JUDGMENT : RAKESH TIWARI, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and standing counsel. 2. Non-compliance of order dated 6.3.2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 10201 of 2003 is alleged in this contempt application. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in Writ Petition No. 10201 of 2003, following ad-interim order dated 6.3.2003 was passed: Connect with Writ Petition Nos. 3684 of 2002, 4231 of 2002 and 42149 of 2002. All the Respondents are represented through learned Counsel and are granted a months time to file counter-affidavit. The Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder-affidavit. List immediately thereafter alongwith the connected writ petitions. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is similar to the one in the aforesaid writ petitions, in which interim orders have been passed. In such view of the matter, it is directed that in case sufficient number of B.T.C. trained candidates are not available for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools for which advertisements have been issued, the Petitioners, who have applied in pursuance of the advertisement and possess B. Ed., B.P. Ed. and L.T. certificate shall be considered for appointment against such vacancies, if otherwise found suitable and eligible. The appointment if any made shall be subject to further orders of the Court in this writ petition. Sd/- Vineet Saran, J. 6.3.2003 3. It is alleged by the applicant that the aforesaid interim order dated 6.3.2003, was served on the Respondent, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, district Basti. It is further alleged that when the applicant along with original papers appeared before the Selection Committee at Basti, his candidature was not considered and he was told that since he does not hold Basic Teachers Certificate (B.T.C.) qualification as per advertisement, he is not eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. According to the applicant this amounts to non-consideration and cancellation of his candidature by the Respondents, illegally, arbitrarily and on wholly non-existent grounds. It is also submitted that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari also refused to acknowledge receipt of the aforesaid order of the Court dated 6.3.2003. 4. An advertisement was issued by the Respondent inviting applications for appointment of the Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools in the rural areas prescribing qualification of B.T.C. Pursuant to the advertisement, the applicant having B.A.B. Ed. qualification applied for the post. 5. 4. An advertisement was issued by the Respondent inviting applications for appointment of the Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools in the rural areas prescribing qualification of B.T.C. Pursuant to the advertisement, the applicant having B.A.B. Ed. qualification applied for the post. 5. The applicant had qualification other than Basic Teachers Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the B.T.C.) required for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools in rural areas. 6. The State Government has framed "The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981, in exercise of power u/s 19(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1972). These rules are applicable to Basic Schools, Junior Basic Schools and Nursery Schools run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education. Part III and IV of the rules deal with the recruitment and qualification required for appointment of teachers in Basic Schools. Rule 8 laying down essential qualification is as under: Rule 8 (2).-The essential qualification of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in Sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Clause (h) of Rule 5 for teaching Science, Mathematics, Craft or any language other than Hindi and Urdu shall be as follows: (i) A bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto with Science, Mathematics, Craft or particular language as the case may be, as one of the subject, and (ii) Training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, certificate of teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto. 7. It is averred that there is no provision under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, for equating the training qualification of B.T.C. with the qualification and training of B. Ed., C.P. Ed., B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. for appointment as Assistant Teacher. 8. The Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.) is a two years training imparted by the State of U.P. in 62 training centres known as District Institute of Education and Training (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.E.T.). There are 100 seats allotted by the National Council for Teacher Education for each D.I.E.T. The total seats sanctioned by the National Council for Teacher Education is only 6,200 for the trainees in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 9. There are 100 seats allotted by the National Council for Teacher Education for each D.I.E.T. The total seats sanctioned by the National Council for Teacher Education is only 6,200 for the trainees in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 9. The short question in this application is (1) whether the qualifications of B. Ed., C.P. Ed. and B.P. Ed. D.P. Ed. for teachers training are equivalent and higher or compatible with the B.T.C. and (2) whether the Respondents have committed any contempt in view of the subsequent decision in Yogesh Kumar and Others Vs. Government of NTC, Delhi and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1241 . 