( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions the petitioners are challenging the Government Order No. ED 261 PTI 97, Bangalore, dated 17. 11. 2001, passed by the Government of Karnataka. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions could be broadly classified into following categories:1. Five societies which are registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, which are running in all 17 institutions in various parts of Karnataka. The said five societies are: i) Karnataka Mahila Hindi Seva Samithi, Bangalore; ii) Mysore Hindi Prasara Parishat, Bangalore; iii) Karnataka Hindi Prachara Samithi, Bangalore; iv) Manasa Education Society, Tumkur; v) Karnataka Labour Education Society, Thitha. 2. Students who have passed out from 17 institutions run by the aforesaid societies in Hindi Shikshak course. ( 3 ) STUDENTS who on the basis of the certificate of Hindi Shikshak course conducted by the aforesaid 17 institutions, have applied for appointment and who have been selected, but who are not given appointment letters in view of the impugned Government Order. ( 4 ) PERSONS who have been appointed on the basis of the certificate of Hindi Shikshak course conducted by the aforesaid institutions and whose services have been terminated and who are not reappointed. ( 5 ) STUDENTS who have joined Hindi Shikshak course conducted by the aforesaid institutions and studying the said course, to whom the Karnataka Secondary Education Board has refused to conduct examinations in view of the impugned Government Order. Brief Facts:3. The aforesaid five societies are imparting education in Hindi Shikshak course. They have been established after obtaining the necessary permission from the Government. The Government while granting the permission has also fixed the intake of the students for the aforesaid course. In pursuance of the grant of permission by the Government, these societies have acquired land, constructed buildings, provided all infrastructural facilities to run the said course. They have been running these colleges at 17 places in different parts of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka, by an order dated 12. 11. 1987. G. O. No. ED 259 SLV 87, considered the Hind Shikshak training examination conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Board as equivalent to B. Ed. degree for the purpose of grant of trained pay scales and also for appointment and promotions. The qualifications prescribed for admission to this Hindi Shikshak training course was a degree in Hindi. 11. 1987. G. O. No. ED 259 SLV 87, considered the Hind Shikshak training examination conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Board as equivalent to B. Ed. degree for the purpose of grant of trained pay scales and also for appointment and promotions. The qualifications prescribed for admission to this Hindi Shikshak training course was a degree in Hindi. After completion of this Hindi Shikshak course, which is equivalent to B. Ed. degree, such candidates would be eligible for appointment as teachers in Higher Secondary Schools. The Government of Karnataka by another Government Order dated 29. 4. 1965 has declared that the academic equivalence of the qualifications as recognized by the Government of India, Ministry of Education, may have to be accepted by the Education Department and an Annexure showing the examinations conducted which are recognized by the Government of India to the equivalence was issued. Accordingly, the examinations conducted by the Karnataka Mahila Seva Samithi, Bangalore, viz. , Uttama was recognized as an equivalent to SSLC, Bhasha Bhushan equivalent to Inter-mediate, Bhasha Praveen equivalent to B. A. Similarly, examina- tions conducted by Mysore Hindi Prasara Parishat, Mysore, viz. , Praveen equivalent to SSLC, Uttama equivalent to Inter-mediate, Ratna equivalent to B. A. Therefore, students who have passed Ratna in the aforesaid institutions were treated as Graduates for the purpose of being admitted to Hindi Shikshak course and on completion of Hindi Shikshak, which is equivalent to B. Ed. , they are eligible for appointment as teachers in Higher Secondary School. It is in view of these Government orders, mostly the students coming from rural area who had no opportunity to study in regular schools and colleges, opted for this course and acquired these qualifications with the sole object of getting an appointment as Hindi teachers. The recognition for these courses is given by the Government by conducting examination through its instrumentality, viz. , Karnataka Secondary Education Board. These facts are not in dispute. 4. With a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system through out the country, the Regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system, National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter for short the Act) was enacted by the Parliament. The Act came into force from 17. 8. 1995. 4. With a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system through out the country, the Regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system, National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter for short the Act) was enacted by the Parliament. The Act came into force from 17. 8. 1995. Section 14 of the said Act provided that every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teachers education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under the Act make an application to the Regional Committee concerned, in such form and in such manner as determined by Regulations, provided the institution offering a course or training in the teacher education immediately before the appointed day shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months. If the Regional Committee on receipt of such application is satisfied with such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teachers education as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution subject to such conditions as determined by regulation. It is not in dispute that all the aforesaid five institutions and the 17 colleges run by them after passing of the Act made application in the prescribed form seeking grant of recognition and the Regional Committee has granted recognition to these institutions. Therefore these institutions which were offering the Hindi shikshak course before the passing of the Act by obtaining necessary permission, recognition from the Government continued to offer the said courses to the students after obtaining necessary recognition under the Act. 5. Government of Karnataka by Order dated 11th July 1997 stipulated certain conditions subject to which Shikshaka Snathaka course conducted by Dakshina Bharatha Hindi Prachara Sabha, should offer to those admitted to the institutions. By another order dated 9th September 1997 the Government with-drew the recognition granted to the said course and its qualifications to B. Ed. , degree in terms of the Government Order