O. P. Dwivedi ( 1 ) ALL intervener applications are allowed. ( 2 ) THESE two writ petitions raise a common question for consideration viz. whether candidates who have passed B. Ed. are qualified/eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi. ? ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the circumstances under which this controversy has arisen are as follows :- On the request of MCD, the Delhi subordinate Service Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued an advertisement in the newspaper "the Hindustan Times" dated 21. 9. 2000 for recruitment of 1500 Assistant Teacher (Primary) Hindi. Recruitment Rules, copy of which was sent to DSSSB, prescribe the following qualifications for primary teachers: A. (i) Higher Secondary pass of recognised Board/university with an elective subject in the matric level. (II) Two year Teacher training certificate from the recognised institution OR B. (i) Intermediate or equivalent from a recognised Board/university with an elective subject in the required language at the matric level. (ii) One year Teacher Training certificate from a recognised institution. Note: The candidate applying for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) - Hindi must have passed Hindi as an elective subject at the matric level. ( 4 ) THESE qualifications for primary teacher were approved by UPSC vide letter dated F. 3 24 (10)/73-RR dated 9. 7. 80 long back in the year 1980 and have continued to be in force since then. It will be noticed that B. Ed. is not specifically mentioned as one of the qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in MCD. It appears that in practice MCD has been recruiting B. Ed. candidates as Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the past either because of non-availability of ETE/jbt pass candidates or because of a mistaken impression that B. Ed. is higher qualification and therefore B. Ed. degree holders automatically qualify for recruitment as Assistant Teacher (Primary ). Even in the last selection of the Assistant Teacher (Primary) which was made in the year 1998, Corporation had treated B. Ed. candidates as qualified for being appointed as Assistant Teacher (Primary ). So a large number of B. Ed. candidates responded to the advertisement dated 21. 9. 2000 and we are told that number of such candidates is around 20 to 30 thousand out of a total number of 60 thousand applicants. In the advertisement dated 21. 9. candidates as qualified for being appointed as Assistant Teacher (Primary ). So a large number of B. Ed. candidates responded to the advertisement dated 21. 9. 2000 and we are told that number of such candidates is around 20 to 30 thousand out of a total number of 60 thousand applicants. In the advertisement dated 21. 9. 2000 it was notified that the written examination for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) shall be held on 12. 11. 2000. But, on 10. 11. 2000 a corrigendum was published in the newspaper "the Hindustan Times" to the effect that B. Ed. or NTT candidates are not eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and therefore no admit card will be issued to such candidates and if by over sight any such candidate receives admit card, such candidates are advised not to appear for the examination. Some of such B. Ed. pass candidates have filed writ petition No. 6798/2000 through Sh. Ataul Haque, Advocate as a PIL challenging the corrigendum dated 10. 11. 2000 published in the newspaper "the Hindustan Times" as being discriminatory in nature. Several B. Ed. pass candidates sent letters to the Court through Sh. R. P. Aggarwal which was treated as PIL and registered as CW. No. 6796/2000. The common plea in these petitions is that B. Ed. pass candidates are not only qualified but better qualified than JBT/ete candidates who are merely diploma holders. Therefore, according to the petitioners the corrigendum dated 10. 11. 2000 is unjustified, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature which must, therefore, be quashed by issuing appropriate writ or order and the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates be allowed to appear in the written examination for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the MCD. As against this, the respondents stand is that under the Recruitment Rules 1980, B. Ed. is not specifically mentioned as a qualification for primary teacher MCD. More over the B. Ed. degree holders are specially trained to teach secondary classes from VI onwards whereas ETE/jbt diploma holders are specially trained to teach at the primary level. So B. Ed. cannot be said to be the requisite qualification for primary teacher under the Recruitment Rules 1980. is not specifically mentioned as a qualification for primary teacher MCD. More over the B. Ed. degree holders are specially trained to teach secondary classes from VI onwards whereas ETE/jbt diploma holders are specially trained to teach at the primary level. So B. Ed. cannot be said to be the requisite qualification for primary teacher under the Recruitment Rules 1980. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of what these courses namely ETE/jbt on the one hand and B. Ed. on the other hand are aimed at and whether they operate at the same level or at different levels. We have to examine the question of eligibility/suitability with reference to a particular job/post namely primary teacher who have to teach children from class I to V. If this category of students class I to V is specially the focus of attention in any of these courses, naturally the candidates having passed that course would be eligible/suitable for being employed as Assistant Teacher (Primary) to the exclusion of others. ( 6 ) NATIONAL Education Policy of 1986 laid emphasis on "child centred" approach for teaching at primary level. Part V of N. E. P 86 deals with the reorganisation of Education at different stages. Clause 5. 6 deals specifically with early childhood care and education . ( 7 ) CLAUSE 5. 6 thereof reads as under :- "a warm welcoming and encouraging approach, In which all concerned share a solicitude for the needs of the child, is the best motivation for the child to attend school and learn. A child-centred and activity-based process of learning should be adopted at the primary stage. First generation learners should be allowed to set their own pace and be given supplementary remedial instruction. As the child grows, the component of cognitive learning will be increased and skills organised through practice. The policy of non-detention at the primary stage will be retained, making evaluation as disaggregated as feasible. Corporal punishment will be firmly excluded from the educational system and school timings as well as vacations adjusted to the convenience of children. " ( 8 ) CLAUSE 5. 13 which deals with the "secondary EDUCATION" reads as under :- 5. 13 Secondary education begins to expose students to the differentiated, roles of science, the humanities and social sciences. Corporal punishment will be firmly excluded from the educational system and school timings as well as vacations adjusted to the convenience of children. " ( 8 ) CLAUSE 5. 13 which deals with the "secondary EDUCATION" reads as under :- 5. 13 Secondary education begins to expose students to the differentiated, roles of science, the humanities and social sciences. This is also an appropriate stage to provide children with a sense of history and national perspective and give them opportunities to understand their constitutional duties and rights as citizens. Access to secondary education will be widened with emphasis on enrolment of girls, SCs and STs, particularly in science, commerce and vocational streams. Boards of Secondary Education will be reorganised and vested with authonomy so that their ability to improve the quality of secondary education is enhanced. Effort will be made to provide computer literacy in as many secondary level institutions as possible so that the children are equipped with necessary computer skills to be effective in the emerging technological world. A proper understanding of the work ethos and of the values of a humane and composite culture will be brought about through appropriately formulated curicula. Vocationalisation through specialised institutions or through the refashioning of secondary education will, at this stage, provide valuable man power for economic growth. "( 9 ) CLEARLY, the reorganisation of the education system at different stages is aimed at educating the child appropriately at different levels of his mental growth. It is pertinent to mention here that there are three tiers of education system in schools and requisite qualification for them are as under :- (1) Nursery (pre primary/kg/prep) Qualification: NIT certificate from recognised Board/institute. (2) Primary Classes from I to V. Qualification: JBT/ete or equivalent qualification. (3) Class VI to X. Qualification TGT/b. Ed. ( 10 ) THE syllabi of these different courses NTT, JBT, ETT and B. Ed. are so formulated that they focus specially on the children of that specific age group/class. ( 11 ) THE National Education Policy of 1986 propounded the setting of District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) for primary teacher from class I to V. The curriculum prescribed for ETE teachers has the following courses:- I. FOUNDATION COURSES AND OTHER RELATED AREAS 1. Philosophical Perspective of Education. 2. Sociological Perspective of Education. 3. Child Development 4. Process of Children s Learning 5. Guidance and Counselling 6. Philosophical Perspective of Education. 2. Sociological Perspective of Education. 