ORDER : M.B. Shah, J. Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 is delinked. 2. This batch of appeals/special leave petitions are filed against the judgment and order dated 13-5-1998 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in various writ petitions pertaining to the interviews held by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short "U.P. PSC") for the 216 posts of Principals in Government (Boys/Girls) Inter College of the State. U.P. PSC held examinations and interviews in the year 1997. The High Court while relying upon the relevant Act and the Rules and the eligibility criteria prescribed for such appointment has, however, read into the selfsame additional facts and noted that it was the first experience to hold the interviews of such requirements resulting into expansion of scope of the same. 3. In order, however, to assess the situation in its proper perspective, the eligibility criteria for selection to the post of Principal, Government Intermediate College (Boys/Girls) ought to be considered and the same reads as under: Eligibility Criteria (Essentials): (a) A postgraduate degree from a university established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. (b) LT Diploma of the Department of Education, Uttar Pradesh, or BT or BEd or an equivalent degree of a university. (c) At least three years' experience as Head of a Higher Secondary or normal school or in teaching Intermediate or higher classes or as a lecturer in CT or LT training college. 4. In these appeals/petitions U.P. PSC was concerned with the interpretation of Clause 3 which provides for: (i) Three years' teaching experience as Head of a High School or normal school. (ii) Three years' experience of teaching Intermediate or higher classes. (iii) Three years' teaching experience as Lecturer in CT/LT training college. 5. The records depict that U.P. PSC has declared the results of interviews on the assumption that teaching experience must be from Government schools/institutions or government-aided schools/institutions. 6. It is to be stated that the aforesaid Rules nowhere prescribe that teaching experience should be that of a teacher in Government college or government-aided or unaided college or institution. Teaching experience may be from any Higher Secondary School or High School or from an institute having Intermediate or higher classes. Further, a Lecturer having three years' teaching experience in CT/LT training college is also eligible. 7. Teaching experience may be from any Higher Secondary School or High School or from an institute having Intermediate or higher classes. Further, a Lecturer having three years' teaching experience in CT/LT training college is also eligible. 7. After considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners and the stand taken by U.P. PSC the High Court issued various directions in its operative part of the judgment. The first direction is as under: "(i) The candidates who were claiming to work as the Lecturers/Heads of High Schools or normal schools or Lecturers in CT/LT training college recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, the recognition of which institutions has been approved by the State Government and who have gained three years' teaching experience for teaching Intermediate and higher classes on the basis of their appointment/promotion in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder as well as 5th and 6th Removal of Difficulties Orders, shall be eligible for being selected even if they are not getting their salaries." 8. The aforesaid direction is to be considered in the light of the discussion in the judgment which specifically provides that if the teachers who have been substantively appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder are not paid the salary from the public treasury as those institutions were not given maintenance grant/grant-in-aid, it cannot be blamed for the lapse on the part of the State Government and such teacher cannot be excluded for being considered to be appointed. The learned counsel for the parties have pointed that most of the matters filed by the teachers are with regard to this clause. It is their contention that if this direction as explained in the body of this judgment stands implemented, most of the matters may not survive. 9. In this view of the matter, we direct U.P. PSC to implement and carry out the aforesaid direction and prepare a list of eligible teachers for being appointed to the posts advertised, within 8 weeks from today as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for U.P. PSC and submit a list before this Court before the next date of hearing. 10. 10. The High Court has issued following further directions: "(v) The candidates who were teaching as LT Grade Teachers or trained graduate teachers and the candidates who have not completed three years' teaching experience as Lecturers will not be eligible for being selected. (vi) The candidates who were working as Lecturers in the Government Inter College and were drawing salary from the treasury or Government funds are eligible for being selected. (vii) The candidates who were working as Lecturers in Navodaya Vidyalayas or in Central Schools and drawing salary from Government funds come within the field of eligibility and they are liable to be selected. (viii) The candidates who were working as Lecturers in government-aided institutions and were drawing salary from treasury or from Government funds are also entitled for being selected." 11. We, however, clarify the aforesaid directions by recording that instead of the word "Lecturer" it should be read as "Lecturer/teacher". In this view of the matter, the abovenoted Clauses (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) be read as below: "(v) The candidates who were teaching as LT Grade Teachers or trained graduate teachers and the candidates who have not completed three years' teaching experience as Lecturer/teacher will not be eligible for being selected. (vi) The candidates who were working as Lecturer/teacher in the Government Inter College and were drawing salary from the treasury or Government funds are eligible for being selected. (vii) The candidates who were working as Lecturer/teacher in Navodaya Vidyalayas or in Central Schools and drawing salary from Government funds come within the field of eligibility and they are liable to be selected. (viii) The candidates who were working as Lecturer/teacher in government-aided institutions and were drawing salary from treasury or from Government funds are also entitled for being selected." 12. The High Court also directed as under: "(xii) The candidates who have filed three years' teaching experience of those institutions which are affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi or teaching ISC courses and are being paid salary by the management do not come within the field of eligibility for being selected. (xiii) The candidates who have obtained three years' teaching experience as teachers for teaching in the institutions, run by the Army and Air Force Association, recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education do not come within the field of eligibility and thus cannot be selected." 13. (xiii) The candidates who have obtained three years' teaching experience as teachers for teaching in the institutions, run by the Army and Air Force Association, recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education do not come within the field of eligibility and thus cannot be selected." 13. Prima facie, subject to further consideration it appears that the aforesaid directions are not in consonance with the statutory rules. There is apparently no restriction in the statutory rules to the effect that teaching experience must be that of a recognised institution of the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Hence, without prejudice to the contentions, list of such candidates also should be prepared and submitted to this Court before the next date of hearing. 14. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-petitioners in IA No. 10 in Civil Appeals Nos. 974-975 of 1999 states that despite the direction issued by the High Court U.P. PSC has still not implemented Direction (xv) which reads as under: "(xv) The candidates who have cleared the National Eligibility Test conducted by the University Grants Commission for Research Fellowship and are engaged in various universities, graduate or postgraduate colleges and have been imparting education for three years come within the field of eligibility and are liable to be selected. Similarly, those candidates who possess superior academic qualifications and have possessed three years' teaching experience in graduate and postgraduate classes cannot be excluded from the selection." 15. We direct U.P. PSC to carry out the aforesaid directions and submit the report to this Court as stated earlier before the next date of hearing. Re: SLP (C) No. 10048 of 1999 16. While considering the directions as above, U.P. PSC is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the aforesaid special leave petition with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, particularly, the questions of law raised in the petition and submit a report separately. 17. List these matters on 14-3-2001 as part-heard.