various posts and it appears to be for bringing a uniformity in the procedure of recruitment-all over Rajasthan, instead of allowing them to follow separate and different procedure. It does not confer any right or power in the State Government to amend and raise the qualification prescribed in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1959. Such power is neither explicit nor implied. The proviso empowers the State Government only to issue general directions to District Establishment Committees in relation to the procedural matters concerning selections for the various posts. Under this provision the Stale Government cannot assume power to amend and raise the qualification prescribed in the Schedule. The contention of Shra Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents, cannot be accepted that the State Government was competent to amend and raise the minimum qualification in exercise of power conferred under second proviso to rule-17. 10. The matter may be judged from another angle also. The contention of Shra Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents, cannot be accepted that the State Government was competent to amend and raise the minimum qualification in exercise of power conferred under second proviso to rule-17. 10. The matter may be judged from another angle also. The Rules of 1959 have been framed by the State Government under Section 79 of the Rajasthan Panchavat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter to he referred it as the Act of 1959'). Sub-section (2) of Section 79 requires that the rubs made under this section shall, as soon as may be after they are made. he laid for not less than 14 days before the House of the State Legislature and shall he subject to such modification whether by way of repeal of amendment as the said House may make during the Session in which they are so laid. Any amendment in the rules would also require to he placed before the House of the State Legislature. Any change in qualification prescribed as per the Schedule would amount an amendment in the Rules and such amendment has to he placed before the House of the State Legislature, which has not been done in the instance case. But. such procedure is not required to be followed in respect of general directions which can he issued by the Slate Government under second proviso to Rule-17. Admittedly, general directions/guidelines issued by the State Government on 20.7.96 have not been placed before the House of the State Legislature. Hence, I am of the confirmed view that without making necessary amendment in the Rules, qualification prescribed for the post of primary School teacher, Gr. III, cannot be changed and raised by the State Government from Matric/Secondary to Senior Secondary. 11. It would not be out of place to mention here that with regard to minimum qualification for eligibility and preparation of merit list of the candidates, the State Government has taken vacillating stand in the guidelines/directions issued by it from time to time. At the cost of repetition. in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1959. the prescribed qualification for the eligibility for Primary School teachers is Matric (Secondary) and B.S.TC./S.T.C. training or any other qualification declared as equivalent by the Education Department. Then, in directions issued by the State Government on 5.5.93. At the cost of repetition. in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1959. the prescribed qualification for the eligibility for Primary School teachers is Matric (Secondary) and B.S.TC./S.T.C. training or any other qualification declared as equivalent by the Education Department. Then, in directions issued by the State Government on 5.5.93. the academic qualification was prescribed as Secondary or Higher Secondary or their equivalent (Higher marks obtained in any one of them to he taken note of while preparing merit list). Thereafter, superseding this, fresh guidelines/direction, were issued by the State Government on 24.7.95, wherein the qualification Sur eligibility of a candidate was prescribed as Secondary with B.S.T.C. or B.Ed. training or any other qualification declared equivalent by the Board of Secondary Education and the Education Department. Then, again fresh guidelines/directions were issued by the State Government on 20.7.96, wherein the minimum qualification has been prescribed as Secondary with five subjects, including Hindi, English and Maths and Sr. Secondary with B.S.T.C. or B.Ed. training or any other qualification declared as equivalent by the Education: Department and the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. Thus, the State Government has been taking different stand with regard to the academic qualification for the eligibility of a candidate. These guidelines/Directions have been issued purporting to be in exercise of powers under second proviso to Rule-17, ignoring the qualification prescribed in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1959. It appears that the concerned authority did not apply its mind that without making necessary amendment in the Rules of 1959, higher academic qualification could not be prescribed by way of directions. This Court has been stressing time and again that big departments of the State Government, like that of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, should strengthen their legal cell and legality of such matters should be got examined before hand in order to avoid unnecessary litigation and complications which may arise later on. Primary School teachers for rural areas are appointed in thousand in the State and process of selection is a time consuming one. It is, therefrom, more necessary that before issuing such guidelines/directions their legality is got examined from legal experts. 