3. Child Development 4. Process of Children s Learning 5. Guidance and Counselling 6. School Organisation and Management 7. Early Childhood Care and Education. 8. Education of Children with Disabilities. 9. Educational Technology 10. Non-formal and Adult Education. 11. Population Education. 12. Value Education. II. PEDAGOGICAL COURSES IN DIFFERENT SCHOOLS SUBJECTS 1. Teaching of Mother tongue (Hindi ). 2. Teaching of Mathematics. 753 3. Teaching of Environmental Studies (Sciences) 4. Teaching of Environmental Studies (Social Studies) 5. Teaching of Work Experience. 6. Teaching of Art Education. 7. Teaching of Health and Physical Education. 8. Teaching of English Language. III. SCHOOL EXPERIENCE PROGRAMME 1. Co-curricular activities 2. Community Work. 3. Games and Sports. Semester wise Distribution of Courses for ETE is as unden:- S. NO. COURSE CODE TITLE OF MAX. TOTAL THE COURSE MARKS MARKS SEMESTER I 1. 01 2. 02 3. 03 4. 04 5. 05 6. 06 Philosophical 10-40 50 Perspective of Education Child Development 10-40 50 Educational Technology 10-40 50 Teaching in Hindi (1) 10-40 50 Teaching of Mathematics (1) 10-40 50 School Experience Programme 50 50 Total 100-200 300 SEMESTER II 7. 07 8. 08 9. 09 Sociological 10-40 50 Perspective of Edu. Teaching of EVS (Science)10-40 50 Teaching of EVS (Social-Science)I 10-40 50 754 DELHI REPORTED JUDGMENTS 2081 (57) DRJ. . Teaching of Health and Physical Education I 20-30 50 Teaching of Work 30-20 50 Experience I. School Experience Programme 50 50 Total 130-170 300 SEMESTER III Process of Children s 10-40 50 learning. Teaching of EVS. (Science)II 10-40 50 Teaching of EVS 10-40 50 (Social Science) II Teaching of Art 30-20 50 Education I Teaching of Health and 20-30 50 Physical Education II Teaching of Work 30-20 50 Experience II School Experience 50 50 Programme. Total 160-190 350 SEMESTER IV Teaching of Hindi (I) 10-40 50 Teachmg of Mathematics-II 10-40 50 Teaching of Art 30-20 50 Education (II) 755 23. 23 School Organisation 10-40 50 and Management 24. 24/25 Guidance and Counselling 10-40 50 /early. 26/27 Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)/ Education of Children with Disabilities/teaching of English 25. 28/29/30 Non-Formal Education 10-40 50 and Adult. Education/population Education/value Education 26. 31 School Experience- 50 50 Programme. 27. 23 School Organisation 10-40 50 and Management 24. 24/25 Guidance and Counselling 10-40 50 /early. 26/27 Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)/ Education of Children with Disabilities/teaching of English 25. 28/29/30 Non-Formal Education 10-40 50 and Adult. Education/population Education/value Education 26. 31 School Experience- 50 50 Programme. 27. 32 Practical Work E-To A (Comprehensive Evaluation in grades) Total 80-270 350 Grand Total 470-830 1300 Besides, the practice of teaching is to be undertaken as per the schedule given below: -. : SEMESTER-I Micro Teaching Teaching of Hindi-I Teaching of Maths-I 10 Lessons. 15 Lessons. 15 Lessons. SEMESTER-II Teaching of EVS-I (Science) 15 Lessons. Teaching of EVS-I (Social Science) 15 Lessons. Teaching of Health and Phy. Education-I 5 Lessons. Teaching of W. E. I 5 Lessons. 756semester-III Teaching of EVS-II (Science) 10 Lessons. Teaching of EVS-II (Social Science) 10 Lessons. Teaching of Art Education-1 5 Lessons. Teaching of Work EX.-II 5 Lessons. Teaching of Health and Phy. Education-11 10 Lessons 40 Lessons. SEMESTER-IV Teaching of Hindi-II 16 Lessons. Teaching of Mathematics-II 16 Lessons. Teaching of Art. Education-11 8 Lessons. 40 Lessons B. Ed curriculum on the other hand comprises of the following papers :-COURSE I MARKS Basic ideas in Education Theory 100 COURSE II Educational Psychology 100courseiiimodem Indian Education 100 (A) Its development and recent history. (B) Its organisation and practice (C) Health Education. COURSE IV 100 Methodology of teaching (two teaching subjects as specified in the prospectus ). COURSE 100 Compulsory Elective Any one of the following:- (a) Career Guidance (b) School Evaluation (c) Organisation and Administration of Pre-school Education. (d) Health and Physical Education in India. . (e) Social and Adult Education. 