Judgment :- R. Jayasimha Babu, J. Counsel for the appellant submits that B.Ed. Degree is different from Teachers Training Certificate (TTC) and is not to be regarded as a degree which is higher than TTC and for that proposition relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.M. Latha vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541 as also the judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 Bom 394 , which was upheld by the Supreme Court, besides relying upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary & Correspondent, Uswathan Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Hr. Sec. School vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 WLR 173, which is also to the same effect. All these judgments were in the context of recruitment made in accordance with the rules framed by the Government which were binding on the aided institutions for whom the recruitment was being made. 2. In this case, we are not concerned with the aided institution, but with a self-financed private school which had advertised in a daily that it requires a Secondary Grade Teacher possessing B.Ed. The appellant before us although holding a degree of M.A in Tamil, Pulavar certificate, as also TTC, did not possess B.Ed. Degree. She however, at her request, was given time to complete B.Ed. In the order of appointment given to her it was stipulated that she should acquire B.Ed within a period of one year. She accepted the appointment subject to that condition. Thereafter she sought extension of time for fulfilling that condition on the ground that she had difficulty in doing that course through correspondence education, as B.Ed degree was no longer being offered through correspondence. 3. At her request the management of the school having extended the time and after finding that even after expiry of that period, she had not acquired the qualification, proceeded to terminate her services on the ground that she had failed to acquire B.Ed., which was a degree which a prospective applicant was required to possess in terms of the advertisement which had been made and to which she had responded. 4. The appellant then approached this Court contending that the appellant is entitled to be retained in her position, despite her not having acquired B.Ed degree. 4. The appellant then approached this Court contending that the appellant is entitled to be retained in her position, despite her not having acquired B.Ed degree. She relied upon the fact that it was a matriculation school and under the Scheme governing the matriculation school, which is by way of an executive order, B.Ed was not one of the degrees, which a teacher who teaches upto 8th standard was required to possess. Reliance was also placed on a part of the scheme which said that the teachers appointed to certain posts in such schools should possess the qualifications mentioned therein. 5. The learned single Judge having rejected the submission that it was open to the petitioner before him to claim a right to remain in service, despite the qualification which she was required to possess not having been possessed by her, the present appeal has been filed. 6. The learned senior counsel, whose arguments have been set out at the outset, contended that B.Ed not being a higher degree and the prescription of qualification having been made in the executive order governing matriculation school by an expert committee, it was not open to any private school management to seek any higher qualification and that if they do so, it would have no legal sanctity. It was also submitted that the Government can, on such a higher qualification being prescribed, even go to the extent of withdrawing the recognition to the school. Government in this case has not taken any such step. The last submission was that in the same school there are others in Tamil department who do not have B.Ed., but only have "Pulavar" and TTC, although those persons had been appointed much earlier. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the management of the school, it has been stated that this school is in the campus of Indian Institute of Technology, and is run by the IIT Madras Campus Educational Society and it provides education primarily to the children of employees of IIT. In that atmosphere, the school has also set their standards high and the students seek a level of education which need not necessarily be equal to that found to have been imparted in any other matriculation school. The management of the school does not receive any aid from the State and is entirely dependent on internal source of funding. In that atmosphere, the school has also set their standards high and the students seek a level of education which need not necessarily be equal to that found to have been imparted in any other matriculation school. The management of the school does not receive any aid from the State and is entirely dependent on internal source of funding. In such a context, it is the case of the school that it has a right to prescribe a qualification which is higher than what has been recommended or fixed under the Scheme formulated by the State for the Matriculation school in general. 8. In the case of Yogesh Kumar vs. Government of NCT, Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548 , at paragraph 8 of the judgment, it is observed as under : " .... It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from B.Ed. Category and very few from TTC category. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. Qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible." 9. What the Court held was that it was for the authorities to decide as to the qualification which is relevant and to be insisted upon while making recruitment to the post of teachers. It was not held that it is against the law to insist on B.Ed. for employing teachers for teaching classes 1 to 8 or any other similar class. What was upheld by the Court was a prescription which limits the requirement only to TTC and the view of the authorities that B.Ed was not to be regarded as equivalent to TTC, but as a different qualification. 10. For schools which do not depend upon the State, the flexibility in their management is to be recognised unless such flexibility is taken away by any valid law. The executive order made by the State to govern matriculation schools is an order which requires that a minimum standard be maintained in all matriculation schools, if they wish to obtain recognition of the State. The executive order made by the State to govern matriculation schools is an order which requires that a minimum standard be maintained in all matriculation schools, if they wish to obtain recognition of the State. The minimum qualification prescribed for teachers cannot be regarded as the maximum or as preventing a school management which does not depend upon the State aid, from imposing a higher requirement than what has been provided in the Regulations framed by the State for the matriculation schools. Education is now at a great premium and the degree of competitiveness start not at the professional level, but from an early stage and a student who receives good education taught by highly qualified teachers, is at an advantage when compared to students receiving education in similar syllabus, but who may not have the advantage of being taught by highly qualified teachers. 11. The insistence by the management of a private school on a higher qualification for the teachers to be employed by it is in no way a violation of any law nor is it capable of being regarded as depriving any body's rights. There is no vested right in any person who acquires a qualification of Pulavar or TTC to become a Tamil teacher in a privately run school merely because such a school is a matriculation school recognised under the executive order made by the State. 12. In this case, the conduct of the appellant is far from being regarded as worthy of approbation. She responded to an adverisement which clearly said that the candidate must possess a B.Ed degree. She did not have that qualification. At her request, she was given an appointment subject to the condition that she acquires the degree within the time allowed. She accepted the condition that had been imposed by undertaking to obtain the qualification. She thereafter sought for extension of time which was also granted. She had not acquired the qualification even within the extended period. Her inability to secure the qualification by reason of her inability to secure admission to a course or the fact that such course was discontinued by one University, cannot have the effect of compelling the management to alter their standards or compelling them not to insist upon a qualification which they had consciously imposed when they advertised for the post of a teacher. There are numerous colleges which offer B.Ed course. There are numerous colleges which offer B.Ed course. There are large number of persons who have B.Ed degree and if the appellant had not accepted the appointment subject to the condition imposed, the school would have waited for other candidates with the degree and could have recruited a person with necessary qualification. 13. We are therefore, unable to accept the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant had a right to continue in the respondent school. While we cannot approve of all that had been stated by the learned single Judge in the course of his order, we do not find any tenable ground for granting the appellant's prayer in the writ petition. 14. Counsel further submitted that TTC that was obtained by the petitioner is equivalent to B.Ed degree. In support of that claim reliance was placed on a communication from the Annamalai University in which it was stated that the diploma granted by them is treated by the Government as a qualification equivalent to a B.Ed. Degree. But, the University itself does not regard it as an equivalent qualification inasmuch as persons possessing diploma were not eligible for admission to M.Ed. Degree in the same University. 15. In so far as the employment of persons without a B.Ed. is concerned, they were employed long prior to the advertisement to which the petitioner had responded. Their employment does not estop the management from prescribing an additional qualification when making a later recruitment. 16. Counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant has not been paid proper salary. It is open to her to agitate the claim in any other proceedings. The appeal is dismissed. WAMP.No.3749 of 2000 is also dismissed consequently.