12. Primary School teachers for rural areas are appointed in thousand in the State and process of selection is a time consuming one. It is, therefrom, more necessary that before issuing such guidelines/directions their legality is got examined from legal experts. 12. Be that as it may, the conclusion of the above discussions is that the State Government, in excise of powers under the second proviso to rule-17, could not amend or raise the academic qualification prescribed for the appointment of a Primary School teacher Gr. III, without making necessary amendment in the. Rules of 1959. The action of the State Government may be to get better teachers, still it has to be don e in accordance with law. 13. There is no dispute that all the petitioners have passed Secondary School examination and also competed necessary training of B.S.T.C./S.T.C. as such, they were eligible to be considered for appointment as Primary School teachers by the respective District Establishment Committees. Rejection of their application forms on the ground of their being ineligible is not sustainable in the eye of law.Question No. 2 14. After deciding question No. 1 in favour of the petitioners, these petitioners could be disposed of without deciding question No. 2, but in view of the fact that this question has been stressed at length and a good deal of arguments have been made on both sides, I propose to deal with this question also. The question is as to whether Sr. Secondary (Vocational) qualification is equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic)? 15. At the out-set, it may be stated that it is well settled that question of equivalence on.technical and academic matters has to be decided by an expert body. It is not in the domain of assessment or evaluation of the Court having no expertise knowledge. (See Indian Medical Association Jabalpur v. Silas Nelson and Others, (1993) 3 SCC 185 . Even a Government department, having no expert body to make an assessment and evaluation of different syllabus and courses should refrain from deciding the question of equivalence. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnatak University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 , it has been stressed that the University is best fitted to decide the question of equivalence of an examination with other qualification. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnatak University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 , it has been stressed that the University is best fitted to decide the question of equivalence of an examination with other qualification. It was observed thus- "The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University." 16. In our case, the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan is conducting Sr. Secondary School Examinations, including Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination. The Board is a body corporate having composition of the members who are undisputedly distinguished educationists and connected with teaching in different branches. It is an expert body and is in a better position to examine and decide the question of equivalence of two educational qualifications imparted by it. Under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, I957. an Evaluation Committee is appointed by the Board, consisting of persons having expertise knowledge in education. The question of equivalence is first examined by this Committee and then it is considered by the Board on the report of the Committee. Any decision, therefore, on the question of equivalence taken by the Board, is vital and of great significance not to he brushed aside lightly either by the Court or any State department. There is no dispute before me that the Board of Secondary Education, on a reference made by the State Government vide letter No. B-8 (2) Edu.-3/94 dated 10.3.11M4, has examined the matter of equivalence of the qualification Sr. Secondary (vocational) with Sr. Secondary (Academic) imparted by it, in its meeting dated 1.8.1994 and decided both qualifications to he equivalent. It is note-worthy that syllabus and courses of both these qualifications are decided by the Board. 17. Then, a student passing Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination is eligible to take admission in B.S.TC./S.TC. training course or in it Degree Course for higher studies alike students passing Sr. Secondary (Academic) Examination. The Education Department is also treating Sr. Secondary (Vocational) as equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) for appointing teachers Gr. III under the Rules of 1971. 18. 17. Then, a student passing Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination is eligible to take admission in B.S.TC./S.TC. training course or in it Degree Course for higher studies alike students passing Sr. Secondary (Academic) Examination. The Education Department is also treating Sr. Secondary (Vocational) as equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) for appointing teachers Gr. III under the Rules of 1971. 