757 (f) History of Education in India. (g) Audio-Visual Education. (h) School Library Organisation. (i) Basic Education. (j) Organisation of Co-curricular Activities. (k) Education of Backward children. (l) Primary Education in India. (m) Education for Mental Health. (n) Art Education (o) Computer Education (p) Gender School and Society. Note: 25 marks in each of the papers I, II, III and V and 30 marks in paper IV are allotted for the sessional work done during the session. ( 12 ) IT will thus be seen that whereas the ETE/jbt curriculum is framed in such a way that one single teacher is able to teach all the subjects to a particular class of students, in B. Ed. curriculum the emphasis is on the specialisation in two subjects. ( 12 ) IT will thus be seen that whereas the ETE/jbt curriculum is framed in such a way that one single teacher is able to teach all the subjects to a particular class of students, in B. Ed. curriculum the emphasis is on the specialisation in two subjects. The ETE/jbt courses are designed specially keeping the children of class I to V in mind which is not the case with B. Ed. curriculum. A primary teacher has to undergo teacher training in primary classes that is class I to V whereas a B. Ed. degree holder is required to have teaching experience of secondary classes i. e. from VI to X. In the curriculum frame work for quality teacher education framed by National Counsel for Teachers Education, an autonomous body, it has been clearly mentioned in clause 2. 7 that the curriculum for primary teacher has been formulated specially to enable the teachers to teach primary classes i. e. from I to V whereas in clause 2. 9 which deals with teachers education for secondary stage it has been observed that for teaching at the secondary level educational qualification which is most sought after is B. Ed. which in fact is meant for this stage alone. The subject- content as well as teaching methodology is different for ETE diploma holder and B. Ed. degree holder. The teaching practice for primary teachers and secondary teachers is also of different duration and different levels. The two qualifications operate in different fields and at different levels. It will, therefore be wrong to say that B. Ed. is a higher qualification than ETE/jbt in the same sense as B. A. is higher than intermediate. B. A. degree is considered to be higher than intermediate because for passing B. A. one has necessarily to pass intermediate but in order to obtain B. Ed it is not necessary to pass ETE/jbt first. These two qualifications are specifically meant for different levels of students and there is no question of one being higher than the other. ( 13 ) SIMILAR question arose before High Court of Bombay in the case of Smt. Jayashree Sunil Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2000 Bombay 394^. Schedule B, Part I of the Recruitment Rules prescribes D. Ed. as the requisite qualification for primary teachers, whereas Schedule B, Part II prescribes B. Ed. ( 13 ) SIMILAR question arose before High Court of Bombay in the case of Smt. Jayashree Sunil Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2000 Bombay 394^. Schedule B, Part I of the Recruitment Rules prescribes D. Ed. as the requisite qualification for primary teachers, whereas Schedule B, Part II prescribes B. Ed. as the requisite qualification for higher secondary teachers. Question as to whether B. Ed. degree holders are qualified/eligible for the post of primary teachers came up for decision in several cases. Some Division Benches of the High Court of Bombay took the view that B. Ed is higher qualification than D. Ed and therefore B. Ed. degree holders are qualified/eligible to be appointed as primary teachers. But in the case of Nan dani Arunkumar Kalaskar v. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 4644/98, another Division Bench took a contrary view and held that B. Ed is not the requisite qualification for primary teachers. Because of these conflicting views the matter was referred to the Full Bench. The main contention of the petitioners who were holding B. A. and B. Ed degrees was that they were having more than the requisite qualifications for being appointed as primary teacher because according to them D. Ed is only a diploma course in education which is inferior to B. Ed. , a degree course. So according to them they were not only qualified but better qualified for the post of primary teachers. As against this, the contention of the respondents was that the D. Ed syllabus has been specifically designed to meet the requirement of teaching the students of primary school whereas B. Ed. is geared to meet the teaching needs of the students of secondary level. The respondents contended that in primary education integrated teaching approach has been accepted by the council and the D. Ed syllabus has been framed in such a way that a teacher holding this qualification is in a position to teach all the subjects that are taught in primary standard. The teaching method is also suitable to the students falling in the age group up to 14 years, specially considering their hostility towards school. It was contended by the respondents in that case that the syllabus of D. Ed contains special training programme on early childhood education and non-formal education etc and that the D. Ed. The teaching method is also suitable to the students falling in the age group up to 14 years, specially considering their hostility towards school. It was contended by the respondents in that case that the syllabus of D. Ed contains special training programme on early childhood education and non-formal education etc and that the D. Ed. are taking to primary school for practical sessions. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, Full Bench held that B. Ed. is not the requisite qualification for the primary teachers and the syllabus of D. Ed is better suited for imparting education in primary school where as the syllabus of the B. Ed is better suited for teaching higher secondary level. The Full Bench held that D. Ed, B. Ed. qualifications are to operate in separate and distinct fields and therefore there is no question of considering one qualification higher than the other. Therefore it is not possible to accept the argument that B. Ed degree is higher than the D. Ed which is a diploma course. Full Bench clearly held that for teaching primary standard D. Ed is the requisite qualification and the B. Ed, degree holder cannot be treated as equivalent thereto. This Full Bench decision speaks directly on the point before us. The question of the eligibility/suitability of candidates for being appointed as primary teachers is not to be answered on the basis of educational or academic achievements. A renowned Agro-Scientist need not necessarily be a good gardener. The suitability of the candidate for a particular job must depend on his education, training and experience with reference to that specific job. There must be a reasonable nexus between the qualification prescribed for a particular post and the object to be achieved viz; teaching primary classes and looking to the curriculum , teaching practice, training etc of ETE/jbt and B. Ed candidates we think that the former qualifies the test of suitability/eligibility for primary teachers. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners referred to some decisions but most of these decisions have no direct bearing on the facts before us. In the case of Mrs. Jas- winder Kaur v. State of Punjab and anr. , 1990 (2) SLR page 458, it was observed that B. Ed. is higher qualification than Oriental Teachers Training course. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners referred to some decisions but most of these decisions have no direct bearing on the facts before us. In the case of Mrs. Jas- winder Kaur v. State of Punjab and anr. , 1990 (2) SLR page 458, it was observed that B. Ed. is higher qualification than Oriental Teachers Training course. So the petitioner cannot be said to be unqualified for the post of Hindi teacher for which only a diploma Course Oriental Teachers Training is required. The said case appears to have been decided on the presumption that B. Ed is a higher qualification without considering the course contents or the teaching methodology of the two courses nor was the validity of suitability/eligibility criterion tested with reference to specific job requirement. ( 15 ) IN the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Others, (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 606, the facts were that in response to the advertisement for filling up 66 posts of Peons in the District and sessions Court, Nagpur as many as 14,965 applications were received. The advisory committee while short listing candidates for interview excluded from consideration all those candidates who were having qualification higher than the 7th standard on the ground that those who have studied above 7th standard might not take proper interest in the work of Peons. Supreme Court found this criteria of shortlisting to be unreasonable and observed that a higher qualification by itself can not be a disqualification. Obviously those who had passed 8th standard and above were having higher qualification than of those who have studied up to 7th standard only. Therefore, the exclusion of better qualified candidates simply on the ground that they will not take interest in the work of Peon. could not be held to be reasonable. That is not the case here. As already observed B. Ed. cannot be said to be higher qualification than ETE/jbt for the reasons already given because the two operate in different fields and at different levels. could not be held to be reasonable. That is not the case here. As already observed B. Ed. cannot be said to be higher qualification than ETE/jbt for the reasons already given because the two operate in different fields and at different levels. ( 16 ) IN the case of Arun Tiwari and Others v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Others, (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 332, the facts were that the State of M. P. in order to fill up about 7000 posts of Assistant Teachers under the "operation Blackboard Scheme" during the 8th plan period from 1992-97, invited candidates who were holding Basic Training Certificate or B. Ed. degree. The contention of the petitioner