dated 20th September 1997. The said two orders were challenged by Dhakshina Bharath Hindi Prachara Sabha by preferring Writ Petition No. 33998/97. By another order dated 9th September 1997 the Government with-drew the recognition granted to the said course and its qualifications to B. Ed. , degree in terms of the Government Order dated 20th September 1997. The said two orders were challenged by Dhakshina Bharath Hindi Prachara Sabha by preferring Writ Petition No. 33998/97. In the said writ petition this Court held, in so far as first Government Order is concerned, it is one without jurisdiction and quashed the same. In so far as other Government Order where the equivalence was with-drawn, it held that the State Government could possibly have a say in the matter relating to recognition of qualifications and giving equivalence for the purposes of employment under the State or State aided institutions. The Government was directed to consider the question of granting an appropriate equivalent to the Shikshaka Snathaka course which has been duly recognised by the NCTE for the purpose of employment under the State. The State Government in pursuance of the aforesaid directions after considering all the aspects issued a Government Order dated 15. 11. 2001 to the effect that Shikshaka Snathaka course conducted by Dhakshina Bharath Hindi Prachara Sabha cannot be considered as equivalent either to B. Ed. , degree being awarded by the universities of Karnataka or TCH being awarded by Karnataka Secondary Education Board. Thereafter, consequent to the coming into force of NCTE Act 1993 which has prescribed the norms and regulations for conducting teachers training course and also the fact that these colleges offer courses basically for learning Hindi language and are not teacher training institute as laid down in the NCTE Act and also keeping in view the fact that the students can pursue the Hindi courses offered by these institutions without acquiring general degrees conferred by the universities, the entire question of considering the courses offered by these institutions as equivalent to B. Ed. degree was re-examined by the Government. They also took note of the fact that the average number of trained teachers during the last few years on the employment register awarding jobs is more than 10,000-00 and the requirement of Hindi teachers in the State per year is only 100. Taking note of Section 23 of Universities Act of 1956 to the effect that the declaration of Hindi Shikshaka Course has been equivalent to B. Ed. Taking note of Section 23 of Universities Act of 1956 to the effect that the declaration of Hindi Shikshaka Course has been equivalent to B. Ed. , degree conferred by universities amounts to violation of the provision and also taking note of the representation made by the candidates possessing B. A. , B. Ed. , degrees awarded by various universities came to the conclusion that the Hindi Shikshaka course being offered by the 17 institutions mentioned above cannot be considered as equivalent to either TCH course or B. Ed. degree courses in the State for the purpose of appointment, promotion and grant of trained pay-scales and hence passed the impugned order as under: in the detailed circumstances explained in the preamble portion to this order and in supercession of all the earlier orders issued in the matter Government hereby orders that the Hind Shikshak Course being offered by the 17 institutions listed above and run by the Karnataka Mahila Hindi Seva Samithi, Bangalore, Mysore Hindi Prachara Parishad, Bangalore, Karnataka Hindi Prachara Samithi, Bangalore, Manasa Education Society, Tumkur, Karnataka Labour Education Society, Bidar is neither equivalent to the B. Ed. degree which is being awarded by the Universities in Karnataka or TCH Course Certificate that is being awarded by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore and those possessing Certificates of Hindi Shikshak Course conducted by the 17 institutions mentioned above are not eligible for appointment as Teachers in the High Schools and Primary Schools in the State of Karnataka. It is further ordered that the holders of such certificates are also not eligible for purposes of promotion and grant of trained teachers payscales. In view of the passing of the aforesaid order withdrawing the equivalence granted earlier to Hindi Shikshak course as being equivalent to B. Ed. course the petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are affected. Therefore, they have preferred these writ petitions challenging the legality, constitutionality and validity of the impugned Government Order. ( 6 ) THE petitioners, namely, the aforesaid five institutions which are running 17 colleges throughout Karnataka contend that they have been running these institutions with the permission of the Government. They have invested huge amounts for building and for providing infrastructure. They are catering to the requirement of the rural students who are deprived of an opportunity to acquire knowledge in the recognised schools and in the recognised faculties. They have invested huge amounts for building and for providing infrastructure. They are catering to the requirement of the rural students who are deprived of an opportunity to acquire knowledge in the recognised schools and in the recognised faculties. The Government has passed order granting equivalence to the Hindi Shikshak course imparted by them being equivalent to B. ED. course in the matter of employment, promotion and grant of trained teachers pay-scales. In fact, the instrumentality of the Government, namely, Karnataka Secondary Education Board conducts the examination for these courses after passing of the Act. In terms of the said Act, they have made application for grant of recognition and after considering their case the authority under the Act has granted recognition to the institutions and the courses conducted by them. Therefore, now it is not open to the Government to declare that this Hindi Shikshak course offered by these institutions and the persons who have acquired certificate of Hindi Shikshak course all these years from these institutions are not eligible for appointment as teachers to the high schools and primary schools listed in Karnataka and that they are not eligible for purposes of promotion and grant of trained teachers pay-scales. ( 7 ) IN so far as the students who have acquired a certificate of Hindi shikshak course from these institutions all these years contend, on a representation made to them by the respondents that the Hindi Shikshak course offered by these institutions are equivalent to the B. Ed. course and if once that qualification is acquired they would be eligible for appointment as teachers for high schools and primary schools in the State of Karnataka and that they should also be eligible for promotion and grant of trained teachers pay-scales, they joined the said course, paid the fees, studied the course and have come