18. The question of equivalence of other qualifications, as per the Rules of 1959, has to be decided by the Education Department. As per the directions issued from time to time by the Department to Panchayati Raj and Rural Development for making selections and the advertisements issued by the District Establishment Committees, calling applications liar direct recruitment of Primary School teachers Gr. III, the question of equivalence of two qualifications is to be determined by the Education Department and the Board of Secondary Education. When both of them, in the instant case, are treating qualification of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) as equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic), it was not proper and justified on the part of the Director Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department to have reviewed its earlier order dated 9.1.1995 by subsequent order dated 11.4.19% and on that basis further amending the directions/guidelines, dated 20.7.1096, vide Circular dated 19.11.1996. 19. The respondents have filed return in writ petition No. 57-97 and during course of arguments, the pleas taken in the said return were adopted in all other petitions. On 24.4.1997, while hearing the petitions, this Court found the reply to be quite vague, hence, a direction was given to file an additional affidavit of the Secretary, of the Development to clarify on the following facts- (i) Whether, State Government has taken into consideration the resolution of the Board of Secondary Examination, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby Sr. Secondary (Vocational) examination has been held equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic), before declining benefit to the candidates who have passed this examination? (ii) Whether, the Government had recognised Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) examination? If that order has been withdrawn, the reasons for withdrawing the order and whether any expertise opinion has been sought on the point of equivalence or not? (iii) Whether, the State Government has given appointments as teachers in Education department having passed Sr. Secondary (Vocational) examination treating them equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic)? 20. Secondary (Academic) examination? If that order has been withdrawn, the reasons for withdrawing the order and whether any expertise opinion has been sought on the point of equivalence or not? (iii) Whether, the State Government has given appointments as teachers in Education department having passed Sr. Secondary (Vocational) examination treating them equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic)? 20. In pursuance to the above order, an additional affidavit of' Shri C.L. Meena, Deputy Secretary of the Department has been filed on 7.5.97. In the affidavit, the deponent, instead of being specify and precise to the queries raised by this Court, has tried to justify the action taking the stand as under: (1) the counsel for the Department, Shri Vijay Bishnoi had written a letter that Circular dated 9.1.1995, issued by Director, was in violation of the decision of the High Court at Jodhpur wherein Higher Secondary (Vocational) qualification has not been treated as equivalent to Higher Secondary (Academic); (2) the Board of Secondary Education has granted equivalence for higher studies only and not for the purpose of appointments; (3) the Education Department has been written in this connection and it is in its active consideration to review the earlier decision on the equivalence of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) with Sr. Secondary (Academic). (4) By granting equivalence, admissions in S.T.C. course have largely been occupied by the candidates having the qualification of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) for the reason that in the said course subjects like Craft etc. are being taught, containing practical examination, as such, such candidates are obtaining comparatively much higher marks than the marks obtained by the candidates in Sr. Secondary (Academic). Thus, not only there exists a big difference between the two courses. it is detrimental to the interest of the students who qualify Sr. Secondary (Academic) course on account of difference in two patterns. (5) the teachers Gr. III are required to teach all subjects to the students up to the level of Primary classes, as such, they should have knowledge of all subjects up to the level of Sr. Secondary which is basis qualification for the eligibility and for training course of S.T.C. and B.Ed. while vocational courses are undertaken for preparing the students for a particular trade or vocation. 21. Secondary which is basis qualification for the eligibility and for training course of S.T.C. and B.Ed. while vocational courses are undertaken for preparing the students for a particular trade or vocation. 21. At this juncture I would like to express my serious concern and displeasure to the manner in which a vague and confusing reply to the writ petition has been filed by the Department. Similarly. Additional Affidavit of the Dy. Secretary, in pursuance of directions of this Court given on 24.4.97 seeking clarification on certain facts, is also vague and confusing, far from being precise and to the point. However, un-disputed facts are that the Board of Secondary Education has decided Sr. Secondary (Vocational) to be equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic), and the Education Department of the State Government is also treating both qualifications as equivalent. Candidates passing Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination are eligible to be appointed as teachers Gr. III in the Education Department, treating their qualification to be equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic). Similarly, for higher education, Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination is taken equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) for all purposes. 22. From the reply to the writ petition and depositions made in additional affidavit tiled by the Department, it is clear that question of equivalence has not been examined and decided by the Department of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development after evaluating and assessing the syllabus, courses of the two qualifications etc. The decision has also not been taken on the basis of any opinion of an expert body, rather decision appears to have been taken on a letter written by the Counsel of the Department upon a decision of this Court at Jodhpur. The decision is in the case of Miss. Usha Rani v. Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar and others (S.B.C.W. Petition No. 3638/1993 and Batch decided on 30th September, 1993 . In that case, the petitioners. had passed Higher Secondary (Vocational) Examination in Tailoring from the Board of Secondary Education. They applied for the appointment as teachers Gr. III in pursuance to advertisement No. 1/1993. The contention of the petitioners in that case was that marks obtained by them in Higher Secondary (Vocational) Examination he taken into consideration as per the Circular dated 5.5.93, in which, criteria for the calculation of marks has been given. They applied for the appointment as teachers Gr. III in pursuance to advertisement No. 1/1993. The contention of the petitioners in that case was that marks obtained by them in Higher Secondary (Vocational) Examination he taken into consideration as per the Circular dated 5.5.93, in which, criteria for the calculation of marks has been given. The plea of the respondents, on the other hand, was that qualification of Higher Secondary (Vocational) could not be treated as equivalent to Higher Secondary (General) and marks obtained by petitioners in Higher Secondary (Vocational) could not he taken into consideration as per the Circular. This plea was based on two grounds. Firstly, in Higher Secondary (General) a student was required to pass compulsory subjects of Hindi and English and also to take and qualify in three optional subjects from any of the groups, namely, Commerce, Arts, Home Science, Music and Dancing. Agriculture etc. while in Higher Secondary (Vocational), he was required to take t only three papers relating to a particular type of work or vocational course and passing in two compulsory subjects of Hindi and English was not necessary. Secondly, in the advertisement itself, it was specifically mentioned that Higher Secondary Certificate obtained by a candidate in Crafts will not be taking into consideration for selection. On the basis of these two grounds. the learned Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that Higher Secondary (Vocational) was not equal to Higher Secondary (General). In holding so, the learned Single Judge has categorically observed "the certificate of Higher Secondary (Vocational) Examination cannot he treated as equivalent to Higher Secondary (General) Examination because in Higher Secondary Examination, in general, a student will have to qualify five subjects, i.e. two compulsory and three optional, while in Vocational Course he will have to qualify only in three papers of one subject, and therefore, that cannot be treated as equivalent to Higher Secondary (General). it the marks obtained by the petitioners-Miss. Usha Rani. Jagveer Kaur and Miss. Kamlesh Bishnoi in Hindi and English are taken into consideration, then, the 5 aforesaid percentage of marks will again come down and petitioners Gurnail Kaur & Miss. Shanti Devi have not even cleared the papers of Hindi and English and, therefore, their percentage of marks will he even lesser. Usha Rani. Jagveer Kaur and Miss. Kamlesh Bishnoi in Hindi and English are taken into consideration, then, the 5 aforesaid percentage of marks will again come down and petitioners Gurnail Kaur & Miss. Shanti Devi have not even cleared the papers of Hindi and English and, therefore, their percentage of marks will he even lesser. The Higher Secondary (Vocational) Examination, therefore, cannot be treated as equivalent to Higher Secondary (General), for the purpose of consideration of marks o obtained by them for judging their eligibility." 23. The above decision, in my view, cannot hold good here for more than one reason, namely; (i) the issue before the Court in that case did not relate to equivalence of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) with Sr. Secondary (Academic): (ii) the two grounds on which the decision is based do not exist in the present matters. The learned Single Judge has greatly stressed that in vocational course of Higher Secondary a student was not required to pass compulsory subjects of Hindi and English, but this was not the position in Higher Secondary (Academic) Examination, it has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that here in Sr. Secondary (Vocational) a student has to pass all the three compulsory subjects of Hindi, English and General Foundation Course in addition to three papers of the optional subject. Then, in the Advertisement/Notification in that case it was clearly mentioned that such certificate shall not he taken 15 into consideration for eligibility, while in the instant cases the position is just reverse to it; (iii) the Board of Secondary Education, which is an expert body to decide the question of equivalence, specially in relation to the qualifications, the Courses and syllabus of which are prepared by it for the purpose of ;o studies and examination has categorically decided the question of equivalence of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) with Academic qualification having regard to the courses, syllabus, quality of teaching etc. As stated earlier, such academic matters of education should he left to he decided by Educational bodies, like University and Board having, experties knowledge and the Court should not disturb the decision taken by them in this regard. No such expert opinion was available in Miss. Usha Rani's case (Supra). As stated earlier, such academic matters of education should he left to he decided by Educational bodies, like University and Board having, experties knowledge and the Court should not disturb the decision taken by them in this regard. No such expert opinion was available in Miss. Usha Rani's case (Supra). The contention of Shri Manish Bhandari, the learned counsel for the Department that decision of the Board of Secondary Education on the question of equivalence is for admission purposes to higher studies does not appear to he sound and deserves to he rejected. 24. For my own satisfaction, I have also had it glance through the syllabus and courses taught in Sr. Secondary (Academic) and Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examinations. In Academic Course, a student is required to take compulsory subjects of Hindi and English and also to pass them with minimum 3Y marks. He is further required to take three papers in the subject of particular group, namely; Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture, Home Science and Fine Arts. Ill Fine Arts, he takes only one part out of Dancing and Music, which may he instrumental or vocal music. In Vocational Course also he is required to take three compulsory subjects namely; Hindi, English and General Foundation Course and to pass them with minimum 33% Marks. He is further required to take three papers on the subject of a particular vocation. Prima facie, I fail to understand any logic behind if Sr. Secondary (Music) in academic course is taken sufficient for the eligibility, to deny appointment to a candidate passing Sr. Secondary (Vocational). In reply to the writ petition or in the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Department could not point out any subject which is taught to the students in primary classes but is not studied by it student passing Secondary Examination with five subjects and Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination. It is also pertinent to mention that the Vocational course is of two years like that of Academic Course. Other grounds taken in the additional affidavit to justify the action are wholly irrelevant for decision on the question of equivalence of two qualifications. The full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ram Chandra Swami's case (supra) and of the Supreme Court in Shvamlal Joshi's case (supra) also have no relevance to resolve the controversy. Other grounds taken in the additional affidavit to justify the action are wholly irrelevant for decision on the question of equivalence of two qualifications. The full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ram Chandra Swami's case (supra) and of the Supreme Court in Shvamlal Joshi's case (supra) also have no relevance to resolve the controversy. These judgments relate to equivalence of B.S.W. training course with National Training Certificate given by I.I.T. for teaching in certain specified crafts. In present matters there is no dispute that all the petitioners have completed B.S.TC./S.TC. training course and they are not seeking any equivalence with a training course. Hence, question No. 2 is also decided in favour of the petitioners. 25. Judged from any angle, action of the respondents cannot he held justified. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and it is held that petitioners are eligible to be considered for the appointment as Primary school teachers pursuant to the advertisements issued by the District Establishment Committees. The orders passed by the District Establishment Committees holding them to he ineligible are, hereby, quashed and set aside. The Order/Circular dated 11.4.96 and the order dated 19.11.90 making amendment in the directions dated 20.79)n are also quashed and set aside. The District Establishment Committees in Rajasthan shall prepare fresh merit lists taking the qualification of Secondary School Examination for the eligibility of candidates. Fresh merit lists shall he prepared by them on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in Secondary School Examination, instead of Sr. Secondary. While doing so, persons who have been issued appointment letters and joined before 19.5 97, the date when stay order was passed by this Court, in any Panchayat Sarniti in the State of Rajasthan shall not he disturbed. As the Department has taken vague and vacillating stand, the petitioners shall he entitled to get costs of this litigation, quantified as Rs. 1(XX)/- in each petition.Writ Petition Allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 1000/-. *******