R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) IN this bunch of cases, the question for determination by the Court is as to whether the candidates possessing certificates of physical training could be considered for appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools run by the Basic Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) or recognised by the Board under the provisions of Basic Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) IN order to properly appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to mention the facts in brief in which the special appeal and the writ petitions have arisen. The submissions have been made in Special Appeal No. 1050 of 1998. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21459 of 1997 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997. The facts are accordingly mentioned from the aforesaid special appeal and the writ petitions. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21459 of 1997. Petitioners of this petition claimed that they passed intermediate examination conducted by U. P. High School and Intermediate Board and they also obtained certificate in physical education course from Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, District Amrawati. State of Maharashtra. For obtaining the aforesaid certificate, they completed training in academic session 1995-96, photocopies of the mark-sheets have been filed as Annexures-I and II. It is claimed that State government by an order dated 24th August 1978 recognised the certificate issued by Shri hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal. District Amrawati equivalent to the certificate of physical education granted by the institutions run by the State Government. It appears that District Basic education Officer, Mau. respondent No. 5 issued an advertisement on 7. 6. 1997 (Annexure-IX)inviting applications for appointment as assistant teachers in the institutions run and managed by the Basic Education Board. Petitioners claimed that they in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement dated 7. 6. 1997 applied for appointment but their applications have not been entertained on the ground that they possessed certificate of physical training course from amrawati. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 5, petitioners filed writ petition in this court and claimed relief that respondent No. 5 should be directed to accept the application forms of the petitioners for being appointed as assistant teachers in Junior basic schools treating petitioners as eligible for being appointed as assistant teachers in Junior basic schools situated within District Mau. They also claimed that Government Orders dated 28. 2. 1996 and the letter of the Director of Education dated 28. 11. 1996, Annexures-VII and VIII respectively to the writ petition, may be quashed to the extent that they refused to consider the claim of petitioners for appointment on the ground that they possessed certificate of physical education course from the institution situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. It appears that during the course of hearing before the learned single Judge on behalf of the petitioners, reliance was placed on the judgment of learned single Judge dated 11. 2. 1997 in Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1997. Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of U, P. and others. Learned single Judge hearing the writ petition, however, expressed disagreement with the Judgment dated 11. 2. 1997 mentioned above and after stating his reasons for disagreement, vide order dated 10. 7. 1997 directed that record be placed before honble the Chief Justice for constituting larger Bench for reconsideration of the Judgment dated 11. 2. 1997 given in Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1997, Honble the Chief Justice by his order dated 8. 8. 1997 nominated this Bench for deciding the writ petition. This is how this petition has come before us. Other writ petitions involving similar facts and circumstances have been connected with this writ petition. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by 27 petitioners. It appears that Basic Education Officer, allahabad by advertisement dated 18. 1. 1997. Annexure-VI to the writ petition, invited applications from the candidates possessing B. T. C. training certificate and other training certificate recognised by the State Government as equivalent to B. T. C. for appointment as assistant teachers in primary schools in rural areas run and managed by the Basic Education board. In pursuance of this advertisement, applications were submitted. It appears that all petitioners obtained C. P. Ed. certificate from the institutions run by the State of U. P. except petitioner No. 21 who obtained C. P. Ed. certificate from Amrawati. It is claimed that petitioners were called for interview and they appeared before selection committee. List of selected candidates was finalised and notified by the Basic Education Officer, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-VII to the writ petition. certificate from Amrawati. It is claimed that petitioners were called for interview and they appeared before selection committee. List of selected candidates was finalised and notified by the Basic Education Officer, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-VII to the writ petition. Petitioners claim that they were selected for appointment and select list (Annexure-VII) included their names also. Basic Education Officer, however, issued fresh advertisement on 17. 8. 1997, Annexure-VIII to the writ petition, inviting fresh applications. The petitioners have not been given appointment on the basis of the aforesaid selection. Aggrieved they filed present writ petition claiming relief for quashing the advertisement dated 17. 8. 1997 and selection proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto. They have also claimed quashing of the G. O. dated 11. 8. 1997, Annexure-X to the writ petition. It has been further claimed that direction be given to the respondents to appoint petitioners as assistant teachers in junior basic schools run by the board. (In both the aforesaid writ petitions counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.)Special Appeal No. 1050 of 1998. ( 4 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 1050 of 1998 has been filed by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education U. P. . Allahabad. District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad and Director of Education (Basic)challenging the judgment dated 28. 8. 1998 passed by learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 30711 of 1997 by which writ petition has been allowed. The penultimate paragraph of the judgment is being reproduced below : "the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 11. 8. 1997 (Annexure--VIII) issued by the State Government and circular dated 13. 8. 1997 (Annexure-IX)issued by respondent No. 2 as well as advertisement dated 17. 8. 1997 (Annexure-X) are hereby quashed to the extent that the petitioners as well as similarly circumstanced candidates, who have obtained C. P. Ed. certificate of training prior to 6. 8. 1997 shall be considered for appointment to the post of assistant masters in basic schools. " ( 5 ) AT the time of admission hearing of appeal, Division Bench summoned and perused the record of Writ Petition No. 21459 of 1997 and directed that special appeal shall be listed before the concerned Bench along with the aforementioned writ petition. Thus, special appeal has also been listed before us for hearing. " ( 5 ) AT the time of admission hearing of appeal, Division Bench summoned and perused the record of Writ Petition No. 21459 of 1997 and directed that special appeal shall be listed before the concerned Bench along with the aforementioned writ petition. Thus, special appeal has also been listed before us for hearing. ( 6 ) WE have heard Shri V. K. Shukla and Shri Ashok Khare for petitioners in writ petitions mentioned above and learned Senior Advocate. Dr. R. G. Padia for the respondents/petitioners in special appeal and Shri Devi Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State in writ petitions and Raj Kiran Tripathi for the appellants in Special Appeal No. 1050 of 1998. ( 7 ) SHRI V. K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 21459 of 1997 submitted that Government Order dated 23rd March. 1995 specifically directed the appointment of candidates possessing C. P, Ed. certificate with the condition that they will be treated as untrained teachers and shall be paid salary in grade of the trained teachers. It was further provided that they shall undergo in service training of B. T. C. and the salary in grade of trained teachers shall be paid to them only after they complete in service training successfully. Learned counsel has submitted that this procedure was evolved by the State Government for accommodating all those who had already obtained training of physical education from the institutions run by the State Government which have been closed. Learned counsel has submitted that State Government exercised control over the Basic Education Board under Section 13 of the act and could issue such directions as contained in the order dated 23. 3. 1995. Learned counsel has further submitted that rule making power also vests in State Government under Section 19 of the Act, thus in the facts, and circumstances of the case the order of State Government dated 23. 3. 1995 was binding and petitioners applications ought to have been entertained by respondent No. 5 for appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools. Learned counsel also submitted that judgment dated 11. 2. 1997 is perfectly Justified on the facts of that case and does not suffer from any illegality. Learned single Judge has nowhere said that C. P. Ed. certificate shall be treated as equivalent to B. T. C. certificate. Learned counsel also submitted that judgment dated 11. 2. 1997 is perfectly Justified on the facts of that case and does not suffer from any illegality. Learned single Judge has nowhere said that C. P. Ed. certificate shall be treated as equivalent to B. T. C. certificate. The claim of the petitioners could not be properly appreciated by the learned single Judge and thus, instead of deciding the claim on merit, has been unnecessarily referred to the Larger Bench. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the certificates filed as Annexure-II to the writ petition were granted after the crucial date, i. e. , 23. 3. 1995 and hence petitioners are not entitled for the relief claimed. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand by way of rejoinder, further submitted that though the certificates were granted on 15. 1. 1997 but the academic sessions 1995-96 commenced much before 28. 2. 1995 and as is clear from the certificate the examination for grant of certificate was conducted in the months of August/september, 1996. ( 10 ) SHRI Ashok Khare, on the other hand, submitted that all the petitioners obtained training in physical education from the institutions run by the State Government, except petitioner No. 21, buland Pratap Rai who obtained C. P. Ed. certificate from Amrawati. It has been submitted that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18. 1. 1997 petitioners applied for appointment and they were interviewed and were actually selected for appointment and result was declared in the last week of February. 1997. However, the appointments were not given to the petitioners and the posts were again advertised on 17th August, 1997 and the result was illegally cancelled. In fact this step was taken in view of amendment in rules on 6. 8. 1997 known as U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Services (7th Amendment) Rules. 1997. However, the rules could not have retrospective effect and the advertisement dated 18. 1. 1997 and the selection made in pursuance thereof remained unaffected. From the amendment Rules of 1997 (Annexure-IX) it is clear that it came into effect from 6th August, 1997, i. e. , much after the declaration of the result. It is submitted that selection shall be governed by the law as it existed on the date of advertisement i. e. , 18. 1. 1997. From the amendment Rules of 1997 (Annexure-IX) it is clear that it came into effect from 6th August, 1997, i. e. , much after the declaration of the result. It is submitted that selection shall be governed by the law as it existed on the date of advertisement i. e. , 18. 1. 1997. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioners are entitled for relief. Reliance has been placed on following Judgments : * P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 405 ; * A. A. Calton v. Director of Education, 1983 (3) SCC 33 ; and * 1995 (1) LBESR 785 confirmed in 1995 (2) LBESR 189 . ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that selection on the basis of the advertisement dated 18. 1. 1997 was rightly not given effect to, as the appointments would have been contrary to the rules applicable to the service of assistant teachers namely, U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules. 1981. Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules specifically provides for the academic qualification and training qualifications for appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools. As petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications they could not be appointed. It has also been submitted the advertisement dated 18. 1. 1997, which is being relied upon by the petitioners, nowhere provided that even the candidates possessing c. P. Ed. certificate shall be eligible for appointment. In the circumstances the applications of the petitioners who lacked requisite qualifications should not have been entertained and they could not be appointed. The alleged selection of petitioners was illegal and void and they cannot claim any relief on the basis of the same. ( 12 ) IN Special Appeal No. 1050 of 1998 learned counsel for the appellants submitted that judgment of learned single Judge suffers from patent illegality as the C. P. Ed. certificate has been treated equivalent to B. T. C. certificate in respect of which Government Order was never issued. The two certificates are issued on the basis of different training. The C. P. Ed. certificate is issued on the basis of physical training whereas the B. T. C. certificate is issued after training in method and art of teaching. It was for this reason that though the Government Order dated 23. 3. 1995 permitted appointments of the candidates possessing C. P. Ed. The C. P. Ed. certificate is issued on the basis of physical training whereas the B. T. C. certificate is issued after training in method and art of teaching. It was for this reason that though the Government Order dated 23. 3. 1995 permitted appointments of the candidates possessing C. P. Ed. certificate as assistant teachers but in untrained grade and they could be entitled for the salary in the grade of trained teachers only on successful completion of the in-service training. Learned counsel has submitted that judgment of learned single Judge suffers from patent error of law and cannot be sustained. ( 13 ) DR. R. G. Padia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the order of learned single Judge is perfectly justified. It has been submitted that according to the guidelines provided by the Director, the quality point marks in respect of C. P. Ed. certificate were allowed to be given in the same manner as B. T. C. certificate, which clearly demonstrate that both the aforesaid certificates were treated equivalent. ( 14 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, for deciding the controversy in hand, it is necessary to look into the background in which the other dated 23. 3. 