Honble PATIL, CJ.–The subject matter of these appeals is the Circular dated, 19.8.98 issued by the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Jaipur, clarifying the eligibility clause of the advertisement for appointment to the post of Primary School Teachers Gr. III, to the effect that qualification of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) is not equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic). (2). These two appeals are filed by the State of Rajasthan and Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu, aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated, 1.12.98 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4726 and Writ Petition No. 5086/98 by which aforementioned circular dated, 19.8.98 was quashed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the said writ petitions. (3). For convenience, in this judgment, we shall refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the writ petitions. (4). The petitioners in the writ petitions sought for a declaration that the impugned Circular dated, 19.8.98 as illegal and arbitrary, the same be quashed and that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioners to be eligible for appoi- ntment on the post of Primary School Teacher in terms of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996. The further prayer was to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Primary School Teachers in terms of the Advertisement dated, 16.6.98 in order of their merits. (5). The further prayer was to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Primary School Teachers in terms of the Advertisement dated, 16.6.98 in order of their merits. (5). The Circular dated, 19.8.98, the validly of which is called in question in the writ petitions reads thus: jktLFkku ljdkj xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx Øekd % 139¼14-2½xzkfoi@fk{kk@fu;qfDr@96@1350 t;iqj fn- 19-8-98 eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh ,oa lfpo ftyk ifj"kn ¼leLr½ fo"k; % lhfu;j lSds.Mjh ¼O;klokf;d½ ijh{kk] lhfu;j lSds- ¼vdknfed½ ijh{kk ds led{k u gksus ds ckj esaA mijksDr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk xbZ fuf.kZr fd;k x;k gS fd lhfu;j lSds.Mjh ¼O;kolkf;d½ ijh{kk] lhfu;j lSdS.Mjh ¼vdknfed½ ijh{kk ds led{k ugha gSA foHkkx }kjk fof/k foHkkx dh jk; izkIr djds ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd o"kZ 1998-99 esa r`rh; Js.kh v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq tks foKkiu tkjh fd;k x;k gS] mlds vUrxZr izkIr vkosnu i=ksa esa lhfu;j lSdS.Mjh ¼O;kolkf;d½ dks lhfu;j lSdS.Mjh ¼vdknfed½ os led{k ugha ekuk tkos rkfd fdlh rjg ds fookn mRiUu u gksA bl vknsk dh dM+kbZ ls ikyuk dh tkosA g-@& funskd ,oa fofk"B kklu lfpo xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx] jkt- t;iqjA The English translation of the same is as follows: ``GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT. S.N.F. 139(14-2) GVP/Edu./Appointment/96/1350 Jaipur dt. 19.8.98 Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad (All.) Subject : Regarding Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examination be- ing not treated as equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) Examination. On the above subject since this decision has been taken by the Honble High Court that Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examination is not equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) Examination. The- refore, after having consultations with Law Department, this has been decided by the Department that while scrutinising the applications which have been received in pursuance to advertisement issued for appointment of III grade teachers, Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination may not be treated as equivalent to Senior Secondary (Acade- mic) Examination so that no controversy of any kind may arise in the matter. This order may be strictly followed. sd/- Director and Special Secretary Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Raj. Jaipur. (6). Briefly stated, the facts as can be gathered from the writ petitions and leading to the filing of these appeals are the following: (7). The petitioners qualified their Secondary, Sr. This order may be strictly followed. sd/- Director and Special Secretary Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Raj. Jaipur. (6). Briefly stated, the facts as can be gathered from the writ petitions and leading to the filing of these appeals are the following: (7). The petitioners qualified their Secondary, Sr. Secondary (Vocational) and thereafter, B.S.T.C. Course and became eligible for appointment for the post of Primary School Teacher under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 (for short the Rules). The petitioners fulfilled the eligibility conditions as per Rules 266, but the respondents are not considering them to be eligible on the ground that a deci- sion has been taken and the impugned Circular dated, 19.8.98 was accordingly issued informing that for the year 1998-99, Sr. Secondary Academic is not being considered to be equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Vocational). As such, the candidature of persons like the petitioners, who possess qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) are not being considered to be eligible for appointment to the post of Teachers under the Rules. (8). That the respondent No. 2 issued an Advertisement dated 16.6.98 to fill up that posts of Primary School Teachers. The petitioners being eligible in terms of the Advertisement dated, 16.6.98, submitted their application forms for consideration of their candidature for the post of Primary School Teachers. (7). That an amendment was made so far as the qualification to the post of Primary School Teacher is concerned vide Notification dated, 7.5.98. To the extent, the amendment is relevant is to the following effect. ``GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPTT. (3) PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER (100% BY DIRECT RECRUITMENT. (1) Senior Secondary under new (10+2) scheme or Higher Secondary under old Scheme from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Educations 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. (10). According to the petitioners, as per the said amendment, the qualification required for appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher is that of Senior Secondary (10+2) or Higher Secondary or equivalent under the old scheme and Secondary School Examination with five subjects, out of which three must be, Hindi, English and Mathematics. (ii) B.S.T.C. Course. (10). According to the petitioners, as per the said amendment, the qualification required for appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher is that of Senior Secondary (10+2) or Higher Secondary or equivalent under the old scheme and Secondary School Examination with five subjects, out of which three must be, Hindi, English and Mathematics. No distinction has been made in the rule in respect of the candidates having qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) or (Academic) and so far as Senior Secondary is concerned, it could be either Vocational or Academic in all respects as per the letter of the Board of Secondary Education dated, 1.8.96. According to the petitioners, having regard to the rules the impugned Circular dated, 19.8.98 is arbitrary and illegal and validity of the same was questioned in the writ petitions on the grounds that the impugned Circular dated, 19.8.98 is contrary to the Circular dated, 1.8.96 issued by the Board of Secondary Education. The rule making authority has not made any distinction in any manner as far as the Academic and Vocational is concerned; it is in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; after acquiring qualification of Senior Secondary, which is a minimum qualification for admission to B.S.T.C. course, the petitioners were considered to be eligible for the said course and the impugned Circular is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. The respondents are mis-interpreting the rules. When the rule does not distinguish between Sr. Secondary (Academic) and Sr. Secondary (Vocational), the impugned Circular cannot be sustained which runs contrary to the rules. (11). The respondents have filed reply opposing the writ petition. According to the respondents, the petitioners possessing the qualification of Secondary, Seni- or Secondary (Vocational) and thereafter, BSTC are not eligible for appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher under the rules as the qualification of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) has not been treated as equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the rules. They do not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per Rule-266 of the Rules and as such, the petitioners have not been rightly considered for appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher in view of the Circular dated, 19.8.98 issued under the provisions of Rule 273 of the Rules. They do not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per Rule-266 of the Rules and as such, the petitioners have not been rightly considered for appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher in view of the Circular dated, 19.8.98 issued under the provisions of Rule 273 of the Rules. The said impugned Circular dated, 19.8.98 has been issued as per the directions given in various judg- ments of this Court, namely; Gurmail Kaur vs. Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar (1), Prem Kala vs. State and others (2), Rajpal Singh and others vs. Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayat Raj Vibhag, Jaipur and others (3). Reference to the judgment is also made in the impugned Circular. This Court has decided that for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. The qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is not to be treated equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic). To resolve the controversy the said circular issued in the interest of public at large. Thus, the petitioners having qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) are not eligible under the provisions of the Rules. The petitioners applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III in Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu and their names have been shown in the provisio- nal merit list because of the interim order dated, 25.9.97 issued by this Court in the case of Rajpal Singh vs. Director Gramin Vikas and Panchayat Raj Vibhag (supra). By the said interim order, the Court directed to consider the persons possessing the qualification of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) subject to the decision in the case and the judgment in that case was pronounced on 13.5.98. It is, thereafter, having regard to the various judgments of this Court and after considering at various levels, the impugned circular dated, 19.8.98 was issued. It is the further case of the respondents that the eligibility shown in the Advertisement dated, 16.6.98 was only clarified by the impugned Circular dated, 19.8.98 and it was within the competence of the State Government as held in number of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well as this Court. It is the further case of the respondents that the eligibility shown in the Advertisement dated, 16.6.98 was only clarified by the impugned Circular dated, 19.8.98 and it was within the competence of the State Government as held in number of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well as this Court. In short and substance, according to the respondents, the impugned circular was perfectly valid and justified and it is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; the said circular is only clarificatory based on the judgments of this Court and there is no question of amending any rule and it is also not contrary to rule-266 of the Rules. Thus, the respondents have pra- yed for dismissal of the writ petition. (12). The learned Advocate General for the appellants submitted that: (i) the impugned circular dated, 19.8.98 is only clarificatory based on the earlier judgments of this Court to the effect that the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is not equivalent to Senior Secon- dary (Academic). (ii) A learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in the principal seat, Jodhpur has dismissed a similar S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3445/98, in which the same impugned Circular dated, 19.8.98 was challenged, taking note of the earlier judgments of this Court. According to the learned Advocate General, the controversy raised in the present writ petitions was already resolved and concluded by earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court holding that the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) was not equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) for the purpose of appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher; hence, the impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge in these appeals cannot be sustained. (iii) The observations made in Rajpal Singhs case referred to in Para-13 of the impugned common judgment under appeal cannot hold good in relation to the Circular dated, 19.8.1998. In as much as, those observations were in relation to the amending and prescribing minimum qualification by the circular without amending the rule. (13). Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, argued in support and justification of the impugned judgment and order under appeals. In as much as, those observations were in relation to the amending and prescribing minimum qualification by the circular without amending the rule. (13). Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, argued in support and justification of the impugned judgment and order under appeals. They contended, (i) by the impugned circular dated, 19.8.98, the respondents could not amend the rule 266 prescribing the qualification; an attempt is made to bring a distinction between the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) and Senior Secondary (Academic) when no such distinction is made by the rule itself. Hence, the said circular cannot over-ride the rule and it being contrary to the rule, the lear- ned Single Judge was right in quashing the same. (ii) Having regard to the subjects studied by the writ petitioners in qualifying Senior Secondary (Vocational), they are eligible for appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher, particularly so, when the same qualification was considered equivalent for the purpose of admission to BSTC course and other courses in University. (iii) The observations made in Para-13 of the impugned judgment referring to Rajpal Singhs case clearly apply to the facts of the case in hand to quash the impugned circular dated, 19.8.98. (14). We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned cou- nsel for the parties. (15). The learned Single Judge in his order dated, 19.2.99 made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3445/98 has referred to various decisions of this Court having bearing on the controversy raised in these appeals. By the said order, he dismissed the writ petition in which the validity of the very same circular dated, 19.8.98 was questioned. Thus, we have two conflicting judgments of two learned Single Judges as to the validity of the said Circular dated, 19.8.98. In the Advertisement dated 16.6.98 inviting applications for filling the posts of Primary School Teachers reference to qualification is Senior Secondary and without specifying `Academic or `Vocational. On earlier occasion, the questions came up before this Court as to the equivalence of qualifications, the Academic vis-a-vis Vocational. (16). In Usha Kumari vs. Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar (4), it was held that the qualification of vocational course is not equivalent to the qualification of academic. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was approved and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.699/93 on 41.11.94. (16). In Usha Kumari vs. Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar (4), it was held that the qualification of vocational course is not equivalent to the qualification of academic. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was approved and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.699/93 on 41.11.94. Simi- lar view was reiterated in Prem Kala vs. State of Rajasthan (5). This judgment was also affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 17.6.97. (17). Learned counsel for the respondents sought to distinguish these decisions stating that the issue involved herein relates to the Senior Secondary and not to Higher Secondary or Secondary and they also referred to various subjects studied in the Senior Secondary (Academic) and the Senior Secondary (Vocational) and contended that having regard to the fact that the Senior Secondary (Vocational) course also included subjects like Hindi and English, the writ petitioners could not be considered as ineligible for appointment. According to them, the issue of equivalence at the level of Senior Secondary was considered first time in the case of Vijay Kumar Burdak vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (6), and this Court after referring to the earlier judgments in cases of Usha Rani, Gurmail Kaur and Shyam Lal Joshi held that both the courses were equivalent. The vocational qualification had been introduced in 1986 for certain period to enable the persons after completing their training in the particular trades to earn their livelihood in pursuance to the policy known as Vocational Policy on education, 1986, under the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Government of India. It provided for imparting training in 17 different trades. The relevant portion of the said Policy reads: ``The Senior Secondary Vocational Programme aims to develop skilled man power through diversified courses to meet the require- ment mainly the unorganised sector and to prepare people for the unorganised sector and to prepare people for the would of work in general through a large number of self-employment oriented courses, not precluding wage employment orientation of many others. Though diversication into production and service oriented courses, it is desired to reduce the aimless persuit of higher education and thereby reduce pressure from the theocratical education. There are more than 150 courses in different States which are grou- ped under the major area of Agriculture. Though diversication into production and service oriented courses, it is desired to reduce the aimless persuit of higher education and thereby reduce pressure from the theocratical education. There are more than 150 courses in different States which are grou- ped under the major area of Agriculture. Business and 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, related subject; language and general foundation studies which include entranceship. (18). This Court in Ram Chandra Swami vs. State of Rajasthan (7), relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Sukh vs. State of Rajasthan and others (8). The Apex Court in the said judgment observed thus: ``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 equivalent to Basic School Training Certificate and were not eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. (19). Again in State of Rajasthan vs. Shyam Lal Joshi (9), the Apex Court took the view that the persons possessing National Trade Certificate were not eligible to be appointed as General Teachers in primary schools. (20). In Vijay Kumar Budrak (supra), the issue that was considered was- ``whether Senior Secondary (Vocational) qualification is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) of the Board? (21). After analysing elaborately and keeping in view Sec. 27 of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957, it was held that both the qualifications were equivalent. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajpal Singhs case (supra). The issue of equivalence was not considered by the Division Bench. It is clear from the observations made that the view taken by the Division Bench earlier in the aforementioned cases was affirmed. The observations made in Rajpal Singhs case read thus: ``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. (22). 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. (22). Hence, the distinction sought to be made relying on the decision of Vijay Kumar Budrak (supra) cannot be accepted. In Usha Ranis case (supra), the Court did not accept the vocational qualification for the post of Teacher 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 teaching 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 instructions or guidance in a particular occupation or vocation which will choose a career. (23). It may be noticed that the reasons given in Usha Ranis case were 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). It was held that, a person having the training in a particular trade as Smt. Gurmail Kaur, was having the training in tailoring, crafting and cutting etc. could not be held eligible for the post of Teacher Gr. III; the candidates possessing the vocational certificate may be eligible for the post if available anywhere in a trade in which they acquire skill but they are not eligible to be consid- ered for the post of Teacher Gr. III either in the Panchayat Samiti or in the Education Department. It is to be added that the reasoning adopted in the case of Usha Rani and Gurmail Kaur have subsequently been followed in the case of Prem Kala (supra) by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench stating that the vocational certificate is meant for self employment generally and as there are no vocational classes in the Primary Schools, such persons possessing certificate in vocational course cannot be held eligible for being appointed as Teacher Gr. III. III. It is pertinent to mention herein that in the case of Prem Kala, the issue involved was the same, namely, the equivalence of Sr. Secondary (Academic) qua the Senior Secondary (Vocational). Thus, having regard to earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Usha Rani, Gurmail Kaur and Prem Kala (supra), the controversy is resolved and concluded against the respondents (writ petitioners). The impugned Circular dated, 19.8.98, in our view, is clearly consistent with the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Usha Rani, Gurmail Kaur and Prem Kala (supra). The impugned circular itself makes the position clear that the clarification was issued based on the judgments of this Court. Having regard to the conclusions arrived at in the judgments of the Division Bench, aforementioned, it cannot be said that by the impugned circular, Rule-266 of the Rules was sought to be amended. The circular is only clarificatory in nature, that too based on and consistent with the judgments of the Division Benchs of this Court, aforementioned. By the impugned circular, the rule is not amended and the prescription of qualification is not altered. The qualification referring to Senior Secondary is only to be understood as Senior Secondary (Academic) and not as Senior Secondary (Vocational) in the light of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court referring to the very rule. Learned counsel for the respondents, pointing out to the observations made in the case of Rajpal Singh as noticed by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph-13 of the judgment under appeals, submitted that the impugned Circular cannot be sustained. The relevant observations made in Rajpal Singhs case as extracted by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph-13 of the judgment read thus: ``In our opinion, the qualification for eligibility for the post of Teacher Gr. III could not have been changed by circulars when they have spe- cifically been mentioned in the rules. As such, the candidates having certificate of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) which of course could have been obtained after passing secondary examination, were eligible for the post of Teacher Gr. III for the relevant year and such candidates have the right for consideration for appointment to the said post. (24). As can be seen from the observations extracted above, in that case the qualification for eligibility for the post of Teacher Gr. III for the relevant year and such candidates have the right for consideration for appointment to the said post. (24). As can be seen from the observations extracted above, in that case the qualification for eligibility for the post of Teacher Gr. III was sought to be changed by the circulars as against the qualification prescribed in the Rules. That is, by the impugned circular dated, 19.8.98 the prescribed qualification is not sought to be altered or amended. But, it is only intended to clarify the position in the larger public interest having regard to the judgments of this Court on the issue. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned circular is either violative of Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India or arbitrary. On the other hand, it is consistent with the pronouncements of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above. In our opinion, with all respect, the learned Single Judge was not right in quashing the impugned circular dt. 19.8.98. Hence, we are unable to sustain the common judgment under appeals. (25). In the result, for the reasons stated, these appeals are entitled to succeed. Accordingly they are allowed. The impugned judgment and order under appeals passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.