before the Supreme Court was that the prescription of BTC/b. Ed. is un-reasonable and discriminatory because there are other equivalent qualifications namely Montessori, Mahila Bal Sevika Prasikshan Pramanpatras and Diploma T. So the candidates holding such qualifications should not have been left out. After considering the respective sub missions of parties counsel, the Supreme Court was of the view that this question has already been considered by the State Council for Education Research and Training and found that BTC is a superior course to diploma T. This recommendation of the SCERT was accepted by the State. Supreme Court observed that " a higher qualification which is prescribed for a particular scheme can not be considered as violative of Article 14". In the present case neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement dated 21. 9. 2000 prescribed B. Ed. to be the. requisite qualification for appointment as assistant teacher primary nor B. Ed can be said to be a higher qualification for the reasons already given. So this judgment is also of no help to the petitioners. ( 17 ) THE decision reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Y. V. Satya Narayan Rao and Others, 1993 SCC (Lands) 465- involved the interpretation of rule of preference of Master degree holder over Bachelor degree holder for recruitment to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer. The fact that the Master degree in Engineering is higher than the Bachelor degree was not in dispute before the Court. As already stated the dispute was regarding the interpretation of preference rules and not about the eligibility of BE. /m. E candidates. So this decision is also of no help to the petitioner. Executive Engineer. The fact that the Master degree in Engineering is higher than the Bachelor degree was not in dispute before the Court. As already stated the dispute was regarding the interpretation of preference rules and not about the eligibility of BE. /m. E candidates. So this decision is also of no help to the petitioner. ( 18 ) THE Full Bench decision of High Court of Bomb ay in the case of Smt. Jayshree (supra) with which we respectfully agree, fully supports the respondents. We, therefore hold that B. Ed. is not the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of assistant teacher primary MCD. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Venkatraman, vehemently contended that notwithstanding the existence of Recruitment Rules 1980, the MCD has been recruiting primary teachers from amongst the B. Ed. degree holders till as late as 1998 so now the respondents are estopped from de-barring the petitioners from forthcoming competitive examination for the posts of assistant teacher primary. It is no doubt true that the MCD has been recruiting such candidates to the post of primary teachers in the past. It may be that in past the MCD was not getting sufficient number of candidates holding ETE/jbt diplomas and therefore they recruited some B. Ed. degree holders also to the post of primary teachers. It may also be that the MCD itself was not clear on the point as to whether B. Ed. is requisite qualification for the post of assistant teachers primary and therefore on the basis of past practice they continued to recruit B. Ed. candidates for such posts. But a wrong practice of however long duration it may be cannot acquire legitimacy. On realising that B. Ed. is not the requisite qualification for the post of primary teachers, MCD can very well stop them from appearing in forth coming competitive examination. The contention of the learned counsel for the MCD that there cannot be any estoppel against law, in the circumstances, must be upheld. ( 20 ) FROM a perusal of the record, we find that the doubts as to the suitability/eligibility of B. Ed degree holder to the post of primary teachers began to surface in late 1996 when the Chief Minister in his meeting dated 5. 10. 96 with the Director of Education MCD and other Officers expressed the view that the B. Ed. 10. 96 with the Director of Education MCD and other Officers expressed the view that the B. Ed. degree holders did not possess the prescribed qualification of primary teacher diploma as it does not normally involve any primary teacher education and training. The Chief Minister was of the view that the recruitment of B. Ed. degree holder to the post of primary teachers was not according to law, ( 21 ) ANNEXURE f to C. M. No. 11082/2000 in CW. No. 6798/2000, contains a note dated 10. 10. 96 by Sh. Jagdish Sagar, Principal Secretary (UD) regarding the said meeting the Chief Minister had with Director (Education), MCD and other Officers. On the basis of said note, the Commissioner, MCD, put up a proposal contained in his letter No. F. 33/edu. /2796/candc dated 4. 12. 