1995 and other orders were passed from time to time by the State Government. It is not disputed that the candidates possessing C. P. Ed. certificate used to be appointed in C. T. grade for the purposes of imparting physical education to the students in basic institutions and other institutions. However, in pursuance of the recommendations made by Pay Revision Committee, 1989, by Government order No. 3299/15. 7. 1989-1 (136)/89 dated 11. 8. 1989 the C. T. grade was declared a dying cadre in private higher secondary schools. Further clarifications were issued on 4. 9. 1990 and order dated 19. 2. 1991 and C. T. grade was declared a dying cadre in government higher secondary schools and Intermediate colleges. It was directed that in future no posts in C. T. grade shall be created, as the C. T. grade has been declared a dying cadre and further recruitment in this grade was banned. 9. 1990 and order dated 19. 2. 1991 and C. T. grade was declared a dying cadre in government higher secondary schools and Intermediate colleges. It was directed that in future no posts in C. T. grade shall be created, as the C. T. grade has been declared a dying cadre and further recruitment in this grade was banned. ( 15 ) AS C. T. grade was declared dying cadre, difficulty arose regarding appointment of candidates possessing certificate in physical education (hereinafter referred to as C. P. Ed. certificate ). Director of Education (Basic) on the basis of the resolution of the Board of Basic Education dated 17. 6. 1992 issued a circular dated 1. 1. 1993 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997) directing that C. P. Ed. certificate holders may be appointed as assistant teachers like C. T. grade teachers. Secretary, Basic Education Board also issued a circular letter dated 13. 4. 1993, annexure-IV to the Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997 by way of clarification that only those C. P. Ed. holders candidates will be qualified for appointment as assistant teachers who have passed c. P. Ed. examination held by Registrar of Departmental Examination of Uttar Pradesh. It was also stated that those who have obtained braining certificate first will be given chance of appointment first in accordance with the provisions contained in U. P. Basic Education Teachers services Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). It was also stated in this letter that c. P. Ed. certificate holder candidates shall be deemed to be qualified for appointment as assistant teachers. On the basis of the letter dated 28. 1. 1995 of Director of Education (Basic ). State of U. P. issued an order dated 23. 3. 1995 (Annexure-IV to the writ petition) stating that government has taken decision that C. P. Ed. trained candidates from Government institutions or institutions recognised by the Government may be appointed as assistant teachers as untrained teachers and they shall be entitled for the salary in the grade of untrained teachers. It was further provided that such candidates shall be given in-service training and they shall be entitled for salary in the grade of trained teachers only after successful completion of training. It was further provided that Government has also decided to close C. P. Ed. training from academic sessions 1996-97. It was further provided that such candidates shall be given in-service training and they shall be entitled for salary in the grade of trained teachers only after successful completion of training. It was further provided that Government has also decided to close C. P. Ed. training from academic sessions 1996-97. ( 16 ) IN the meantime, State Government amended the rules by U. P. Basic Education Teachers services (VII Amendment) Rules, 1997, w. e. f. 6. 8. 1997. By this amendment detailed procedure was provided for recruitment of teachers, for giving effect to reservation and prescribing maximum age for appointment of teachers. However, Rule 8 of the rules, which prescribes academic and training qualification remained unaffected. The aforesaid amendment followed government letter dated 11. 8. 1997. Annexure-X to the Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997, which provided that appointment shall be made strictly in accordance with rules, 1981 as amended by viith Amendment of 1997. At this place, it shall be appropriate to quote Rule 8 of U. P. Basic education (Teachers Services) Rules. 1981 : "8. Academic qualifications--The essential qualification 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 (i)Mistress of Nursery Schools Certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from in Uttar Pradesh or any other. teaching qua state equivalent thereto. (ii) Assistant master and assistantjunior basic Intermediate Board of High Schooleducati schools qualification recognised by the State Gover together with the training qualification con certificate. Hindustani Teachers. Certificate, certificate of Teaching or any other traini state Government as equivalent thereto : provided that the essential qualification for candidates who has passed the required training course shall be the same which was prescribed for admission to the said training course. (2) The essential qualification of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (h) of Rule 5 for teaching science, mathematics, craft or any language other than Hindi shall be as follows : (i) Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar pradesh. or any other examination recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto with science, mathematics, craft or particular language, as the case may be, as one of the subjects, and (i) Training qualification consisting of a Basic Teachers Certificate. Hindustani Teachers certificate. or any other examination recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto with science, mathematics, craft or particular language, as the case may be, as one of the subjects, and (i) Training qualification consisting of a Basic Teachers Certificate. Hindustani Teachers certificate. Junior Teachers Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto. 3. The minimum experience of candidates for promotion to a post referred to in clause (b) of rule 5 shall be shown as below against each : post experience (i) Head Mistress of Nursery School At least five years teaching experience as (ii) Head Master or Head Mistress of Junior basic At least five years teaching experience as school of and assistant master or assistant mistress of school. senior basic school (iii)Head Master or Head Mistress of senior basic At least three years schoolexperience as permanent head Master or Head mistress of Junior basic school or Permanent assistant Master or assistant Mistress of Senior baste School, as the case may be : provided that if sufficient number of suitable eligible candidates are not available for promotion to the posts mentioned at serial number (ii) or (iii) the field of eligibility may be extended by the board by giving relaxation in the period of experience.)" ( 17 ) FROM perusal of the aforesaid Government Orders dated 23. 3. 1995 and 11. 8. 1997 and Rule 8 mentioned above, it is clear that for appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools necessary training qualification was Basic Teacher Certificate (ETC ). Hindustani Teachers Certificate (HTC) and Junior Teachers Certificate of Teaching (JTC) or any other training course recognised by the State Government equivalent thereto. It is not disputed that C. P. Ed. certificate was never recognised by the State Government equivalent to B. T. C. , H. T. C. and J. T. C. . hence c. P. Ed. certificate holders could not be, appointed as assistant teachers. By the Government order dated 23. 3. 1995, a procedure was evolved to accommodate C. P. Ed. certificate holders by giving them appointment as untrained teachers and it was also provided that they shall be given in-service training of B. T. C. and only then they shall be entitled for salary in the grade of trained teachers. It is also noticeable at this stage that arrangement provided by the Government Order dated 23. 3. certificate holders by giving them appointment as untrained teachers and it was also provided that they shall be given in-service training of B. T. C. and only then they shall be entitled for salary in the grade of trained teachers. It is also noticeable at this stage that arrangement provided by the Government Order dated 23. 3. 1995 has neither been taken away nor has been modified or rescinded by subsequent government Order dated 11. 8. 1997. The authority of the State Government to take such policy decision has not been disputed before us by any party. Shri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Sections 13 and 19 of the Act and submitted that such direction could be legitimately issued by the State Government. We have examined the provisions contained in sections 13 and 19 of the Act and, in our opinion, such policy decision for accommodating C. P. Ed. candidates could be taken by the State Government and such decision shall be binding on the board and local bodies. ( 18 ) NOW in the light of the aforesaid conclusion, correctness of the judgment dated 11. 2. 1997 in writ Petition No. 4945 of 1997 and judgment dated 28. 8. 1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 30711 has to be examined. The claim of the petitioners in writ petitions and respondent Nos. 1 to 10 in special appeal has also to be determined in the light of the aforesaid conclusions. We have examined the judgment dated 11. 2. 1997 passed by Honble Aloke Chakrabarti, J. , in Writ petition No. 4945 of 1997. We have also gone through reasons given by Honble M. Katju, J. , in his order dated 10. 7. 1997 showing his disagreement with the aforesaid order. Honble Aloke chakrabarti, J. , has nowhere stated that C. P. Ed. certificate can be treated equivalent to B. T. C. , h. T. C. or J. T. C. which are the necessary training qualifications for appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools under Rule 8 of 1981 rules. Learned Judge has only said that as government has taken policy decision under its order dated 23. 3. 1995 to accommodate C. P. Ed. certificate holders, Hence the candidates holding such certificates from Amrawati are also entitled for consideration. The penultimate paragraph of the judgment dated 11. 2. Learned Judge has only said that as government has taken policy decision under its order dated 23. 3. 1995 to accommodate C. P. Ed. certificate holders, Hence the candidates holding such certificates from Amrawati are also entitled for consideration. The penultimate paragraph of the judgment dated 11. 2. 1997 is being reproduced below : "therefore, the C. P. Ed. candidates either from state run institution of Uttar Pradesh or from amrawati wilt not be treated as disqualified for appointment until C. P. Ed. course is brought to an end in terms of G. O. dated 23. 3. 1995, i. e. , from Session 1996-97. The C. P. Ed. Course from amrawati should not be treated in a different manner than the C. P. Ed. course of State of Uttar pradesh in view of the fact that the G. O. dated 28. 2. 1996 did not express such intention. But, I make it clear that the policy of the Government in respect of considering the C. P. Ed. candidates after B. T. C. candidates and for appointing them as untrained teachers with an opportunity to obtain training during their employment will continue in terms of the Governments prevailing policy. " ( 19 ) FROM the aforesaid. It is clear that learned Judge gave relief only on the basis of the government Order dated 23. 3. 1995, which contained policy decision of the State Government for solving the problem of candidates who had been trained for C. P. Ed. certificate by government run institutions and were facing unemployment. It is also noticeable that government closed this training from academic session 1996-97. Learned Judge has further clarified that other policy decisions taken by the Government that C. P. Ed. candidates shall be considered only after B. T. C. candidates and after appointment they will have to go in-service training shall remain unaffected. In our opinion, the view taken by the Honble Aloke chakrabarti. J. , does not suffer from any illegality. Honble M. Katju. J. , in the referring order dated 10. 7. 1997 expressed his reasons as under : "the G. O. dated 23. 3. In our opinion, the view taken by the Honble Aloke chakrabarti. J. , does not suffer from any illegality. Honble M. Katju. J. , in the referring order dated 10. 7. 1997 expressed his reasons as under : "the G. O. dated 23. 3. 1995 cannot be of help to the petitioners because no appointment can be made of untrained teachers after coming into force of the 1981 rules, and a trained teacher means a teacher having training as mentioned in Rule 8 of the rules and not any kind of training. There is no question of giving appointment to a person who does not even possess the necessary training qualification mentioned in Rule 8 of the 1981 rules. The G. O. dated 23. 3. 1995 can at best be said to apply to persons appointed before the 1981 rules, but in my opinion it cannot apply to person who claim appointment after the 1981 rules came into force. Thus in my opinion the petitioners by no stretch of imagination can claim appointment to junior high school or primary school as they are not possessing training qualification which is B. T. C. or equivalent qualification, unless the State Government makes a clear declaration that C. P. Ed. is equivalent to B. T. C. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to appointment. Thus I most respectfully disagree with the Judgment of Honble Aloke Chakrabarti. J. , in Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1997. " ( 20 ) IT appears that Sections 13 and 19 of the Act were not placed before learned single Judge. Under Section 13 (i), the State Government has power to issue directions to the Board for efficient administration of the Act. Under Section 19 of the Act, Government has power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Sections 13 and 19 of the Act are being reproduced below : "13. Control by the State Government-- (1) The board shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this act. Sections 13 and 19 of the Act are being reproduced below : "13. Control by the State Government-- (1) The board shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this act. (2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of any of its powers and discharge of any of the functions by the Board under this Act, any dispute arises between the Board and the State government, or between Board and any local body, the decision of the State Government on such dispute shall be final and binding on the Board or the local body, as the case may be. (3) The Board or any local body shall furnish to the State Government such reports, returns and other information, as the State Government may from time to time require for the purposes of this Act. 19. Power to make rules-- (1) The State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely : (a) the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the posts of officers, teachers and other employees under Section 6 ; (b) the tenure of service, remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of officers, teachers and other employees transferred to the Board under Section 9 : (c) the recruitment, and the conditions of service of the persons appointed, to the posts of teachers and other employees of basic schools recognised by the Board : (d) any other matter for which insufficient provision exists in the Act and provision in the rules is considered by the State Government to be necessary ; (e) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed. " ( 21 ) IT cannot be disputed that direction issued by the State Government under Section 13 (1) of the Act shall have statutory character. As the Government has also power to make rules and under Section 19 (2) (d), the State