out successfully. Thus they have altered their positions choosing these courses and completed the said course successfully. Therefore, a vested right has accrued to them after successfully completing the course for being considered for appointment as teachers in high schools and primary schools in the State of Karnataka and also primary schools in the State of Karnataka and also eligible for the purposes of promotion and grant of trained teachers pay-scales. The said right cannot be taken away by the impugned Government order. If at all, the said order could be only prospective. The said right cannot be taken away by the impugned Government order. If at all, the said order could be only prospective. ( 8 ) THE other category of petitioners contend that the Government of Karnataka has called application for filing up the post of 2700 Government high school teachers and in pursuance of the said notification, they have made applications. The selection was made on 21-6-2001, provisional list of selected candidates was published on 20-9-2001. The petitioners have also been selected, they have submitted their original marks card to the authorities and they are awaiting formal appointment order. The persons who were not selected in the selection process in fact brought political pressure to stall appointments. When they failed, they failed Writ Petition No. 20378 384/98 which came to be dismissed. It is thereafter the Government succumbing to the said pressure has passed the impugned order. Though the petitioners were selected for the post, the appointment orders have not been issued and therefore they have sought for, apart from setting aside the impugned order, a direction to the authorities to issue appointment orders in terms of the provisional list already announced. ( 9 ) THE other category of petitioners are those who have joined the Hindi shikshak course in the current academic year. The Karnataka Secondary Education Board has declined to conduct the examination on the ground of passing of the impugned order. By interim orders passed by this court exams have been conducted but results are yet to be announced. ( 10 ) THERE is yet another category of petitioners who have been appointed temporarily on the basis of equivalence of Hindi shikshak course who have been relieved from their respective posts and whose cases are not considered for re-appointment on the ground that on the date of considering of re-appointment, the Government order is passed taking away the equivalence. ( 11 ) STATE of Karnataka has filed detailed objections opposing these writ petitions. They admit that the Government has granted permission to these institutions to start Hindi Shikshak courses, and they have also recognised the certificates awarded by the petitioner institutions as equivalence to B. Ed. degrees and also eligible for appointment as Hindi teacher in secondary school in the State of Karnataka. They admit that the Government has granted permission to these institutions to start Hindi Shikshak courses, and they have also recognised the certificates awarded by the petitioner institutions as equivalence to B. Ed. degrees and also eligible for appointment as Hindi teacher in secondary school in the State of Karnataka. They have set out in detail the particulars of the Writ Petition No. 33998/97 referred to supra filed by Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachara Sabha, and the orders passed by this court and the observations made by them in the said order. Further they contend, as per Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (I Amendment) Rules 1991, the qualifications are prescribed for the post of secondary school Assistants (Grade II Cadre ). Accordingly, they contend a high school teacher should have passed B. Ed. , degree equivalent whereas a Hindhi Shikshak certificate is not B. Ed. degree. Thus they have set out in detail the passing of the National Teachers Education Act and its objects and they have referred to various provisions of the said Act and they have also referred to the norms framed under the Act regarding eligibility criteria which provides that candidates with at least 45% in Bachelors/masters decree with at least two school subjects at graduation level are eligible for appointment to the teachers education course and therefore they contend that the course conducted by these petitioners have passed do not satisfy the aforesaid mandator requirement. Further, they contend that these petitioners are not in a position to teach any other subjects expect Hindi and if such persons are appointed as teachers in high schools they will have maximum 15 periods of work a week, but normally a full time teacher in high school is expected to work on a maximum of 28 periods a week, therefore there will be burden on the exchequer. These teachers lack work load and it is not desirable to appoint such person who know only how to teach Hindi in the high school. They also contend Section 22 of the Universities Grant Commission Act 1986 confers a right to grant a degree only to the universities and therefore the degree conferred by the aforesaid institutions cannot be equated to the B. Ed. degree conferred by the universities in the State. Further they contend, in the primary schools the qualification for teachers is PUC + TCH course. degree conferred by the universities in the State. Further they contend, in the primary schools the qualification for teachers is PUC + TCH course. These teachers are expected to teach all the subjects including language as most of the schools are single teacher schools and there is no separate Cadre of Hindi teachers, hence they cannot be appointed as primary school teachers to teach students in primary school. It is also their contention that there are large number of candidates who are regular degree holders of B. A. , and have passed B. A. , in Hindi Methodology from the universities in the State of Karnataka. These candidates possess the requisite qualifications. They have represented to the State Government that in view of the equivalence given to the students passed out from the Hindi degree course they will be put to great hardship. An anomalous situation is created where in candidates with B. A. and B. Ed. awarded by the universities were at disadvanta-geous position when compared to Hindi Shikshak Course candidates in securing the appointments as high school teachers. If the equivalence of B. Ed. degrees are granted to students passed out from the petitioners institutions, similar request from other language institutions would have to be entertained which is not at all in the interest of the students in Karnataka. It is submitted that the students need not pass even the SSLC under the General Education to take degree courses in Hindi. Even a 5th standard student can also possess Hindi degree. Students who have passed 5th standard has to study Prathama for six months, Madhyama for six months, Uthama for another six months, and