96 for recruitment of the candidates with professional qualification ETE/jbt from DIETs/jamia Milia Islamia for appointment as primary teachers. This proposal was accepted by MCD by decision No. 5575/g. W/corp. dated 4. 12. 196 of Corporation. ( 22 ) ON 29/11/1996, Dr. B. K. Passi, Vice Chairperson of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) wrote a letter to Sh. A. K. Guha, Director (Pry. Edu.) MCD, intimating that the professional view is that the teaching methodology at the Primary School level is qualitatively different from that of Secondary level. This letter contains an assertion to the effect that "there is a wrong notion that B. Ed. is a higher qualification than the Elementary Teacher Training Certificate and that the B. Ed. (Secondary) degree holders are not professionally prepared to teach the primary classes. But the B. Ed. (Elementary) is suitable and appropriate for teaching at the elementary level". . ( 23 ) ON record there is a letter dated 31. 8. 2000 written by Mr. Amar Singh, Dy. Secretary, DSSSB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Assistant Commissioner (Edn.) MCD whereby later was asked to clarify whether one year B. Ed. degree holders are qualified/eligible for recruitment to the post of assistant teacher primary under the Recruitment Rules. In reply to this letter Mr. K. S. Mehra, Add. Commissioner, MCD sent a D. O. No. Addl. Cm. (Hande)/2000/dec/tre dated 14/09/2000 to the Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) intimating him that the position in this regard is self explanatory . We fail to understand what the Addl. In reply to this letter Mr. K. S. Mehra, Add. Commissioner, MCD sent a D. O. No. Addl. Cm. (Hande)/2000/dec/tre dated 14/09/2000 to the Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) intimating him that the position in this regard is self explanatory . We fail to understand what the Addl. Commissioner meant by sending such a vague reply. It is distressing to note that the Additional Commissioner wrote/sent such a reply despite the letter dated 29. 11. 96 from Dr. B. K. Passi, Vice Chair man, NCTE to the effect that the B. Ed. (Secondary) degree holder are not professionally prepared to teach the primary classes. ( 24 ) THERE-IS another letter No. F8 (1)/exam Cell/scert/1152 dated 17. 11. 2000 written by Dr. Bhupendra Singh, Jt. Director Cum Controller of Exams, SCERT, to the Dy. Education Officer, Teacher Recruitment Cell, Education Department, MCD, intimating that - "i am to inform you that ETE curriculum has been specially developed by SCERT to prepare teachers for elementary stage of Education with the help of experts in the field of primary education. It is based on the development of Competencies, skills, values, professional attitude which an elementary school teacher is required to essentially possess to perform his/her duties most effectively in primary schools to psychologically deals with small children affectionately as a guide, friend and teacher. ( 25 ) ONE of the most important requirement of ETE curriculum is that every teacher trainee is required to undergo school Experience Programme of three months duration every year in MCD/ndmc primary schools in first year and elementary Schools of Delhi Govt. in second year of the Course. The teacher-trainees are exposed to challenges which they are expected to face real environment existing in MCD/ndmc Govt. schools at elementary level. ( 26 ) THE ETE students are best suited for job of primary school teachers in MCD/ndmc/delhi Govt. Schools as they have been specially trained to perform their duties most effectively in such schools. ( 27 ) THE B. Ed. students who are specially trained for secondary and Senior Secondary level of Education are best suited for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers/post Graduate Teachers in Secondary and Sr. Secondary Schools. They may not be suitable for teaching young children of primary schools as they have not been trained to psychologically deal with young children of primary stage. students who are specially trained for secondary and Senior Secondary level of Education are best suited for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers/post Graduate Teachers in Secondary and Sr. Secondary Schools. They may not be suitable for teaching young children of primary schools as they have not been trained to psychologically deal with young children of primary stage. " ( 28 ) IT will thus be seen that the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) and State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) both have taken a consistent stand that B. Ed. candidates are not suitable for teaching primary classes for whom ETE/jbt courses are specifically designed. ( 29 ) QUESTION therefore arises whether it is permissible for the Court to interfere when the professionals, who are specialist in the field have taken a particular stand in the matter? ( 30 ) WE think the answer must lie in the negative. In the case of University of Mysore, H. H. Anniah Gowda v. C. D. Govinda Rao and anotherm, 1965 SC 491, University had appointed a board of appointments to select candidates to the post of Reader. The recommendations made by the Board were accepted by the University and the appointments were accordingly made. These appointments were challenged before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that candidates did not possess the requisite qualification. Hon ble Supreme Court held that Court should not interfere in such matters if there is no allegation of malafides against persons who constituted the Board. Hon ble Supreme Court further observed that it will be wiser and safer for the Courts to leave the decision to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Court generally can be. In the Case of M. P. Oil Extraction and another v. State of MadhyaPradesh and Others, (1997) 7 SCC 592 , it was observed that the executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Court cannot and should not out step its limit, unless policy framed is absolutely capricious not being informed by any reason whatsoever or offends any constitutional provisions. ( 31 ) IN the present case the corrigendum dated 10. 11. 2000 issued in the Hindustan times de-barring B. Ed. Court cannot and should not out step its limit, unless policy framed is absolutely capricious not being informed by any reason whatsoever or offends any constitutional provisions. ( 31 ) IN the present case the corrigendum dated 10. 11. 2000 issued in the Hindustan times de-barring B. Ed. candidates from appearing in the competitive examination is based on sound professional advice, as already noticed. Both the NCTE as well as SCERT which are autonomous bodies at national and State level specialising in the filed of educational research and training have consistently taken the stand that B. Ed. is not the requisite qualification for the post of primary teacher (MCD ). Therefore, in our view it is not open for us to interfere in. the matter under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India. ( 32 ) THE position of NTT (Nursery Teachers Training) diploma holder is no better. In their application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code being CM. No, 11377/2000 in CW. No. 6796/2000, the NTT diploma holder have pleaded that they have filed writ petition bearing No. 7238/2000 titled Smt. Sita Devi and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, which is pending before the learned single Judge. A copy of the said writ petition is annexed with CM. No. 11377/2000. In the said writ petition they have admitted in the opening para and in paras 3, 5, 8a, 8c and 10 that Nursery teachers are specially trained to teach pre school classes like nursery and KG and also trained to teach class 1st and 2nd of the primary school. Clearly they have not been trained nor they are competent to teach class III, IV and V which are also primary classes. So they cannot be considered for the post of primary teacher who have to teach classes I to V. It seems that the field of nursery teacher and primary teacher overlap to some extent in as much as both are competent to teach class 1st and 2nd. So they cannot be considered for the post of primary teacher who have to teach classes I to V. It seems that the field of nursery teacher and primary teacher overlap to some extent in as much as both are competent to teach class 1st and 2nd. But that by itself does not entitle the NTT diploma holders to compete for the post of primary teachers who have to teach class I to V. While working as nursery teacher they may occasionally be asked to teach class 1st and 2nd also but they cannot be placed in the category of primary teachers unless and until they have necessary education and training to teach all classes of primary level i. e. from class I to V. From their own admission, it is clear that they are not competent to teach all the primary classes from I to V for which group ETE/jbt courses are specifically designed. Therefore they cannot be held to be eligible for recruitment to the post of primary teacher (MCD ). ( 33 ) A fervent plea was made on behalf of both the NTT diploma holders as well as B. Ed. degree holders that disqualifying them for the post of primary teacher would severely restrict their chances of employment/promotion. It is for the authorities concerned to frame appropriate rules creating better avenues for employment/promotion. This Court cannot re-frame or re-write the rules in this regard in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 34 ) IN the result both these writs fail and are hereby dismissed. Interim stay granted on 10/11/2000 also stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs.