JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioners Ram Niwas and Rajaram against the common order dated 17.11.94 (Ann.4), whereby in pursuance of the order dated 7.4.94 (Ann.3) of the Director, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department (respondent No.1), both the petitioners have been terminated from services of the respondents. 2. Ram Niwas (petitioner No.1) and Rajaram (petitioner No.2) after having acquired Diploma from Jharparkar Cutting & Tailoring College, Bombay, were initially appointed on the post of Primary School Teacher (Teacher Gr.III) on 2.7.86 and after screening their services were regularised by way of confirmation by Panchayat Samiti Nohar-(respondent No.2) under a common order dated 30.9.91 (Ann.1) with effect from 2.7.88 in pursuance of an order dated 11.8.89 of the respondent No.1. 3. The case of the petitioners No.1 in short is that Jharparkar Tailoring College, Bombay is an institution recognised by the Government of Rajasthan and the Diploma of Tailoring acquired by him through the said Tailoring College was equivalent to the Basic School Training Certificate (BSTC). He has further contended that he was having qualification of Secondary and National Trade Certificate (NTC) and hence fit to be appointed on the said post. 4. Petitioner No.2 passed his graduation in the year 1983 besides having National Trade Certificate from Jharparkar Tailoring College, Bombay - an institution recognised by the Government of Rajasthan and was appointed as Teacher Gr. III (Primary School Teacher) and his services were regularised and confirmed w.e.f. 2.7.88 by order dated 30.9.91 (Ann.1). Petitioner No.2 after obtaining permission for joining B.Ed, qualified B.Ed course from Kota Open University on 5.9.1997 during pendency of this petition. 5. Both the petitioners continued in services of the respondents on the post of Primary School Teachers in Panchayat Samiti Nohar (Sriganganagar) but their services were terminated under impugned orders dated 7.4.94 (Ann.3). and 17.11.94 (Ann.4), referred to above, on the ground that since the Apex Court held in (1) State of Rajasthan v. Shyamlal Joshi (Civil Appeal No. 7031/1993 decided on 16.11.1993 reported in 1994 (1) SCC 593 ) , that the persons having NTC qualifications are not qualified and they cannot be appointed as General Teachers but as Craft Teachers only and therefore since the petitioners being NTC Diploma holders which is not recognised qualification by the Govt. of Rajasthan as equivalent to BSTC, because they do not possess requisite qualification of BSTC and they having been appointed after 6.11.1985, are not qualified to work as General Teachers in Primary Schools of Panchayat Samiti. However, both the petitioners have been continuing in service in view of the interim order dated 22.11.94 passed by this Court. 6. The controversy in short is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Shyamlal Joshi's case (supra), the petitioners could not be considered to be eligible as Primary School Teachers on the basis of NTC qualification which they acquired and therefore, under the impugned orders their services have been dispensed with. Hence this writ petition. 7. Shri Ajay Rastogi learned counsel for the petitioners contended that before the Apex Court, Shyam Lai Joshi's case (supra) was a case of persons having qualification of NTC trained but were seeking appointment as Primary School Teachers and the plea raised was that as they acquired NTC training prior to its de-recognition, they were eligible for appointment. The contention of Shri Rastogi is that before the Apex Court in Shyam Lai Joshi's case (supra) there was neither any material nor the same was examined in respect of persons who were working in the respondents' services in substantive capacity whereas the present petitioners though did not possess the requisite qualification of B.S.T.C. and were appointed as Teachers on the basis of N.T.C. qualification, but since they were duly confirmed having rendered more than 7-8 years of service, hence they have acquired indefeasable right to continue in services of the respondents. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in Shyam Lal Joshi's case (supra), the decision of the State Government terminating petitioners' services is absolutely unjustified and arbitrary, because their substantive right created after (sic ?) passing of termination order could not be taken away without following due process of law. 8. It is pertinent to mention that in the Circular dated 7.1.1985 issued by the respondent No.1, after referring to the clarification made by the Director, Primary & Secondary Education that "there is difference in the syllabus of the training of BSTC & NTC" it was stated as under : "NTC has been recognised only to teach the Industry subject and the Government of Rajasthan has given recognition to ITI to teach Industry subject in the Secondary Schools for conferring National Trade Certificates. Hence candidates holding National Trade Certificate are not eligible to the post of Teachers in the Panchayat Samities." 9. This Circular was challenged by several writ petitioners before the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Lai Joshi (supra), which was an appeal preferred against the decision dated 12.9.90 of Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal No.177/1990 and other connected writ petitions referred to therein which were decided finally by the Apex Court vide its judgment and order dated November 16, 1993. The petitioners, (who had taken admission to NTC course on the basis of Circular dated 6.8.1984 were aggrieved by subsequent Circulars dated 7.1.1985 and 6.11.85 by which they were declared as ineligible for appointment as Primary School Teachers in Panchayat Samities), challenged validity of the same by way of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Apex Court having discussed validity of the Circulars so also clarifications referred to for appointment of Primary Teachers in Panchayat Samities, declared the Circulars dated 7.1.85 and 6.11.85 as valid, which were issued by the State Government in the context of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, which stipulated that for appointment as Primary School Teachers, candidates should possess academic qualification of Secondary with Basic School Training Certificate (BSTC) or a training qualification recognised as equivalent to BSTC by State Government. The Apex Court observed as under:- "A distinction has to be drawn between a general teacher who has received complete training and is in a position to teach all the subjects and a teacher who has received training in a particular craft and can, therefore, properly teach that particular craft only. The BSTC course is of two years wherein the training is given in various subjects. On the other hand, NTC is granted by Industrial Training Institute after training in a particular craft. The course contents are not the same. The recognition given to NTC is for the limited purpose of teaching of vocational subjects like wood work, tailoring, leather work and spinning & weaving in Secondary Schools. The circular dated 6.8.1984 referred only to limited recognition already given to the NTCs. It did not give a fresh recognition to NTCs. The subsequent circulars dated 7.1.1985 and 6.11.85 could not therefore be construed as withdrawing this recognition. Hence the principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted in this case. The circular dated 6.8.1984 referred only to limited recognition already given to the NTCs. It did not give a fresh recognition to NTCs. The subsequent circulars dated 7.1.1985 and 6.11.85 could not therefore be construed as withdrawing this recognition. Hence the principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted in this case. The holders of NTCs cannot claim appointment as general teachers and can only be appointed on the post of craft teachers in the craft for which they hold the NTC. For teaching subjects other than the craft for which they hold the NTC, the position of holders of NTCs is no different from that of untrained teachers." "The holders of NTCs are eligible for appointment to the post of craft teacher in the craft for which they hold NTC. They can be appointed as general teaches only after they have secured the prescribed training qualification under the relevant rules. If such candidates after obtaining necessary qualifications apply for the post of general teachers, the restriction regarding the maximum age for such appointment may be relaxed provided they obtain necessary training qualification within a period of three years from the date of judgment". 10. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioners have come up before this court challenging their termination by the respondents on the ground that the ratio of the Apex Court's decision in Shyam Lai Joshi's case (supra) is not applicable to them since this is not a case of fresh appointment when they were found lacking in basic requisite qualification as on the date of their respective appointment and though they were having NTC qualification as on the date of their appointment, yet, the State Govt. having considered the same as valid could not later on de-recognise the same being not equivalent to BSTC. 11. The stand taken by the respondent in reply is that since the petitioners do not possess requisite qualification of BSTC trained teacher as on the date of their appointment on 2.7.86, consequently their services stood terminated in compliance of the directions of the Apex Court in Shyam Lai Joshi's case (supra) perfectly in a lawful manner. Hence the petitioners have no grievance whatsoever to agitate before this Court being under misconceptions and misconstrued notions. On merits they have contended in the reply that the services of the petitioners were never regularised or confirmed. Hence the petitioners have no grievance whatsoever to agitate before this Court being under misconceptions and misconstrued notions. On merits they have contended in the reply that the services of the petitioners were never regularised or confirmed. The order (Ann.1) on which the petitioners have placed reliance, had been issued by the Panchayat Samiti Nohar, which is not competent body to accord regularisation and confirmation. The petitioners have worked as untrained teachers knowingly well that they are not eligible for the post of teachers. Since the petitioners are not confirmed teachers nor do they possess requisite qualifications, hence are not entitled to hold posts of General Teachers any more so in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Shyam lal Joshi's case (supra) as the qualification of NTC which the petitioners possess, cannot be considered to be equivalent to BSTC requisite qualification. 12. it is admitted case of the petitioners that they were appointed on adhoc basis after 6.11.85 while circulars in pursuance of which the petitioners came to be terminated, were passed on 7.4.94 and 7.11.94 respectively in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court. It is not the case of either of the parties to this petition that appointment of the petitioners were made on regular basis on the basis of the requisite qualification of BSTC which admittedly the present petitioners did not possess as on the date of their respective appointment. hence, I am of the considered view that the petitioners did not possess requisite qualifications of BSTC, consequently they cannot claim continuation in service of the respondents on the basis of NTC qualification, which is confined only to select crafts like wood work, tailoring, leather work and spinning and weaving. This by itself cannot be considered as sufficient qualification for appointment as General Teacher in Primary Schools. I am also fortified in my observations from the decision of the Apex Court in (2) Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education 1989 (1) SCC 392 and (3) Ram Sukh v. State of Rajasthan 1989 Supp (2) SCC page 189 , wherein it has been observed as under: "It is not obligatory for the Government to continue the untrained teachers till they are properly trained and therefore, the Court cannot direct the Government to absorb them in service. Welfare of the children studying in such primary schools has to be kept in mind. Welfare of the children studying in such primary schools has to be kept in mind. They are the tiny tots who require proper handling by well trained teachers. The primary school teachers are of utmost importance in developing a child's personality in formative years. It is not just enough to teach the child alphabets and figures, but much more is required to understand child psychology and aptitudes. They need a different approach altogether. Only trained teachers could lead them properly. The untrained teachers can never be proper substitute trained teachers". 13. Thus, viewed from the observations quoted above, I am of the opinion that since the petitioners do not possess requisite qualification of BSTC and are only holder of NTC qualification they are not eligible for appointment for the post of General Teacher and for their continuity in service as well, the impugned orders of their service termination dated 7.4.94 and 17.11.94 (Ann.3 & 4 respectively) deserve to be sustained and cannot be held as illegal or arbitrary in the light of the decision in Shyam Lai Joshi's case (supra), wherein it was held that the petitioners who hold NTC are/were eligible for appointment as Craft Teachers in the Craft for which they hold such certificate and they can be appointed as General Teachers only after they secure the prescribed qualification under the relevant service rules. 14. However, having regard to the fact that since the petitioners have continued in service of the respondents under the interim order dated 22.11.94 by which operation of the impugned termination orders were stayed, out of whom petitioner No.2 has already acquired BEd. Course successfully, will be at liberty to make their representation to the State Government afresh for continuity in service, provided they fulfill the requisite qualification under the relevant service rules for the post of General Teacher or Craft Teacher in Primary Schools of Panchayat Samiti, Nohar (Sriganganagar) or in any other Panchayat Samiti of Sriganganagar District. If such representations are made by the petitioners on having acquired requisite qualifications prescribed under the Service Rule for the post of General Teachers or Craft Teachers, as observed above, the respondents shall sympathetically consider their case for appointments on preferential basis without any delay. 15. With the observations made above and as a result of the discussions, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 15. With the observations made above and as a result of the discussions, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that in the event of the petitioners obtaining the necessary requisite qualification prescribed under the relevant service rules, they become entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of general teachers or otherwise and if they apply for such appointment the restriction regarding the maximum age for such appointment may be relaxed provided they obtain necessary qualification within a period of three years from the date of this judgment. 16. As the writ petition has been dismissed, the stay order dated 22.11.94 and consequential order dated 23.11.94 shall stand vacated and accordingly the stay petition stands dismissed.Petition dismissed with observations. *******