S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THE original applicants before the learned Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal are the writ petitioners herein. They filed several applications questioning inter alia the notification dated 4-7-2000 whereby and whereunder the certificate of Siksha visharada of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, prayagaa. Allahabad was not recognised as equivalent to the Hindi Pandit Training course of Andhra Pradesh. The learned tribunal however, dismissed the original applications on the ground that the matter is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 23-3-1999 passed in WP no. 3710 of 1999 as also its earlier judgment. Challenging the orders passed by the learned Tribunal, the present writ petitions are filed. ( 2 ) THE contentions raised before the learned Tribunal and before us are: (I) Previously such certificates have been considered to be equivalent to the Hindi Pandit Training Course even for candidates appearing in dsc; (II) In 1996, candidates were allowed to take examination in terms of or on the basis of such certificate but the candidature of the petitioners herein had not been considered having regard to the aforementioned notification dated 4-7-2000; (III) The said notification dated 4-7-2000 must be held to have prospective operation and those who had obtained the said certificate prior thereto must be held to be entitled for consideration for appointment and/or continuation to the post of Language Pandit (Hindi ). Several appointments had been made by the state of Andhra Pradesh for the post of language Pandits/hindi Pandits who are possessed of such qualifications and in some matters even educational qualifications had been relaxed by issuance of necessary orders. Such certificates are not only recognised by the University Grants commission but also being granted a statutory fervour in terms of the provisions of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 and thus, the State could not have issued the impugned notification. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh pa] v. State of Haryana, (1987) 2 SCC 445 . ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Advocate general appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand would urge that the qualifications for being appointed in the post of the Language Teachers being covered by a statute, no relaxation in relation thereto is permissible. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Advocate general appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand would urge that the qualifications for being appointed in the post of the Language Teachers being covered by a statute, no relaxation in relation thereto is permissible. The learned counsel would contend that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the aforementioned question as a decision had been taken by a committee having requisite expertise therefor. The learned counsel has also relied upon a Division bench decision of this Court in MA. Kareem v. State of A. P. , WP No. 13552 of 1996 dated 21-4-1997 and another decision rendered by one of us (V. V. S. Rao, J) in m. M. Krupa Mani v. Regional Joint Director of School Education, WP No. 1 1428 of 2000, dated 29-6-2000 as also yet another Division bench decision in M. M. Krupa Mani v. Regional Joint Director of School Education, wa No. 847 of 2000 dated 8-12-2000 in terms whereof the judgment rendered by one of us (V. V. S. Rao, J) (supra) had been upheld. ( 4 ) IN exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State of Andhra Pradesh framed rules by issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 40, Education (Ser-II) Department, dated 7-2-1992 known as the Andhra Pradesh school Educational Subordinate Service rules. Clause-D of Category-2 constituted language Pandits including Hindi Pandits and Munshies, Grade-II Rule 5 of the said rules provides for qualifications for holding the said post. By reason thereto, the following qualification was laid down: ( 5 ) THE said rule, however, stood superseded by Andhra Pradesh School educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1998. The said rules are applicable to Teachers working in the Government as also panchayat Raj institutions. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for qualification for holding the post which states that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the categories specified in Column No. (l) class and Category method of appointment qualification class-D1. (A) Language Pandits, Grade 1 (Other than Hindi Pandits:) by promotion or by direct recruitment (i) Must possess a Bachelor s Degree with the concerned language as optional OR (ii) B. O. L OR Must possesss Oriental Title in the concerned language and B. Ed. (A) Language Pandits, Grade 1 (Other than Hindi Pandits:) by promotion or by direct recruitment (i) Must possess a Bachelor s Degree with the concerned language as optional OR (ii) B. O. L OR Must possesss Oriental Title in the concerned language and B. Ed. , Degree from a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, State Act or a Provincial Act or an Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission or must have undergone Pandits Training or SGBT or its equivalent qualification. (b) Hindi Pandits Grade-I by promotion or by direct recruitment must have passed B. A. , with Hindi as one of the optional subjects or Oriental Title in Hindi in 10th Class and B. Ed. , Pracharak Diploma of the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha or SGBT. 2. Language Pandits, Grade II by direct recruitment or by transfer must possess Oriental Title with Pandits Training in the concerned language. of the annexure appended to these rules by the method specified in Column No. (2) unless he possesses the qualifications in the corresponding entry in Column No. 3 thereof. The relevant entry in the Annexure appemeed to the said rules is in the following terms class and Categoy method of appointment qualification category 2. Language Pandits, Grade I by promotion or by dirert recruitment must possess a Bachelor s Degree with the concerned language as optional OR (ii) B. G. L OR Must possesss Oriental Title in the concerned language from a University in India established or incnrporatod by or under a Central Act, State Act or a Puvincial Act or an Institution recognised fay the University Grants Commission and Pandits Training or its equivalent qualification. Category 3. Language Pandits Grade-II by direct recruitment or by transfer must possess Oriental Title with Pandits Training in the concerned language. OR Candidates witn B. A. , with concerned language as one of the optional subjects and Pandit Training or its equivalent B. Ed. , may also be appinted. ( 6 ) BY reason of the Memo No. 1080/ ps-1/93-8, dated 12-6-1996 the State government have stated that a Committee of Experts was constituted of the purpose of investigating equivalency of Visharada certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya sammelan, Hindi Viswavidhyalay, Allahabad to that of Hindi Pandit Training Course of andhra Pradesh. , may also be appinted. ( 6 ) BY reason of the Memo No. 1080/ ps-1/93-8, dated 12-6-1996 the State government have stated that a Committee of Experts was constituted of the purpose of investigating equivalency of Visharada certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya sammelan, Hindi Viswavidhyalay, Allahabad to that of Hindi Pandit Training Course of andhra Pradesh. While referring to the report of the committee it is further stated:"the members of the above committee have examined the syllabus of both courses and the mode of conducting the examination, teaching practice classes and evaluation methods and opined that the Siksha Visharada run by the Sahitya Sammelan, Prayagaa, allahabad cannot be equivated with the syllabus of Hindi Pandit Training Course conducted under the control of Government of Andhra Pradesh. He has, therefore, requested the Government to issue necessary orders in the matter. After carefully examined the matter, the government consider that the Siksha Visarada hindi Pandit Training Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayaga, allahabad is not an equivalent qualification to the Hindi Pandit Training Course run under the control of Government of Andhra pradesh and the said Siksha Visarada Hindi pandit Training Certificates cannot be equated with the Hindi Pandit Training Course run under the control of the Government of andhra Pradesh". ( 7 ) BEFORE adverting to the question involved in the matter, we would like to dispose of a short question. Referring to a memo dated 12-6-1996, it had been contended before us that the said qualification was recognised in G. O. Rt. No. 86, Education (H) Department, dated 10-3-1983. However, it appears that the genuineness or otherwise of the said GO came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court and the said GO has been found to have never issued and held to be a fictitious and forged document. Three Benches of this court in relation to the self-same subject have already pronounced judgments, the first of them being judgment dated 29-6-2000 passed in WP No. 13552 of 1996 wherein it is held:"it is not in dispute that petitioners possess siksha Visharada Certificate issued by the hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayaga and by virtue of the same and under the purported g. O. Rt. No. 86, Education (H) Department, dated 10-3-1983, have been accepted to possess Hindi Pandits Training examination certificate for the purposes of appointment as Grade-II Hindi Pandits in the Government aided Schools in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has transpired that the above Government order has never been issued and that it is a fictitious/forged document. It is not known, however, who forged the said document. Nonetheless, quite a few persons, including the petitioners, who possessed Siksha visharada Certificate from Hindi Sahitya sammelan, Prayaga, have been appointed as Hindi Pandits Grade-II. There can be some contention- whether siksha Visharada, Certificate issued by the hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayaga, is equivalent or equal to the training contemplated for any Hindi Pandit for appointment in Grade-II ofthe service in aided schools but the competent authority to decide about it is the State Government. But for the above fictitious Government order petitioners would not have been appointed in Grade-II of Hindi Pandits in the aided schools. Their appointments thus are vitiated by fraud and the accordingly fit to be ignored. Writ petition has no merit and it has to be dismissed". ( 8 ) THE matter again came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 3710 of 1999 wherein by judgment dated 23-3-1999 it has been held that the qualification of Siksha visharada of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, prayaga, Allahabad, is not equal to Hindi pandit Training Certificate recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. As indicated hereinbefore, one of us (V. V. S. Rao, J) in WP No. 11428 of 2000 passed the following judgment on 29-6-2000 : the petitioner appeared in the interview for the aided post of Grade-II Hindi Pandit in the fifth respondent college. After the interview on 24-4-2000, she was selected. The second respondent-District Educational officer, Guntur-sent a proposal to the first respondent seeking approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Grade-II hindi Pandit. The first respondent passed the impugned order. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:"as the qualification possessed by Smt. MM. Krupamani OC (W) selected by the Staff selection Committee for Gr. II Hindi Pandit post i. e. , Siksha Visaradha Training certificate issued by Sahitya Sammelan, allahabad, is not equivalent to Pandit training of Government of Andhra Pradesh as clarified by Government in the reference (supra), her selection is not legal. Krupamani OC (W) selected by the Staff selection Committee for Gr. II Hindi Pandit post i. e. , Siksha Visaradha Training certificate issued by Sahitya Sammelan, allahabad, is not equivalent to Pandit training of Government of Andhra Pradesh as clarified by Government in the reference (supra), her selection is not legal. Therefore, the selection and appointment of Smt. M. M. Krupaman as Gr. II Hindi Pandit is refused". A plain reading of the above shows that the petitioner s qualification of being a certificate-holder in Siksha Visarada given by one Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Hindi viswavidhyalay, Allahabad, is not equivalent to the Pandit Training of Government of andhra Pradesh, as per the orders of the government in Memo. No. l080/p. S. I/93-8, dated 12-6-1996. That is the reason the first respondent declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner. Mr. D. Balakishan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner produced before me a xerox copy of the certificate in visarada given by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Hindi viswavidhyalay, Allahabad, and submits that the certificate is issued by Allahabad university, and therefore, it should be treated as equivalent to that of the Hindi Pandit course of Andhra Pradesh. A plain look at the Xerox copy of the certificate shows that the same is not issued by Allahabad University, and further the same is not a course in siksha Visarada" but only a certificate in "visarada". Therefore, the contention that she obtained the said certificate from Allahabad University cannot be accepted. Further, it is not within the purview of the court to equate the qualifications obtained from one University to the qualifications of other course in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh admittedly, issued instructions on 12-6-1996 treating certain courses as equivalent to Pandit training of Andhra Pradesh. By a process and interpretation, notwithstanding the vehemence of the submission, the Court is not competent to treat visarada Certificate issued by Hindi Sahilya Sammelan, Hindi viswavidhyalay, Allahabad, as equivalent to hindi Pandit Course of Andhra Pradesh. From this point of view there is no illegality in the proceedings issued by the first respondent. For the reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed". ( 9 ) THE said judgment has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WA no. 847 of 2000. From this point of view there is no illegality in the proceedings issued by the first respondent. For the reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed". ( 9 ) THE said judgment has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WA no. 847 of 2000. ( 10 ) IT is not for this Court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the decision of the state to consider one degree equivalent to other is correct or not. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the decision of the State provided the same is unconstitutional. The legislative power of the State is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that apart from the educational qualifications, which were required to be possessed by the candidates, they are also required to have the certificate of Pandit Training Course or its equivalent. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the certificate had been recognised by the University Grants commission or in terms of Section 6 of the hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 the sammelan is entitled to issue a certificate, in our considered opinion, are matters irrelevant and not germane for the purpose of deciding the issue. The only issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the qualification of Siksha Visharada of hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayaga, Allahabad, is equivalent to Hindi Pandit Training certificate granted by the Government institution set up by the Government of andhra Pradesh. ( 11 ) AS noticed hereinbefore, an expert Committee had been constituted and they having referred to the respective syllabuses of the concerned Universities/ institutions had come to the conclusion that the Siksha Visharada Certificate awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayaga, allahabad, is not equivalent to the certificate of the Hindi Pandit Training Course. Pursuant to such decision, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Governmental order in Memo No. 1080/ps-1/93-8, dated 12-6-1996. Such an order is not open to judicial review by this Court. Pursuant to such decision, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Governmental order in Memo No. 1080/ps-1/93-8, dated 12-6-1996. Such an order is not open to judicial review by this Court. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by a Division bench decision of this Court in K. Sifhora v. District Educational Officer/member DSC-2000, kurnool and others, 2001 (2) AID 510 = 2001 (2) ALT 467 (DB), wherein, at paragraph 5 it has been held:"it is not for the Tribunal or for the High court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Expert Committee, which looks into such matters. No person having a particular degree or diploma or certificate granted by one state can claim that the same may be recognised as equivalent to another degree or diploma or certificate of another state. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india would not, nonnally, interfere with such a decision of the State inasmuch as, as indicated hereinbefore, such a decision is arrived at by the authority having expertise in the matter, which the Tribunal or the courts do not possess". ( 12 ) THE submission of the learned counsel that the impugned decision should be given a prospective effect is liable to be rejected. A qualification which is essential in nature must be possessed by a candidate before his candidature for appointment in the concerned post can be considered. If he/ she, at the date of filing of such application is not possessed of the requisite essential qualification, question of considering his/ her candidature for such post would not arise. Only because an order has been passed by the State subsequent to the acquisition of such qualification is not a ground to advance an argument to the effect that he/she, at the relevant point of time had acquired the requisite qualification. The state of Andhra Pradesh has merely issued a Governmental order in terms whereof, the certificate of the Siksha Visharada Certificate awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, prayaga, Allahabad, is not considered as equivalent to the Hindi Pandit Training course Certificate of Andhra Pradesh. If any reason thereof, the petitioners do not fulfil the essential qualifications, the impugned order cannot be set at naught. If any reason thereof, the petitioners do not fulfil the essential qualifications, the impugned order cannot be set at naught. It may be true, as has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that certain persons who were already been appointed are being allowed to continue based on the said certificate. But the same would not mean that an illegality which has been committed should be allowed to be perpetuated. If by reason of an illegal order some person has derived its benefit, the same by itself does not clothe others a legal right so as to obtain a writ in the nature of mandamus from this Court. ( 13 ) AS regards the submission to the effect that even the Division Bench of this court by its order dated 21-4-1997 in WP no. 13552 of 1996 has inter alia observed that the State has the requisite power to relax the condition, we may only before that a bare perusal of the relevant rules do not show that such a power of relaxation exists in the State. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by a decision of the apex Court in State of M. P. v. Dharma Bir, (1998) 6 SCC 165 , wherein it has categorically been held that experience could not be a substitute for the educational qualifications prescribed in statutory recruitment rules. As indicated hereinbefore, the rules prescribed essential qualifications and in that view of the matter the question of issuing a direction by this Court upon the state Government to exercise its power of relaxation, if any, would not arise. So far as the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh pal s case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Linga rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP No. 7709 of 1999 is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case, the diploma in question was recognised but later on the same was derecognised. Linga rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP No. 7709 of 1999 is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case, the diploma in question was recognised but later on the same was derecognised. In the aforementioned situation it has been held that when the petitioners had already joined the course when the diploma had been recognised by the Government of haryana, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognised yet, they cannot be given benefit of such recognition of the certificate obtained by them virtually because during the pendency of the course it was derecognised. Such a question has not been raised in the present case. In any event, the purported g. O. Rt. No. 86, dated 10-3-1983 said to be issued in recognition of the Siksha visharada Certificate awarded by the Hindi sahitya Sammelan, Prayaga, Allahabad, has been held to be a forged and fabricated document by the Division Bench in WP no. 13552 of 1996. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgments passed by the learned Tribunal. These writ petitions being devoid of any merits are, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.