Bhasha Praveen-I and II which is also a six months course. Even SSLC failed candidates also possess Hindi degree. The examination for Hindi degree is conducted by the petitioners institutions, the syllabus is also prescribed by the petitioners institutions, the State Government has no role to play. It is only to propagate Hindi in Non-Hindi speaking states. However, the State Government has granted the equivalence to the Hindi shikshak course conducted by the petitioners institutions since the examinations are conducted by the Examination Board in the State of Karnataka. Therefore, taking into consideration of all these aspects the impugned order has been passed, as such it cannot be found fault with. However, the State Government has granted the equivalence to the Hindi shikshak course conducted by the petitioners institutions since the examinations are conducted by the Examination Board in the State of Karnataka. Therefore, taking into consideration of all these aspects the impugned order has been passed, as such it cannot be found fault with. ( 12 ) THEY contend, in view of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 33998/97 it is for the State Government to declare that the degree granted by the petitioners institutions is equivalence to B. Ed. , or not. The State Government alone is competent to decide and give equivalence to the degree assigned by the petitioners institutions. There is no conflict between the Central Act and the State Act and the State Government is competent to fix appropriate equivalence. Therefore, they have sought for dismissal of the writ Petitions. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsels appearing for the petitioners canvassed the following points for consideration:1) After passing of the Act, the State Government has no power to lay down the guidelines in respect of the minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as teacher in school or recognised institu-tions or to lay down the norms for any specified category of course or training in teacher education including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof and the selection of candidates, duration of the course and therefore they contend, as all these aspects fall within Entry 66 of the Union list. When the Parliament has passed a law, the State Government has no power to legislate and there-fore they have no power to issue any executive order providing the same and declaring the equivalence or otherwise. As such the impugned order is void and liable to be quahed. 2) The impugned order is directed against five societies and 17 institutions run by them as is clear from the order itself. Though the Government conside-red the representations of all candidates possessing B. A, B. Ed, degrees who complained of discrimination the candidates who have secured teachers training certificates, they did not hear the aforesaid five societies and 17 institutions imparting education in this course for over more than two decades before passing the impugned order which affects them substantially and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 3) Petitioners joined these courses in view of the representation made to them to the effect that the Hindi Shikshak course would be equivalent to a B. Ed. degree course which would enable them to secure an employment in a higher secondary school and would entitle them for promotion and pay-scales of trained teachers. They joined these courses, altered their positions, successfully completed the said course and therefore by the impugned order such a vested right accrued to them has been sought to be taken away. As such the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of being hit by doctrine of promissory estoppel. By the aforesaid representation, a legitimate expectation in the minds of these petitioners/students would arise that if they complete this course they would be eligible for appointment and therefore by impugned order such a right accrued to them is sought to be taken away which is impermissible in law and is opposed to doctrine of legitimate expectations and as such it is liable to be quashed. 4) By virtue of earlier Government Orders persons who are similarly placed and who have passed these examinations have been employed, in various Government and Government aided institutions and by virtue of the impugned order they have been deprived of such job opportunity and therefore it would violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as there is discrimination between persons who are similarly placed. 5) At any rate, the impugned order cannot be retrospective, it can only be prospective. A valuable right accrued to the petitioners cannot be taken away by making the impugned order retrospective, as such the impugned order in so far as it operates retrospectively is liable to be quashed. ( 14 ) PER contra, learned Government Advocate submitted:1) when this equivalence was granted to Hindi Shikshak course conducted by these institutions by Government Order, the power to with-draw such equivalence to Government cannot be denied. 2) The said equivalence is now decided by the Government in pursuance of the directions issued by this court in Writ Petition No. 33998/97 where this court has categorically declared that the Hindi Shikshak course is not equivalent to B. Ed. decree and in view of the fact that NCTE has not recognised the petitioners B. Ed. 2) The said equivalence is now decided by the Government in pursuance of the directions issued by this court in Writ Petition No. 33998/97 where this court has categorically declared that the Hindi Shikshak course is not equivalent to B. Ed. decree and in view of the fact that NCTE has not recognised the petitioners B. Ed. degree the said equivalence could not have possibly continued and that the same Government has to consider the question of granting an appropriate equivalence. It is contended, in view of the aforesaid judgment it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the Government has no power to consider the question of equivalence. 3) Though the power to legislate on this aspect is to be found in Entry 25 of List III there is no conflict between the Central Government and State Government legislation in this regard. The State Government alone can declare that the degree granted by the petitioners institutions is equivalence to B. Ed. or not and as there is no conflict between the Central Act and State Act, the State Government is competent to fix appropriate equivalence and accordingly it has been done. 4) Under the Act the eligibility for teachers education is that a candidate with at least 45 marks in Bachelors/ Masters degree with at least two school subjects at graduation level are eligible for admission. As these petitioners do not possess the said eligibility criteria the Hindi Shikshak course cannot be equated to the B. Ed. course. 