D. P. MOHAPATRA, CJ. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the appellants, who hold certificates of training of physical education (C. P. Ed, for short), are entitled to relaxation of the maximum age prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for appointment to the post of Assistant Master in basic Schools under the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Azamgarh. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, may be stated thus : in pursuance of the advertisement published in the daily newspaper, Dainik Jagran dated 27. 11. 1993 published from Gorakhpur (Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the stay petition) inviting applications for the post of Assistant Masters for Primary Basic Schools controlled by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, the appellants, who held C. P. Ed, certificates, submitted their applications. They were called to the interview held on 6th and 7th of December, 1993 along with other candidates. From the candidates holding C. P. Ed. certificates called to the interview, 56 were issued appointment orders, but the appellants were denied appointment on the ground that they were age-barred. Being aggrieved by the action of the Basic shiksha Adhikari, Azamgarh, excluding them from selection for the post, they filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15231 of 1996 contending, inter alia, that they were entitled to relaxation of the maximum age upto 50 years, which is applicable to candidates holding Basic Teachers training Certificate (B. T. C. for short) since the State Government has taken a policy decision to recognise C. P. Ed, as equivalent to B. T. C. for the purpose of eligibility qualification for appointment as Assistant Master in a Basic School. The learned single Judge by his judgment/order dated 1. 5. 1996 rejected the contention raised by the appellants and dismissed the writ petition. The said judgment/order is assailed in this appeal. ( 3 ) RULE 6 of the Rules, which prescribes the maximum age of candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Master, reads as follows : "6. The learned single Judge by his judgment/order dated 1. 5. 1996 rejected the contention raised by the appellants and dismissed the writ petition. The said judgment/order is assailed in this appeal. ( 3 ) RULE 6 of the Rules, which prescribes the maximum age of candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Master, reads as follows : "6. Age.--A candidate for recruitment to any post referred to in clause (a) or proviso to clause (b) of Rule 5, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have attained the age of more than thirty two years on the first day of July following the year in which the vacancy is notified : provided that the upper age-limit shall, in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and dependants of freedom fighters, be greater by five years or as provided by the State Government from time to time : provided further that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of Basic Schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non-availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained unappointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment. " Rule 8 which prescribes the academic qualification essential for candidates seeking appointment to the post, so far as relevant for the purpose of the case, reads as follows :"8. Academic qualifications.-- (1) the essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in clause (a) of Rule 5 shall be as shown below against each : post Academic qualifications mistress of Nursery Certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from a (i) Schools. recognised training institution In Uttar pradesh or any other training qualification recognised by the State (ii)Assistant Master and assistant Mistress of junior Basic Schools. Board of High School and Intermediate education. Uttar Pradesh or any other qualification recognised by the State government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting ofcertificate of Teaching or any other training course recognised by the State government as equivalent thereto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 4 ) IN support of their contention that C. P. Ed. is recognised as equivalent to B. T. C. , the appellants relied on the order of the Director of Education (Basic) and President of Basic shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, dated 1. 1. 1993 (Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the stay petition) in which it is declared, inter alia, that C. P. Ed, trained candidates are eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers/teachers in the Schools controlled by the Basic Shiksha parishad like the B. T. C. trained candidates. The case of the appellants is that since the qualification possessed by them, i. e. , C. P. Ed, is recognised as equivalent to the B. T. C. training qualification and they are eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Master, they are also entitled to the benefit of age relaxation upto 50 years as in the case of B. T. C. candidates as provided in the second proviso to Rule 6. ( 5 ) THE case of the Basic Shiksha Parishad is that though candidates having C. P. Ed, training qualification are eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Master), but they have not been equated with holders of B. T. C. qualification in all respects, which position is clear from the order of the Director of Education (Basic) vide Annexure-2 in which it is stated, inter alia, that such candidates on appointment shall get salary admissible to untrained teachers and will get the scale of pay admissible for trained teachers only on acquiring the qualification of Basic teachers Training (B. T. C. ). ( 6 ) ON the case of the parties as discussed above, the question formulated earlier arises for consideration. ( 7 ) ON a fair reading of the provision in the second proviso to Rule 6 and the order of the Director of Education (Basic) vide Annexure-2, it is clear to us that C. P. Ed. qualification has not been made equivalent to B. T. C. qualification. All that has been provided in the Directors order vide annexure-2 is that candidates possessing C. P. Ed. qualification has not been made equivalent to B. T. C. qualification. All that has been provided in the Directors order vide annexure-2 is that candidates possessing C. P. Ed. qualification are also eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers of Junior Basic Schools like candidates holding B. T. C. training qualification, but they will receive salary as untrained teachers till they acquire the training prescribed for teachers of Basic Schools i. e. , B. T. C. To put it differently, candidates holding b. T. C. qualification hold certificate of Teachers Training : whereas candidates having C. P. Ed, qualification do not possess such qualification. They are trained only for the post of Physical training Instructor. ( 8 ) COMING to the question of relaxation of the maximum age prescribed, the second proviso to rule 6 specifically provides that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of Basic Schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non-availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained unappointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment. From the provision, the position is manifest that relaxation of the age is available only to candidates who have successfully completed a course of training prescribed for teachers of Basic Schools and not to candidates who do not possess such qualification. In all probability, the intent and purpose behind the age relaxation in the second proviso is to accommodate a candidate who was trained for appointment as teacher of Basic School and was qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher but could not be considered for want of vacancy in the post. The appellants do not possess any qualification of training meant for teachers of basic Schools. They have been made eligible for appointment in the post as untrained teachers by the order of the Director of Education (Basic) Annexure-2 followed by the Government Order dated 23. 3. 1995. In that view of the matter, the appellants were rightly held to be age-barred for appointment as Assistant Teachers of Basic Schools under Rule 6 of the Rules. The impugned order is, therefore, unassailable. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. .