Government may make rules for any other matter for which insufficient provision exists in the Act and provision in the rules is considered by the State government to be necessary. As the Government has also power to make rules and under Section 19 (2) (d), the State Government may make rules for any other matter for which insufficient provision exists in the Act and provision in the rules is considered by the State government to be necessary. It cannot be doubted that to provide sufficient number of teachers in basic schools is relevant action for carrying out the purpose of the Act, i. e. , imparting of education at basic level. There was also a problem to accommodate the C. P. Ed. certificate holders who were trained in the institutions run by the Government or recognised by the government. Such candidates were being appointed in C. T. grade, problem arose when the appointments in C. T. grade were stopped and it was declared a dying cadre. The Government, in these circumstances, could come forward and take policy decision to solve situation under section 13 read with Section 19 of the Act. It may be noticed that the procedure evolved by the government Order dated 23. 3. 1995 does not in any manner contravene Rule 8. It only provides as a temporary measure to accommodate C. P. Ed. certificate holders as untrained teachers and further to provide them in-service training for conferring full fledge status of assistant teachers. In our opinion, the provisions contained in the Act and the rules have not been contravened in any manner and, on the other hand, a balanced policy has been evolved by which unemployed trained youths shall be accommodated. It has also been provided that they shall be considered only after B. T. C. candidates, in other words, when the B. T. C. candidates shall not be available. Such a policy decision, in our opinion, cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary. In similar circumstances while considering provisions of Section 9 of Intermediate Education Act, the division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishan Pal Singh v. Government of U. P. and others, 1081 UPLBBC 521, held in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under : "7. The aforesaid provision confers power on the State Government to take immediate action, to modify, rescind or make any regulation in respect of any matter or to pass any order provided such action is consistent with the provisions of the Act. The aforesaid provision confers power on the State Government to take immediate action, to modify, rescind or make any regulation in respect of any matter or to pass any order provided such action is consistent with the provisions of the Act. The State Government has, therefore, ample powers to issue orders, making any regulation in respect of any matter provided under the act and also to modify or rescind any regulation which may have been framed by the Board. Any order issued by the State Government under the aforesaid provision would acquire statutory character and the same would be effective not withstanding any regulation framed by the Board. 8. The directions contained in the Government Order dated July 12, 1978 prescribe of service of teachers in the aided and recognized institutions and for reservation of posts to Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes. They further seeks to regulate the conditions of grant-in-aid to recognized institution. The Government Order is, therefore, referable to Section 9 (4) of the Act and as such the rules contained therein have statutory character. No doubt the government Order speaks of rules and not regulations in prescribing reservation but that does not affect the statutory character of the rules. Sometimes the expression "rules" and "regulations" are used loosely in anonym term and the Courts have also treated them to be so. In air 1964 SC 364 the Supreme Court treated a regulation as a rule. Since Section 9 (4) confers power on the State Government to frame regulations, the rules contained in the Government order dated 1. 7. 1978 must be treated as regulations although the Government order refers them as rules. " ( 22 ) ANOTHER Division Bench in the case of Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U. P. and others, 1982 upl8ec 137, in para 18 held as under : "18. Under the aforesaid provision, the power has been conferred upon the State Government to issue such directions as it may think expedient or necessary so to do. By the radiogram the State government has issue a direction for stopping all appointments for a short while. This action was eminent as a new procedure for appointment was under contemplation. The radiogram could, therefore, in our opinion, be saved on the basis of subsection (4) of Section 9. " ( 23 ) IF the directions contained in Government Order dated 23. 3. This action was eminent as a new procedure for appointment was under contemplation. The radiogram could, therefore, in our opinion, be saved on the basis of subsection (4) of Section 9. " ( 23 ) IF the directions contained in Government Order dated 23. 3. 1995 are examined in the light of the aforesaid Judgments and in the background mentioned above, there remains no doubt that the procedure evolved is neither arbitrary nor illegal and the direction does not violate Rule 8, as requisite qualification of B. T. C. shall be obtained by the candidate during employment. In our opinion, the observation of the learned single Judge that C. P. Ed. certificate holders could not be even appointed as untrained teachers under the Government Order dated 23. 3. 1995 is not justified. ( 24 ) IN Special Appeal No. 1050 of 1998, legality of the Judgment of Honble O. P. Garg, J. , dated 20. 8. 1998 has been questioned. The penultimate paragraph of the judgment reads as under : "the decision in Suresh Pals case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. There was no justification for the respondents to have de-recognised the C. P. Ed. training certificate of the present petitioner or for that matter of other candidates who obtained the said certificate prior to the amendment in the rules, dated 6. 8. 1997 or the circular letter dated 11. 8. 1997 Annexure-8, issued by the State Government. The C. P. Ed. certificate of training continued to be recognised equivalent to B. T. C. certificate in respect of those candidates who have obtained the same prior to 6. 8. 1997 on which date the rules were amended. " ( 25 ) FROM the aforesaid observation, it appears that learned single Judge was not apprised of the correct factual position that C. P. Ed. certificate was never recognised by any Government Order as equivalent to B. T. C, certificate. The Government Order dated 24. 8. 1978 only recognised the c. P. Ed. course in Amrawati as equivalent to C. P. Ed. course of U. P. This recognition, however, was withdrawn on 28. 2. 1996. The C. P. Ed. certificate holders were only directed to be appointed under Government Order dated 23. 3. 1995 as untrained teachers meaning thereby that the said training certificate of C. P. Ed. course in Amrawati as equivalent to C. P. Ed. course of U. P. This recognition, however, was withdrawn on 28. 2. 1996. The C. P. Ed. certificate holders were only directed to be appointed under Government Order dated 23. 3. 1995 as untrained teachers meaning thereby that the said training certificate of C. P. Ed. could not make them eligible for appointment as assistant teachers. The Government Order also provided that they shall be provided training of B. T. C. during employment. In our opinion, the judgment dated 28. 8. 1998 suffers from manifest error of law and cannot be sustained. ( 26 ) IN Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997. It has been provided that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18. 1. 1997 petitioners applied and they were selected for appointment. Petitioners obtained C. P. Ed. certificate from the institutions run by the State of U. P. except petitioner No. 21. Buland Pratap Rai, who obtained C. P. Ed. certificate from Amrawati. It has been claimed that petitioners were selected and list of selected candidates was notified by the basic Education Officer. This factual posit (on stated in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 has not been controverted. In paragraph 26 of the counter-affidavit, only this much has been said that entire selection procedure has been cancelled by the higher authorities. In our opinion, as the State government has already directed by the order dated 23. 3. 1995 that C. P. Ed. certificate holders may be appointed as untrained teachers and they shall be provided B. T. C. training during employment, petitioners were entitled for the benefit of selection in terms of the Government order dated 23. 3. 1995. As the legality of the Government Order 23. 3. 1995 is being upheld by this Court, we do not find any justification for cancellation of the selection. Petitioners are entitled for relief. ( 27 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the special appeal and writ petitions are being decided with following directions : (1) Special Appeal No. 1050 of 1998 is allowed. The Judgment dated 28. 8. 1998 is set aside. (2) The Writ Petition No. 30711 of 1997 from which the aforesaid special appeal has arisen and all other writ petitions of this Bench are disposed of finally with the direction that C. P. Ed. The Judgment dated 28. 8. 1998 is set aside. (2) The Writ Petition No. 30711 of 1997 from which the aforesaid special appeal has arisen and all other writ petitions of this Bench are disposed of finally with the direction that C. P. Ed. candidates trained in State run institutions or recognised institutions by the State of U. P. or trained from any other institutions, which had been recognised equivalent to U. P. C. P. Ed. course shall be considered for appointment strictly in terms of the Government Orders dated 23. 3. 1995 and 28. 2. 1996. It is further provided that C. P. Ed. candidates who have obtained certificate from Amrawati shall also be considered on the basis of the judgment dated 11. 2. 1997 of Honble Aloke Chakrabarti. J. (3) The Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997 is finally disposed of with the direction that if petitioners have been actually selected, they shall not be refused appointment on the ground that they hold C. P. Ed. certificate if they satisfy all other conditions for appointment. The claim of petitioner No. 21 shall be examined in the light of the Judgment dated 11. 2. 1997 of Honble aloke Chakrabarti, J. ( 28 ) THERE shall, however, be no order as to costs. .