5) Lastly, it was contended, under the Rules the qualification prescribed for the post of Secondary School Assistants is that he must be a holder in degree in Arts, with any of the major subjects as optionals and he must be a holder of degree in education, which qualifications these petitioners do not possess and therefore they are not entitled to be treated as having passed B. Ed degree course. ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are as under:1) Whether the State Government is competent to issue an executive order declaring that the Hindi Shikshak course which is being offered in view of the passing of the Act and the Regulations thereunder, is neither equivalent to B. Ed. degree which is being awarded by the universities in Karnataka or TCH course certificate that is being awarded by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examina-tion Board, Bangalore, and that persons possessing such certificates are not eligible for appointment as teachers in the high schools and primary schools in the State of Karnataka and that they are not eligible for the purposes of promotion and grant of trained teachers pay-scales?2) Whether the impugned order is void being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?3) Whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of it offending to doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation?4) Whether the impugned order is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? ( 16 ) POINT No. 1: Entry 66 of List-I i. e. , Union list of VII Schedule of the Constitution reads as follows: co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and educational institutions. Entry 25 of List III i. e. , concurrent list reads: education including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries- 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I Vocational and Technical Training of Labour. Article 254 of the Constitution deals with inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by legislature of States. In case of any repugnancy in the legislation made by Parliament and the State Legislature of state in List-III, the law made by the State Legislature shall stand impliedly repealed to the extent of repugnancy to the law made by the Parliament. Whether such law encroaches upon Entry-25 of concurrent List have to be determined by examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case. Article-162 of the Constitution deals with the extent of executive power of the State. It provides that subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has the power to make laws. Article-162 of the Constitution deals with the extent of executive power of the State. It provides that subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has the power to make laws. Proviso to said Article states, in any matter with respect to which the legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by the parliament upon the Union or Authorities thereof. In other words, if the State legislature has no power to legislate on any aspect, the state Government has no power to issue an executive order in respect of that aspect. Therefore, it is necessary for us to find out whether the State legislature has the power to legislate on the aspect the State has issued the impugned order by virtue of its executive power in the light of the provisions contained in Act and the Regulations framed under the Act. ( 17 ) NATIONAL Council for Teachers Education Act 1993 (Act 73 of 1993) is a Central enactment which is passed by the Parliament. It came into force from 29th December 1993. The object of the aforesaid legislation was to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education system through out the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. Clause-2 (1) of the said Act defines Teacher Education means programmes of education research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools, and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education. It also defines, as per Section 2 (m) the teacher education qualification. It means a degree, diploma or certificate in teacher education awarded by a university or examining body in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Under the Act, a council has been established for co-ordinated and development of teacher education system at all levels throughout the country. The council is also required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of standards and in teacher education. Under the Act, a council has been established for co-ordinated and development of teacher education system at all levels throughout the country. The council is also required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of standards and in teacher education. The council is further to evolve suitable member incorporating such norms and mechanisms in enforcing their accountability. It is also required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to with-hold and discontinue grants where norms and standards and directions are given by it from time to time and not followed. The duty and responsibility cast on the council implies that the norms and standards to be set should be such as to prevent and a liability constituted on development of technical education in the country. Section 12 of the Act deals with the functions of the council. It shall be the duty of the council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education. For the aforesaid purpose the council may undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof; to make recommendations to Central and State Government, Universities, Universities Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and progress in the field of teacher education; co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development to the country. ( 18 ) IN particular, the Act and regulations clearly provides for eligibility criteria for appointment as teachers in high schools and primary schools in the State of Karnataka and the eligibility criteria for purposes of promotion and grant trained teachers pay-scales. The same squarely falls within Section-12 (d) (e) and (g) which pare extracted herein below: section - 12 (d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions. (underlining by me ). Section 12 (e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum. Section 12 (g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training. Section 12 (g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training. ( 19 ) TO examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the council and to suitably advise the recognised institutions; to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions; to formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes. Chapter-4 deals with recognition of teacher education institution. Section-14 deals with recognition of institutions, offering courses or training in teachers education, whereas, Section 15 deals with procedures to start new course or an institution after amendment of the Act. The institution offering courses or training in teacher education on the date of the Act came into force, shall be entitled to continue such courses or training for a period of six months if it has made application for recognition within the said period and until disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. On receipt of such application, the Regional Committee was authorised to grant recognition if the said institution satisfied the requirements mentioned in Cluase-14 (3) of the Act. However, the order granting or refusing recognition to an institutionfor a crouse or training education under Sub-Section (3) shall be published in official gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, local authority of the State Government and the Central Government. Every examining body shall on receipt of the order under sub-section (4) grant affiliation to the institutions, where recognition has been granted. ( 20 ) SECTION-27 provides for delegation of functions and powers by the council which shall be in writing. Section-32 empowers the council to make regulations, providing for: (i) Minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher under Clause (d) of Section12; (ii) specified category of courses or training in teacher education in Clause (e) of Section-12. It provides in respect of examinations under Clause (g) of Section-12 and the schemes for various levels of teacher education and identification of institutions for offering teacher development programmes, under Clause (1) of section-12. It provides in respect of examinations under Clause (g) of Section-12 and the schemes for various levels of teacher education and identification of institutions for offering teacher development programmes, under Clause (1) of section-12. ( 21 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred under Clause-d (1) of Sub-Section (2) of Section-32 read with Section 12 (b) of the National Council for Teachers Education Act 1993 the Council on 3rd September 2001 framed regulations prescribing the minimum qualification for recruitment of teachers in schools which is called as National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulation 2001, (hereinafter referred for short as Regulations 2001 ). The said Regulations came into effect from 4th September 2001 when it was published in the gazette of India. The said regulations were made applicable for recruitment of teachers in all Government schools established, run or aided or recognised by Central or State Government and other authorities imparting education at elementary (primary and Higher Primary/middle Schools) Secondary and Senior Stages. The schedules to the said regulations provided for the qualifications for recruitment of teachers. The said regulation took note of the fact that Government has framed rules for such recruitment of teachers and was in operation. Therefore, Regualtion-4 specifically provided that existing recruitment rules may be employed with in a period of three years so as to bring them in conformity with the qualification prescribed in the schedule. It was also made clear that in the meanwhile, teachers appointed as per the existing recruitment qualifications, subsequent to the issue of these regulations, would be required to acquire qualifications as prescribed in the Schedule. Regulation-5 provided for the State Governments approaching the Council for relaxation of some other regulations for some time if the said regulations are causing any hardship or injustice and the Council was empowered being satisfied to grant such relaxation. Regulation-6 provided as under: if any question arises relating interpretation of these regulations or equivalence of various teachers training programmes decision of the Council shall be final. (Underlining by me ). ( 22 ) FIRST Schedule provided for the minimum academic and the professional qualifications which a candidate should possess for teaching in primary, Upper Primary (Middle school Section), Secondary/high school and Senior Secondary/puc/intermediate classes. (Underlining by me ). ( 22 ) FIRST Schedule provided for the minimum academic and the professional qualifications which a candidate should possess for teaching in primary, Upper Primary (Middle school Section), Secondary/high school and Senior Secondary/puc/intermediate classes. The note appended to the said schedule makes it very clear that for appointment of teachers for primary classes, basic teachers training programmes of 2 years duration is required. B. Ed. is not a substitute for basic teachers training programme. Further the note stated that some of the States are having basic teachers training courses of one year duration only, while in some other States students passing secondary level examination are admitted to primary level teacher training courses. Such States may, by 2005 conduct basic teachers training programmes of a duration of not less than two years with admission being open in Senior Secondary/intermediae pass candi-dates. In the meantime candidates who have undergone basic teachers training courses of one year duration or were admitted to such training programmes after passing secondary level examination only may be given employment in the concerned states only. ( 23 ) THE question whether a candidate who has passed a Hindi Shikshak course offered by the aforesaid 17 institutions is eligible for appointment as teachers in the high schools and primary schools in the State of Karnataka and are eligible for purposes of promation and grant of trained pay-scales are matters which falls squarely within the aforesaid provisions. Similarly in the back ground of the Regulations 2001, we have to consider whether the Government has power to grant the equivalence or take away the equivalence after coming into force of the aforesaid regulation. ( 24 ) AFTER the Act came into force, the power to decide the eligibility criteria for appointment of teachers exclusively vests with the Council constituted under the Act. Admittedly, after passing of the Act these institutions in terms of Section 14 have made an application for grant of recognition and on consideration of the said application, the Council has granted recognition to all these institutions and to the courses which they are offering in their institutions. Therefore, the moment the Act came into force and these institutions are recognised under the Act these institutions would come within the fold of the Act and the Council constituted under the said act. Therefore, the moment the Act came into force and these institutions are recognised under the Act these institutions would come within the fold of the Act and the Council constituted under the said act. Therefore, when State legislature had no power to legislate on these aspects, the Government by exercising its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution could not have passed an executive order covering those aspects which are covered under the Act and the Regulations 2001. Even otherwise when the Regulations came into effect on 4th September 2001 which specifically provided for the minimum qualifications for recruitment of teachers in schools that aspect is completely covered under Entry-66 of List-I. Therefore the State has no right either to pass any legislation or to pass any executive order either prescribing qualifications for recruitment of teachers or providing for equivalence of various teachers training programmes. When Regulations categorically states that decision of the Council shall be final in the matter of deciding equivalence of various teachers training programmes, by the impugned order the Government has declared that the Hindi Shikshak course offered by 17 institutions is neither equivalent to the B. Ed degree which is awarded by the Universities in Karnataka and that those possessing certificate of Hindi Shikshak course are not eligible for appointment as teachers in the high schools and primary schools in the State of Karnataka. This declaration amounts to deciding the equivalence and prescribing eligibility criteria for appointment as teachers in high schools which is wholly covered under the Regulations. Therefore, the impugned order passed covering those aspects for which the parliament has already passed a legislation is repugnant to the Act and the regulations 2001 and therefore it is void. ( 25 ) LEARNED Advocate General in support of the impugned order contended, one of the reasons for with drawing the equivalence granted earlier was that students who have passed Hindi Shikshak course do not possess the general academic degree qualification and as they have not studied any optional subject at degree level they are not eligible to teach any other subject along with Hindi as required under the C and R Rules for the course of Secondary School Assistants in High Schools and therefore the impugned order came to be passed. ( 26 ) IN order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to see what is the qualification prescribed under the C and R Rules. As per the Rules of Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (First Amendment) Rules 1991 the following qualification has been prescribed for the post of Secondary School Assistant (Grade-II) Cadre:1) Must be holder of a degree in Arts, with any of the following major subjects as optionals namely: english, Kannada, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Telugu and Tamil or equivalent examination of 4 years in language. Pandit course in Kannada, Urdu, Hindi or other language from the institutions recognised by Government. 2) In case of candidates who have not studied Kannada at the degree level, he must have studied Kannada as First or Second Language at SSLC level. 3) Must be able to teach in the language of the Medium in which he is supposed to teach and in English Medium; and 4) Must be holder of Degree in Education. ( 27 ) THE Government while inviting applications for the post of High School Teachers Grade- II by its notification dated 26. . 5. 2001 notified the qualification which a language teacher has to satisfy which reads as under: ( 28 ) A perusal of the aforesaid condition makes it clear that a candidate who aspires for a teachers post in Secondary High School Grade- II if he has passed in an examination by studying four years in any language which is equivalent to degree awarded by the University and if he has completed a course which is recognised by the Government of Karnataka as equivalent to B. Ed. , then he is eligible for such post. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in these petitions satisfied the aforesaid two conditions. Therefore, in pursuance of the aforesaid notification persons possessing Hindi Shikshak course applied. They were interviewed, selected and it is only at the stage of issuing the appointment orders, after their names being included in the selection list of candidates as the impugned Government Order came to be passed the appointment orders were not despatched. Therefore, in pursuance of the aforesaid notification persons possessing Hindi Shikshak course applied. They were interviewed, selected and it is only at the stage of issuing the appointment orders, after their names being included in the selection list of candidates as the impugned Government Order came to be passed the appointment orders were not despatched. Thus, those who had already been appointed on temporary basis and whose service had to be renewed were not renewed in view of this Government Order on the renewed in the view of this Government Order on the ground that by the impugned Government Order the Government has declared that Hindi Shikshak course is neither equivalent to the B. Ed. which is being awarded by Universities of Karnataka and those possessing service on Hindi Shikshak course conducted by the 17 institutions referred to supra are not eligible for appointment as teachers in high schools and primary schools in the State of Karnataka. It is also further ordered that the holders of service are also not eligible for purpose of promotion and grant of trained teachers pay-scales. In other words, before passing of the impugned orders, those persons possessed requisite qualifications, that qualification was recognised by the Government in the notification issued calling for applications for appointment to the post. The said qualification was mentioned and in pursuarence of the said notification as they possess the requisite qualification they applied for the post. They were interviewed and they were successful in the said interview and they were successful in the said interview and their names were included in the list of the selected candidates. It is only by virtue of the impugned Governments Order appointment orders were not issused to them. A perusal of the impugned order makes it very clear that the said order is only prospective. It has no retrospective application. Therefore, the question for consideration is, whether by the impugned order a vested right accrued to the petitioners who had been selected for the post of higher secondary laguage teachers could be taken away by the said impugned order. It has no retrospective application. Therefore, the question for consideration is, whether by the impugned order a vested right accrued to the petitioners who had been selected for the post of higher secondary laguage teachers could be taken away by the said impugned order. ( 29 ) IN somewhat similar situation the Supreme Court in the case of SURESH PAL AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ( AIR 1987 SC 2027 ) has held as under: we are of the view that since at the time when the petitioners joined the course, it was recognised by the Government of Haryana and it was on the basis of this recognition that the petitioners joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it wasrecognized, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was derecognized by the state Govt. on 9th January, 1985. We would, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the State Govt. to recognize the certificates obtained by the petitioners and others similarly situate as a result of completing the certificate course in Shri Hanuman Yayayam Prasarak Mandal Amravati for the purpose of appointment as Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Schools in Haryana. ( 30 ) AGAIN the Supreme Court in the case of N. T. BEVIN KATTI and OTHERS vs. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS (AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 1233) has held as under: there is also another aspect of the question where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant Rules and orders. To avoid confusion, it may be made clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant Rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the Rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of Rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are retrospective in nature. In the case of P. MAHENDRAN AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 405) the Supreme Court held as under: it is well settled rule of construction that every stature or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rule of 1987 in the instant case does not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rule seeking the change in the eligibility criteria for selection and appointment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed for the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment: moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter. ( 31 ) NOW, in the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, a candidate who makes application for a post pursuant to an advertisement if is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. Further, if on consideration of his application he has been selected for a post the said vested right stands crystalised and he gets a right to appointment for that post, when subsequent to such accrual of vested right if the rules governing the selection change, the said rules can only be prospective and it cannot have the effect of taking away a vested right by interpreting the same to be retrospective. Unless the legislature by express provision provides for retrospective operation of the law it cannot be retrospectively applied. The impugned Government Order is not made retrospective. It is only prospective. Unless the legislature by express provision provides for retrospective operation of the law it cannot be retrospectively applied. The impugned Government Order is not made retrospective. It is only prospective. Therefore the impugned order cannot have the effect of taking away the vested valuable right to a post accrued to the petitioners who have been already selected and whose names are notified in the selected list. ( 32 ) IN so far as the contention that the impugned order came to be passed in view of the order passed by this court in writ Petition No. 33998/97 is concerned, it has no substance. Firstly, grant of the equivalence to Hindi Shikshak course was not the subject matter of the said proceedings. The subject matter of the said proceedings was grant of equivalence to Hindi Snathak course. It is in that context this court directed the Government to consider the question of continuing the recognition and granting an appropriate equivalence to the Shikshak Snataka course offered by the Sabha for purpose of employment under the State. Secondly, the said order of this court was passed on 22nd July 1999. The regulations 2001 came to be passed on 4th September 2001. The impugned order is passed on 17. 11. 2001. Therefore on the date the impugned order came to be passed the regulations were in force which categorically stated that the dispute regarding equivalence has to be decided by the Council and thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the Government to decide the said dispute. Therefore, the Government had no jurisdiction or power to pass the impugned order deciding the dispute regarding equivalence on the date the order came to be passed. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned Government Order issued by the State is void ab-initio, non-est, as Government had no competence to issue the same. Accordingly, the impugned Government Order is liable to be quashed. ( 33 ) IN these batch of writ petitions the petitioners have sought several reliefs apart from seeking quashing of the impugned Government order. However, the other prayers made by the petitioners are not considered. Therefore, as those prayers are not granted it does not mean that they have been rejected. In fact, the petitioners in may of the writ petitions have sought for issuing a direction for issue of appointment orders conseqauent to the quashing of the impugned Government Order. However, the other prayers made by the petitioners are not considered. Therefore, as those prayers are not granted it does not mean that they have been rejected. In fact, the petitioners in may of the writ petitions have sought for issuing a direction for issue of appointment orders conseqauent to the quashing of the impugned Government Order. As that relief touches upon the service conditions of a Government employee which falls squarely within the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act the same is not considered. Therefore, it is made clear that the rights of the petitioners in so far as other reliefs sought for in these writ petitions are kept in tact and if consequent to the quashing of the impugned order still if they are not granted the relief to which they are entitled to, in law, by the authorities, it is open to them to approach the appropriate authority for redressal. ( 34 ) IN view of the fact that the impugned Government order is quashed on the sole ground of the same being unconstitutional and on the ground that the State Government had no power to pass the impugned order, Point Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not answered and similarly the other points urged by the petitioners in support of their contentions are not considered as unnecessary. Therefore, all those contentions are kept open. Hence, I pass the following: ordera) Rule is made absolute. The impugned order passed by the Government bearing No. ED 261 PTI 97 dated 17. 11. 2001 which is challenged in all these writ petitions is hereby quashed. b) All action taken by the Government on the basis of the said Government Order are also hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek appopriate reliefs in the event of the respondents depriving them of any reliefs inspite of the quashing of the Government Order. c) In so far as the petitioners who took the examination in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this court in their writ petitions, the respondents shall announce the results and issue necessary certificates conse- quent to such announcement of results. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .