Honble CHAUHAN, J.–In the instant writ petition and in writ petitions shown in the schedule to this judgment, the common question of law is involved and the same impugned order dated 19.8.98, issued by the respondents, is under challenge and, thus, all the petitions are disposed of by the common judgment. (2). All these cases involve the issue of eligibility for appointment of primary school teachers in the Zila Parishads and in Education Department. The mode of appointment in Zila Parishads is governed by the provisions of rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as ` the Rules of 1996). The said Rule, as stood amended up to December,1998, reads as under:- Post Mode of recruitment Eligibility Primary school teacher. 100% by direct recruitment. (I) Senior Secondary under new (10+2) scheme, or Hr.Sec. under old scheme, from Rajasthan Board, or Secondary Education or equivalent and Secondary school certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with 5 subjects, 3 of them shall be Mathematics, English and Hindi. (II) B.S.T.C. Course. (3). In Education Department, the appointments are made under the provisio- ns of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules,1971(hereinafter referred to as ` the Rules of 1971). The provision of Rule 6 of the said Rules, 1971 provides for procedure of direct recruitment in accordance with the Rules and the terms and condition incorporated in the Schedule. The relevant part of the Schedule reads as under:- Post Mode of recruitment Eligibility ``9(a) Teacher; 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by transfer from Panchayat Samities Schools of the district concerned. Senior Secondary Certificate of Board of Secondary Education recognised by Govt. of Rajasthan and Secondary or equivalent exam. recognised by Govt. of Rajasthan with five subjects, three of them should be Mathematics, English and Hindi with Certificate of Teachers Training recognised by the Govt. of Rajasthan. (4). Rule 6 (d) provides that in case of teachers Grade III, vacancies to the extent of 75% in a year shall be filled -in by transfer of teachers working in Panchayat Samities strictly on the basis of seniority and teachers must have served minimum for five years in the Panchayat Samitis satisfactorily and they must possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the post under the Rules of 1971. (5). (5). In Badri Lal and others Versus State or Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil writ petition No. 4390/1998, the issue involved is regarding the eligibility for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III, where in the qualification prescribed is similar as it provides that the post is to be filed-up 100% by direct recruitment and the qualification prescribed for it is Senior Secondary Certificate from Board of Secondary Education recognised by the Government of Rajasthan, and Secondary or equivalent examination recognised by the Government of Rajasthan with five subjects, three of them should be Maths., English and Hindi with certificate in Physical Education. (6). In Tan Singh Versus State of Rajasthan and others, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.36/1999, a similar issue, as in Badri Lal and others (Supra), is involved. However, the petitioner herein had been appointed as Physical Training Instructor Grade III. But the appointment has subsequently been cancelled on the ground that prior to issuing the appointment letter in his favour, the Directorate of Education, vide order dated 1.12.98, had made it clear that a candidate possessing the certificate of Senior Secondary in Vocation would not be eligible for appointment. (7). In all type of cases, for appointment of Teachers Grade III, the qualification of Senior Secondary under 10+2 Scheme alongwith other qualification etc. has been prescribed. However, the controversy in these cases lies in a very narrow compass; whether the candidates holding the certificate of Senior Secondary (Vocational), are eligible to be considered for the said post, or the eligibility requirement is of having the certificate of Senior Secondary (Academic), as prescribed by the impugned order dated 19.8.98? And whether the impugned order dated 19.8.98, which provides that the candidates holding the certificate in Senior Secondary (Vocational) would not be eligible for appointment on the said post, as held by this court, is amenable to judicial scrutiny in writ jurisdiction. (8). The advertisement for the posts, issued on 15.6.98, simply prescribed for the qualification of Senior Secondary without making any reference to ` Academic or `Vocational. (9). The question of equivalence of qualification of the Academic qua the Vocational, has been considered by this court from time to time. In Usha Kumari Versus Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3638/1993, decided on 6.10.93, this court has held that the qualification of Vocational course is not equivalent to the qualification of Academic. (9). The question of equivalence of qualification of the Academic qua the Vocational, has been considered by this court from time to time. In Usha Kumari Versus Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3638/1993, decided on 6.10.93, this court has held that the qualification of Vocational course is not equivalent to the qualification of Academic. The said judgment stood approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Gurmail Kaur Versus Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar and others, S.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 699/1993, decided on 14.11.94. same view has been reiterated in Prem Kala and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1248/1997, decided on 23.5.97. The judgment in Prem Kala, was, also, affirmed by a Division Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 630/1997 (Prem Kala and others Versus State of Rajasthan and others), decided on 17.6.1997. (10). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue involved herein is of a different course, i.e. Senior Secondary and not of Higher Secondary or Secondary. It is further submitted by them that in Higher Secondary (Academic), five papers were to be passed, out of them Hindi and English were compulsory alongwith three optional Subjects; while in Higher Secondary (Vocational), three papers were there in one group e.g. in craft subject, there were no compulsory subjects like Hindi and English and if a student takes Vocational course in Tailoring , he had to pass only three papers in Tailoring, namely, (i) Tailoring and Drapping; (2) Cutting and Sewing; and (3) Orientship. It is entirely different in Senior Secondary Course as in Senior Secondary (Academic), it is compulsory to have five papers, in which Hindi and English are compulsory subjects alongwith three other optional subjects. While in Senior Secondary (Vocational), Hindi and English are compulsory subjects alongwith three optional subjects and in addition, the student has to pass the 6th subject of basic general course, known as Fundamental Course . Thus, unlike Higher Secondary or Secondary, in Senior Secondary, a student having Vocational Course, has to pass six subjects while in Academic course, only five subjects have to be passed. Regarding optional subjects, a large number of subjects have been pointed-out to be common in both the courses. (11). Thus, unlike Higher Secondary or Secondary, in Senior Secondary, a student having Vocational Course, has to pass six subjects while in Academic course, only five subjects have to be passed. Regarding optional subjects, a large number of subjects have been pointed-out to be common in both the courses. (11). According to them, the issue of equivalence at the level of Senior Secondary was considered first time in Vijay Kumar Burdak Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), wherein this court examined all the earlier judgments in Usha Rani Gurmail Kaur and Shyam Lal Joshi, and held that both courses were equivalent. (12). The impugned Order dated 19.8.1998 was passed by the respondents for the Panchayat Samitis and was subsequently followed by the Education Department and such persons have been held to be ineligible for the post. The matter was again agitated before this court (Jaipur Bench) in Dinesh and others Versus State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4992/1998, decided on 1.12.98, wherein the impugned order dated 19.8.98 has been quashed and direction has been issued to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners therein on the basis of the Vocational Certificate. (13). It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent to that judgment, the office of the Director, Primary Education, Bikaner, has issued Circular dated 7.1.99 wherein after giving reference of all the judgments of the Court it provides that this court has not recognised the Senior Secondary (Vocational) equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) and, thus,such persons are not eligible for appointment on the said post. However, the certificate of Senior Secondary (Vocational) would make them eligible for admission in S.T.C. Course. It has not been particularly mentioned in that Circular as in which of the judgments the Court has decided that the qualification of Vocational was not treated equivalent to that of Academic, so far as Senior Secondary Course was concerned. In earlier judgments, the issue of Secondary or Higher Secondary Certificate in Vocational qua Academic was involved. Vijay Kumar Burdak was the only case wherein the issue had been considered thoroughly. (14). It has further been contended that under the Rules of 1996,the qualification, as referred to above, does not empower the competent Authority or even the State Government to issue any clarification or grant any recognition. Vijay Kumar Burdak was the only case wherein the issue had been considered thoroughly. (14). It has further been contended that under the Rules of 1996,the qualification, as referred to above, does not empower the competent Authority or even the State Government to issue any clarification or grant any recognition. It is only provided in Rules of 1971 and once the Legislature has made this conscious departure, it is not permissible for the respondents to clarify/decide the issue of re- cognition of equivalence. The Legislature, in its wisdom,has treated both the qualifications equal and it can be made unequal only by making amendment in the Rules by the competent Legislature and if the Authorities have misunderstood the law or judgments of this court, that would not make the petitioners ineligible for the said post and once the State Government has asked a competent Board to go into the issue and it submitted its report, there was no ambiguity before the respondents to clarify or to issue any circular/order providing for the contrary. (15). It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioners that Vocational Certificate makes the students eligible for admission in University and other Cour- ses and after Graduation etc. they become eligible for direct recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade II in 50% quota, and it will be unjust and arbitrary if the persons possessing the Vocational Certificate are found ineligible to be considered for the post of Teacher Grade III which ultimately constitute the feeding cadre for 50% quote to be filled-up by promotion on the post of Teacher Grade II and it would be contrary to any rational/ logic. (16). To fortify submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharastra and others vs. Association of Maharastra Education Service (2), wherein it has been held that mis-understanding the scheme of law on the part of Authority would not deprive the eligible candidates from the right of being considered for appointment and the Authority cannot be permitted to say that it was bound to enforce the scheme as it had misunderstood it. The authority must decide the case in accordance with the relevant rules and procedure in correct perspective. (17). The authority must decide the case in accordance with the relevant rules and procedure in correct perspective. (17). Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment in Jani Bai vs. State of Rajasthan (3), wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that the power should be exercised strictly in accordance with law and going beyond it would result in discrimination and would also be arbitrary. In that case the Rules provided that the eldest son would be entitled for allotment of land under the provisions of the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area Rules, 1974. The Court held that the word `son occurring in the Rules, has to be read as an issue to include both male and female child to avoid discrimination and such an interpretation was found by this Court necessary otherwise the Rules could have been declared ultra-vires being violative of equality clause enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution. (18). The principles of interpretation require that the words of statute should never been added to or substracted from without almost a necessity. (Vide Shyam Kishori Devi vs. Patna Municipal State of Rajasthan & Ors. (4). (19). Thus, in view of the above, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government has not amended the Rules in this respect though the Rules have undergone changes from time to time and the Rules of 1996 were again amended in 1998. The Rules of 1971 have, also, been amended but the Legislature, which was fully aware of the controversy involved in these cases and the judgments of this Court delivered from time to time, did not consider it proper to make such a distinction by amendment of the Rules and, thus, the petitions deserve to be allowed and they sought the direction of this court to the respondents to assess the suitability of the petitioners who possess the Certification of Vocational Course for the said post. (20). On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Singhvi and Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. (20). On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Singhvi and Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been submitted by them that the Vocational qualification had been introduced in 1986 for a certain period for the purpose that after completing the training in the particular trades, a candidate may be able to earn the livelihood soon after completing the Vocational Course, in pursuance of the policy known as Vocational policy on Education, 1986 under the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Govt. of India, and it provided for imparting training in 17 different trades mentioned therein (Annexure R.2). (21). On the basis of the above, it has been submitted that this court must take into account the purpose, for which the Vocational Course had been started and as the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification in academic course, they cannot be held eligible for the post. According to them, this Court, has consi- dered this aspect earlier in various cases and held that the candidates possessing the Certificate in Higher Secondary (Vocational)were not eligible for the post. (22). I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (23). To understand the controversy, it is necessary to quote the relevant part of the Vocational policy adopted in 1986 which runs as under:- The Senior Secondary Vocational Programme aims to develop skilled man power through diversified courses to meet the requirement mainly the unorganized Sector and to prepare people for the unorganised sector and to prepare people for the world of work in general through a large number of self-employment oriented courses, not precluding wage employment orientation of many others. Though di- versification into production and service oriented courses, it is desired to reduce the aimless persuit of higher education and there by reduce pressure from the theo- ritical education. There are more than 150 courses in different States which are gro- uped under the major area of Agriculture, Business & Commerce, Engineering and Technology, Health and para-medical medicine, Home Science and Humanities. It does not consist of theory and practical relating to the Vocational field, re- lated subject, Language and general foundation studies which include entranceship. (24). It further provided for different kind of training in a particular trade. It does not consist of theory and practical relating to the Vocational field, re- lated subject, Language and general foundation studies which include entranceship. (24). It further provided for different kind of training in a particular trade. It further provided that in Senior Secondary (Vocational), the Students who failed in 12th Standard, may also be eligible to get admission and he has to take three compulsory subjects, namely, Hindi, English and Fundamental Course and choose one of the optional subjects from 17 subjects provided therein, which included Gar- dening, Co-operative, Sericulture, Repairing of Radio and Television Instruments and their maintainability, office Arrangement, Photography, Textiles Designing, Commercial Art and Computer Education etc. Moreover, it provided that Vocational Course was not permissible to be passed privately which was permissible in Academic course for the reason that it was based on practical training rather than theoritical course as it provided for the technical and Vocational education multi-Sectoral in nature. Thus, the very purpose of imparting the Vocational Education was to make a person ready for self-employment or get an employment in particular trade, in which he possesses the skill. (25). In Dinesh and others (supra), the Court proceeded with the presumption that the order dated 19.8.98 tentamounts to amendment of the statutory Rules and reached the conclusion that the Statutory Rules cannot be amended by executive instructions. The Court observed as under:- ``(1) According to rule 266 of the Rules, a recruit who possesses Senior Secondary Certificate with B.S.T.C. Course is eligible to be considered as Primary School teacher. Rule 266 does not deal differently the Vocational and Academic Certificates of Senior Secondary Examination; (2) There is no conflict in rule 266 warranting clarification through any administrative order; (3) The State Government may take or amend the rule by modification in the existing rule consistent with the Act but the eligibility condition incorporated in rule 266 cannot be varied or amended without taking recourse to Section 102 of the Act of 1994 which provides for amendment; and (4) The Rules of 1996 were amended in 1998 and the Legislature was conscious of the quality of the primary school teachers and nothing could prevent the Legislature to amend the rules by providing that candidate having Vocational Certificate would not be eligible. (26). Undoubtedly, the executive instructions cannot over-ride the statutory Rules nor the statutory Rules can be amended by executive instructions. (26). Undoubtedly, the executive instructions cannot over-ride the statutory Rules nor the statutory Rules can be amended by executive instructions. (Vide B.M. Nagrajan vs. State of Mysore (5); and Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and others (6). (27). In fact, the impugned order dated19.8.98 cannot be said to be an amend- ment even by stretch of imagination. It was meant merely for information to the concerned authorities about the judgments of this court for their enforcement/implementation. Issuing such a circular/order directing the authorities to implement the order of court of law cannot be said to be an amendment of the Statutory Rules. Therefore, that judgment is with all due respects to my esteemed brother Sharma. J., is of no assistance to the petitioners. The impugned order dated 19.8.98 is an order passed consequent to the judgments and orders of this court. I am at complete loss to understand as how these petitions can be entertained for the reason that a judicial order can be challenged only in appeal and it can never be amenable to judicial review in writ jurisdiction. (Vide Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharastra and others (7). Entertaining these petitions would amount to sitting in appeal against the earlier judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, and such an action, undoubtedly, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. (28). In Ram Chandra Swami vs. State of Rajasthan (8), this court placed reliance upon Ramsukh vs. State of Rajasthan and others (9), wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- ``The job that a primary school teacher is to teach tiny-tots in the primary schools of the villages as per the prescribed syllabus and not to teach art, handicraft or any trade. They are not taught there. The candidates holding State Trade Certificate (S.T.C.) were not equiva- lent to Basic School Training Certificate and were not eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III. (29). Similarly, in State of Rajasthan vs. Shyam Lal Joshi (10), the Apex Court has held that the persons possessing National Trade Certificates were not eligible to be appointed as General Teachers in primary schools. (30). While deciding the case in Vijay Kumar Burdak (supra), the court framed one of the issues as under:- ``Whether Senior Secondary (Vocational) qualification is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) of the Board ? (31). (30). While deciding the case in Vijay Kumar Burdak (supra), the court framed one of the issues as under:- ``Whether Senior Secondary (Vocational) qualification is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) of the Board ? (31). The court examined this issue analytically and elaborately and took note of the fact that under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957, the Government, vide letter dated 16.3.94, constituted a special body for evaluation of the two courses and the said Body examined the issue of equivalence and vide its Resolution dated 1.8.94 decided both the qualifications to be equivalent. The court further compared the syllabus of both the courses and noticed that the qua- lification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) makes a student eligible for admission in B.S.T.C./ S.T.C. and held that both the qualifications were equivalent and a candidate having certificate of Senior Secondary (Vocational) was eligible to be appointed on the post in question or in a Degree course for higher studies. (32). The court distinguished the earlier judgments in Usha Rani and Gurmail Kaur on the following grounds:- `(i) The issue before the Court in that case did not relate to equivalence of Senior Secondary (Vocational) with Senior 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 the petitioners that here in Senior 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 optional subjects. Then, in the Advertisement/Notification in that case,it was clearly mentio- ned that such certificate shall not be taken into consideration for eligibility, while 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 course and the syllabus of which are prepared by it for the purpose of studies and examination, has categorically decided the question of equivalence of Senior Secondary (Vocational) with Academic qualification having regard to the courses, syllabus quality of teaching etc. As stated earlier, such academic matters of education should be left to be decided by the Educational Bodies, like University and Board having expertise knowledge and the court should not disturb the decision taken by them in this regard. No such expert opinion was available in Miss Usha Ranis 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 be sound and deserves to be rejected. (iv). For my own satisfaction, I have also had a glance through the syllabus and courses taught in Senior Secondary (Academic) and Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examinations. In Academic Courts, a student is required to take compulsory subjects of Hindi and English and also to pass them with minimum 33% marks. He is further required to take three papers in the subject of a particular group, namely, Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture, Home Science and Fine Arts. In fine Arts, he takes only one part out of Dancing and Music, which may be instrumental or vocal music. In vocational course also, he is required to take three compulsory subject, 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 Senior Secondary (Music) in academic course is taken sufficient for the eligibility, to deny appointment to a candidate passing Senior 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 a student passing Secondary Examination with five subjects and Senior 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 deci- sion on the question of equivalence of two qualifications. The Full Bench judgment of this court in Ram Chandra Swamis case (supra) and of the Supreme Court in Shyam Lal Joshis 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 deci- sion on the question of equivalence of two qualifications. The Full Bench judgment of this court in Ram Chandra Swamis case (supra) and of the Supreme Court in Shyam Lal Joshis case (supra) also have no relevance to resolve the controversy. These judgments relate to equivalence of B.S.T.C. Training Course with National Training Certi- ficate given by T.T.T. for teaching in certain specified crafts. in present matters there is no dispute that all the petitioners have completed B.S.T.C. /S.T.C. Training Course and they are not seeking any equivalence with a training course. Hence, question No.1 is also decided in favour of the petitioners. (33). On being challenged before the Division Bench in Rajpal Singh (Supra), the judgment in Vijay Kumar Burdak was modified, however, the issue of equivalence was not considered by the Division Bench, rather it affirmed the view taken by the Division Bench of this court earlier in the above-referred cases as the court observed as under:- ``The equivalence of vocational and academic certificates have already come for consideration before this court in two different matters. The Division Bench of this court, in Gurmail Kaur............... with other three connected appeals and in case of Prem Kala and others have held that the certificate of Vocational cannot be treated as equivalent to that of the certificate of academic. (34). In Usha Rani (supra), the court did not recognize the Vocational qualification for the said post for the following reasons:- ``The Higher Secondary (Vocational) Course gives educational training to the students which provides a working experience in a particular occupational trade. A training in a specific occupation, skill or trade though it is a composition of theoritical teacher and practical experience by a special institution, are given with a view to provide gainful employment soon after completion of the course. The students who take these Vocational courses are given instruction or guidance in a particular occupation or vocation which will choose a career. (35). The students who take these Vocational courses are given instruction or guidance in a particular occupation or vocation which will choose a career. (35). The reasoning given in Usha Rani had been approved by the Division Bench of this Court in Gurmail Kaur (supra), wherein the reliance had also been placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this court in Ram Chandra Swami(supra), and it was held that a person having the training in a particular trade, as Smt. Gurmail Kaur was having the training in Tailoring, Grafting and Cutting & Orienticeship, could not be held eligible for the post of Teacher grade III. The candidates possessing the Vocational Certificate may be eligible for the post if available any where in a trade in which they acquired the special skill but they are not eligible to be considered for the post of Teacher Grade III either in the Panchayat Samiti or in the Education Department. (36). The reasoning given in Usha Rani and Gurmail Kaur had subsequently been followed by this court in Prem Kala (supra) by the learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench. What had been followed therein was that the Voca- tional Certificate is meant for self-employment generally and as there are no voca- tional classes in the primary schools, such persons possessing the certificate in Vo- cational Course cannot be held eligible for being appointed as Teacher Grade III. (37). In Prem Kala, the issue involved was the equivalence of the Senior Secondary (Academic) qua the Senior Secondary (Vocational) exactly the issue involved here in these petitions. The court was taken through the petition filed by Prem Kala and others, wherein instead of mentioning the qualification of Senior Secondary, it had wrongly been referred to through-out the petition as of Senior Higher Secondary (Vocational). There is no such course available and what the petitioners meant and the opposite parties and this court had understood, was the course of Senior Secondary (Vocational) and following the reasoning given in Usha Rani and Gurmail Kaur, the petition was rejected and the judgment of the learned single Judge stood up-held by the Division Bench. (38). There is no such course available and what the petitioners meant and the opposite parties and this court had understood, was the course of Senior Secondary (Vocational) and following the reasoning given in Usha Rani and Gurmail Kaur, the petition was rejected and the judgment of the learned single Judge stood up-held by the Division Bench. (38). Moreover, mentioning the qualification of Senior Higher Secondary in the judgment of Prem Kala cannot give rise to any argument as the parties as well as the this court had understood it in correct perspective.(Vide Ram Narain Arora vs. Asha Rani and others (11). (39). The reasoning given in Vijay Kumar Burdak (supra) that earlier the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) had never been considered, is not factually correct. In fact, the judgment in Prem Kala had not been brought to the notice of the court. Prem Kala was definitely a case where the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) was involved and once it had been decided consid- ering the purpose of imparting Vocational Education that such candidates were not eligible to be appointed as Teacher Grade III,the judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as the the Division Bench in Prem Kala, are binding on me. (40). In Vijay Kumar Burdak, the learned Single Judge had unnecessarily laboured to find-out whether both the courses were equivalent, as it is settled pro- position of law that the issue of equivalence must be determined by a Body having composition of Members having special knowledge and expertise in the subject and it is completely prohibited for the court to probe into the issue. (Vide Indian Medical Association, Jabalpur vs. Silas Nelson (12) and Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University & Ors. (13). Similarly, in Ram Chandra Swami (Supra), the full Bench of this court came to the conclusion that the court cannot examine and decide the academic and technical questions about the equivalence of court to enter into the area which is reserved for Expert Bodies. (41). (13). Similarly, in Ram Chandra Swami (Supra), the full Bench of this court came to the conclusion that the court cannot examine and decide the academic and technical questions about the equivalence of court to enter into the area which is reserved for Expert Bodies. (41). Thus, the judgments of the learned single Judges In Vijay Kumar Burdak and Dinesh and others have been given per incuriam as the judgment in Prem Kala by the learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench have not been brought to the notice of the court while deciding Vijay Kumar Burdak (supra) and Dinesh and others, has been decided entirely on a different presumption and that too without considering the maintainability of the writ petitions. Thus, the matter cannot be said to have been decided in right perspective in the said cases and the judgments cannot be said to have any binding effect. (42). The doctrine of `per incuriam has been considered and applied from time to time by the courts. In M/s. Tourist Guide Service vs. B.D.Harsha (14), this court placed reliance upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Mamleshwar Prasad and another vs. Kanhaiya Lal (15); and A.R. Antuley vs. R.S. Nayak (16), and held that if a judgment is rendered in ignorance of the statutory provisions, it must be held as per incurium and it cannot have any binding effect. In A.R. Antuley (Supra), the Apex Court observed as under:- ``Per incurium are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provisions or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found on that account to be demonstrably wrong. (43). Similar view has been reiterated by the constitution Bench of the Apex court in Punjab Land Development and Reclaimation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh (17). (44). In State of U.P. and another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and another (18), the Honble Supreme Court has elaborately examined the doctrine of per incuriam and observed as under:- ``Incuriam literally means`carelessness - In practice per incuriam appears of to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. (44). In State of U.P. and another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and another (18), the Honble Supreme Court has elaborately examined the doctrine of per incuriam and observed as under:- ``Incuriam literally means`carelessness - In practice per incuriam appears of to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The ` quotable in law is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, `in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority..... Same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law. In Jaisri Sahu Versus Rajdewan Dubey, AIR 1962 SC 83 , this court while pointing out the procedure to be followed when conflicting decisions are placed before a bench extracted a passage from Halsburys Laws of England incorporating one of the Exceptions when the decision of an appellate court is not binding. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In other words, can such conclusions be considered as declaration of law? Here again the English courts and jurists have carved out an exception to the rule of precedents. It has been explained as rule sub-silentio. `A decision passes Sub-silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind (Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edition p.153). In lanscastel motor company (London) Ltd. vs. Bremith Ltd. (1941 2 All Er 11), the court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered `without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority. It was approved by this court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur ( 1989 (1) SCC 101 ). The Bench held that `precedents sub-silentio and without argument are of no moment. The courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents., A decision which is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. The courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents., A decision which is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without any occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B.Shama Rao vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry ( AIR 1967 SC 1480 ), it was observed, `it is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the principles, laid down therein. Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law authority of a general nature binding as a pre- cedent. Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law. (45). In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment in Vijay Kumar Burdak (supra) and Dinesh and others (supra) were given per incu- riam as the judgment in Prem Kala (supra) had not been brought to the notice of the Court while deciding Vijay Kumar Burdak and Dinesh and others has been decided on a ground which did not exist at all. The judgments in Prem Kala by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench have been delivered on the reasoning given by the Division Bench of this Court in Gurmail Kaur (supra) based on various judgments of the Supreme Court holding that the Vocational Education was imparted to make a person efficient for self-employment and, thus, cannot make the candidate possessing the certificate of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) eligible for the post of Teacher Grade III and this view is supported by the object and reasoning provided for Vocational Education in Vocational policy started in 1986. The impugned order dated 19.8.98, being a consequential order of the judicial pro- nouncements of this court, is not ameanable to judicial review in writ jurisdiction. (46). In view of the above, the petitions are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. Interim orders passed earlier stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.