10. From the averments made by the Petitioner in the contempt application it appears that none of the applicants having qualification other than B.T.C. have either undergone regular B.T.C. training course or have undergone special B.T.C. training course recognized by the State Government for treating them eligible and equivalent to B.T.C. qualification as per Government Order dated 9.1.1998. It is also not the case of the applicant in the contempt application that sufficient number of B.T.C. candidates were not available for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools in pursuance of vacancies advertised in the notification. On the contrary the applicant posseses B. Ed., B.P. Ed. and L.T. qualification and his candidature was not considered as he did not possess B.T.C. qualification which was advertised for the post. 11. In the instant case, the State Government had taken a policy decision in 1998 and Government Order dated 9.1.1998 was issued in public interest, providing that on account of shortage of B.T.C. candidates the candidates with B. Ed., L.T., C.P. Ed. or B.P. Ed. training certificates will also be eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools after undergoing B.T.C. training for six months which would equip them to teach children in Primary Schools. This training was to be known as Special B.T.C. training and was for academic session 1997-98 to meet the shortage of B.T.C. trained candidate for filling up the posts of Assistant Teachers and was recognized as equivalent to B.T.C. training. Relevant portion of Government Order dated 9.1.1998 is as under: 12. This training was to be known as Special B.T.C. training and was for academic session 1997-98 to meet the shortage of B.T.C. trained candidate for filling up the posts of Assistant Teachers and was recognized as equivalent to B.T.C. training. Relevant portion of Government Order dated 9.1.1998 is as under: 12. In Virendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., 1995 (1) AWC 493: 1995 (1) UPLBEC 628, it has been held that there can be no comparison of equality between unequals and it is the prerogative of the authorities to decide the source of recruitment of B.T.C. qualified teachers for appointment to the post of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress in Junior Basic Schools controlled and run by the U.P. Board of Basic Education is a matter of policy decision and therefore, the decision to exclude persons already in employment from the field of consideration cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of any constitutional or legal right. 13. In Hari Om v. State of U.P., 1998 (3) AWC 2167 (NOC): 1998 (3) UPLBEC 2366 , it has been held that the B. Ed. degree is not included in the qualifications mentioned for appointment to the post of Assistant Masters of the Junior Basic Schools. In U.P. the education has been categorised in three parts: (i) Basic Education ; (ii) Secondary Education, and (iii) Higher Education. The Basic Education is further categorised in three parts (i) Nursery Schools ; (ii) Junior Basic Schools, and (iii) Senior Basic Schools. The qualification for teaching in Nursery Schools is certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from recognized training institution in Uttar Pradesh or any other training qualification recognized by the State Government as equivalent thereto. The qualification for the post of Assistant Master is besides other qualification B.T.C., H.T.C. to J.T.C. or any other training course recognized by the State Government equivalent thereto. For the senior basic schools for teaching Science, Mathematics (Craft) or other language other than Hindi additional qualification have been prescribed. B.Ed. degree has not been recognized by the State Government as equivalent to B.T.C., H.T.C. and J.T.C. The secondary education is imparted to the students of High School and Intermediate. The teachers appointed to teach High School and Intermediate are required to obtain B. Ed. Degree is one of the qualifications for their appointment. Both the said training qualifications, are meant for different purpose at difference educational level. The teachers appointed to teach High School and Intermediate are required to obtain B. Ed. Degree is one of the qualifications for their appointment. Both the said training qualifications, are meant for different purpose at difference educational level. A teacher, appointed to teach students of Nursery School, is required to have a different training than a teacher who is to teach in Junior Basic Schools or Senior Basic Schools. Similarly a teacher who is to teach High School and Intermediate students is required to have a different training qualification. The mere fact that a person holds a higher training qualification than what is required by the rules does not entitle him to be treated as qualified for teaching in Junior Basic Schools where a different kind of training is required. It is in the backdrop of the understanding the psychology of the students, their behaviour, attitude and the capacity to understand the things taught to them, the qualification for appointment has been laid down. The course of study in B.T.C., H.T.C. and J.T.C. are different from that of B. Ed. Similarly, the teachers who are appointed to teach in Nursery Schools, their training qualification is certificate for teaching nursery. The candidates who have B.T.C., H.T.C. and J.T.C. shall not be eligible for appointment to teach the students of Nursery Schools. 14. In B. Ed. Berozgar Sangh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1774 , it has been held that qualifications of B. Ed. and B.T.C. are for different types of children and B. Ed. is neither higher nor lower than B.T.C. It was further held that if the State Government allows any other qualification to be treated as a proper qualification whenever candidates with B.T.C. qualification are not available in sufficient number, the same policy is to be applied throughout the State in every selection process. 15. In Smt. Kiran Kumari and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, (1998) 1 AWC 359 , it has been held that it is for the State Government to recognize other training courses for the purpose of academic qualification of the candidates. It is for the State Government to recognize or de-recognize the certificates obtained by the candidates regarding the training courses for teaching in Junior Basic Schools from other States. 16. In Upendra Rai Vs. It is for the State Government to recognize or de-recognize the certificates obtained by the candidates regarding the training courses for teaching in Junior Basic Schools from other States. 16. In Upendra Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2000) 2 AWC 865 , it has been held that qualification prescribed under Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981, is not repugnant to any provision of the said N.C.T.E. Act. Therefore, in the present facts Article 254 of the Constitution of India is not violated by prescription of qualification either by the said rules or by virtue of power granted to the Government under the said rules and no grievance can be made against such prescription under Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1981. The aforesaid provision of Rule 8 clearly indicates that qualification recognized for the said purpose have been mentioned with an additional clause to include any other training course recognized by the State Government equivalent thereto. Therefore, Government orders issued from time to time under the aforesaid Rule 8 cannot be assailed as superseding statutory rule. 17. In Manoj Kumar Singh v. District Basic Education Officer, Bhadohi, 1999 (1) AWC 220 (NOC), it has been held that B.T.C. is training for a period of two years relating to teaching of children B. Ed. and L.T. is a course of one year. They are therefore, different courses, State Government has formulated a policy that in case of non-availability of B.T.C. qualification B. Ed. and L.T. qualification may be considered but they will have to undergo short training of B.T.C. 18. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur Ors. Vs. Karnataka University and Another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 , it has been held that equivalence is not matter of objective assessment and evaluation by the Courts. 19. In J. Ranga Swami v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 535, it was held by the Apex Court that it was not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts and assess the comparative merits of B.T.C. (correspondence) trained teachers with other having different qualification. 20. From the aforesaid judgments, following principles emerged: (a) Equivalence is matter of objective assessment not to be assessed by the Court and exclusion for appointment of a particular qualification does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 20. From the aforesaid judgments, following principles emerged: (a) Equivalence is matter of objective assessment not to be assessed by the Court and exclusion for appointment of a particular qualification does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (b) It is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts and assess the comparative merits with others having different qualification. (c) Those candidates who have qualification as advertised in the advertisements only are entitled to apply and have right to be considered for appointment. The candidates having qualifications other than advertised are ineligible, until and unless they have undergone special training provided by the State required for being equivalent and eligible for the post. (d) The candidates having other qualification than prescribed in the advertisement cannot be given undue gain merely because they took a chance to apply against the advertisement will not ipso-facto make them eligible for the post. This would oust other eligible candidates having required qualification as advertised and prejudice their chance of appointment by ineligible candidates. (e) There can be no comparison of equality between unequals and it is the prerogative of the authorities to decide the source of recruitment. It is a matter of policy decision as the course of studies of different educational degrees and certificates are of different level formulated and for different object and purpose. (f) Different qualifications are neither higher nor lower for the purpose of recruitment from the persons having particular qualification as per advertisement. It is for the State to allow any other qualification to be treated as proper qualification and same policy is to be applied throughout State in every selection process. (g) It is for the State to recognize other training courses for the purpose of academic qualification of the candidates and recognize or de-recognize certificates obtained by the candidates regarding training courses for teaching in Junior Basic Schools. (h) According to Rule 8 training courses recognized by the State Government can be treated equivalent to any other training course undergone by a candidate if it is in consonance with the Government orders issued from time to time and cannot be assailed as superseding statutory rule. (h) According to Rule 8 training courses recognized by the State Government can be treated equivalent to any other training course undergone by a candidate if it is in consonance with the Government orders issued from time to time and cannot be assailed as superseding statutory rule. The qualification prescribed under Rule 8 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, is not repugnant to any provision of the said N.C.T.E. Act and is not hit by Article 254 of the Constitution of India and does not suffer from any illegality. (i) B.T.C. is a certificate of training for a period of two years relating to teaching of children of primary schools. B. Ed. and L.T. is a degree course of one year for teaching children above than primary schools. They are, therefore, different level of courses. The policy of the Government that in case of non-availability of B.T.C. qualification B. Ed. and L.T. qualification may be considered but they will have to undergo short training of B.T.C. cannot be assailed and mandamus cannot be issued to give appointment to the applicants as there is qualitative difference between B.T.C./B. Ed./L.T. and B.P. Ed. qualification. 21. In another judgment of Apex Court in re: P. M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and others, it has been held that equity cannot override written law. Since trained teachers certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes, B. Ed. degree teachers cannot be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary school. Paragraphs 10 and 13 relevant for the controversy in the present case are quoted below: Para 10.-We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the Respondents that B. Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than T.T.C. and therefore, the B. Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of Appellants, it is pointed out before us that trained teachers certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B. Ed. degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. B. Ed. degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools, whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with T.T.C. qualification or B. Ed. degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. B. Ed. degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools, whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with T.T.C. qualification or B. Ed. qualification is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for post of primary teachers as only T.T.C. and not B. Ed. Whether 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. Para 13.-Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law. The Division Bench forgot that in extending relief on equity to B. Ed. candidates who were unqualified and yet allowed to compete and seek appointments contrary to the terms of the advertisement it is not redressing the injustice caused to the Appellants who were T.T.C. candidates and would have secured a better position in the rank list to get appointment against the available vacancies had B. Ed. Candidates been excluded from the selections. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The T.T.C. candidates before us as Appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench, therefore, deserves to be set aside and of the learned single Judge restored. 22. Similarly the question of appointment of candidates possessing qualifications like B. Ed. etc. as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools where eligibility of T.T.C. (Teachers Training Certificate) qualification (same as B.T.C. training in U.P.) was advertised came up for consideration before the Apex Court in C.A. No. 3879 of 2001, Yogesh Kumar and Others Vs. Government of NTC, Delhi and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1241 , arising out of judgment and order dated 9.2.2001 of Delhi High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 6798 of 2002. The Apex Court settled this controversy holding that B. Ed. qualification though is a well recognized qualification in the field of teaching and education but candidates having B. Ed. Government of NTC, Delhi and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1241 , arising out of judgment and order dated 9.2.2001 of Delhi High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 6798 of 2002. The Apex Court settled this controversy holding that B. Ed. qualification though is a well recognized qualification in the field of teaching and education but candidates having B. Ed. and other such training qualifications are not eligible to apply for the post in pursuance of advertisement as those qualifications were not prescribed in the advertisement and further that those candidates who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of selection. The Apex Court concluded that teacher training imparted to teachers for B. Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes, whereas B.T.C. training is imparted for teaching small children at primary level and the B. Ed. and B.T.C. training are different and not comparable or compatible. Paragraphs 5 and 8 of the judgment are relevant which squarely apply to the question in hands. For ready reference they are being quoted below: Para 5.-The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the above two arguments in great detail. In our considered opinion it has rightly come to the conclusion that B. Ed. qualification, although a well recognized qualification in the field of teaching and education, being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the B. Ed. candidates, who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of selection. We also find that the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that teacher training imparted to teachers for B. Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B. Ed. degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B. Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B. Ed. is a higher qualification than T.T.C. Looking to the different nature of T.T.C. qualification the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with B. Ed. degree qualification and latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former. Para 8.-This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. is a higher qualification than T.T.C. Looking to the different nature of T.T.C. qualification the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with B. Ed. degree qualification and latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former. Para 8.-This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the B. Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of T.T.C. candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of T.T.C. and B. Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to T.T.C. pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B. Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals (C.A. Nos. 1726-28 of 2001) arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that B. Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than T.T.C. because the nature of training imparted for grant of certificate and degree are totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from B. Ed. category and very few from T.T.C. 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. In our view, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teachers rightly excluded B. Ed. candidates. 23. The applicant has not taken special B.T.C. training as required to be taken under Government Order dated 9.1.1998. Further the qualification of B. Ed. In our view, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teachers rightly excluded B. Ed. candidates. 23. The applicant has not taken special B.T.C. training as required to be taken under Government Order dated 9.1.1998. Further the qualification of B. Ed. was not prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Teachers and the applicant has no right to be considered for appointment, as he does not have B.T.C. qualification required and advertised for the post. The applicant ought not to have applied for the post being ineligible. The applicant cannot be given undue gain in field of selection on the basis of qualification and training other than required and advertised for the post. Merely because the applicant took a chance to apply it will ipso-facto not make them eligible for the post as this would oust other eligible candidates having B.T.C. qualification. 24. There can be no comparison of equality between unequals and it is the prerogative of the authorities to decide the source of recruitment B.T.C. qualified teachers for appointment to the post of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress in Junior Basic Schools controlled and run by the U.P. Board of Basic Education is a matter of policy decision and therefore, the decision to exclude persons already in employment from the field of consideration cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of any constitutional or legal right. This view has been affirmed in Virendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., 1995 (1) AWC 493. 25. From the Government Order dated 9.1.1998, it appears that the authorities were well aware of shortage of candidates having B.T.C. qualifications and they took remedial measures and have chosen not to deviate from the source of recruitment from B.T.C. candidates, but to give special B.T.C. training to candidates possessing other teaching training qualification for the session 1997-98 to overcome the shortage of B.T.C. qualified candidates. The B. Ed., B.P. Ed., C.P. Ed. and L.T. qualifications cannot be treated as higher qualification or at par to B.T.C. due to their different nature and object of training. The B. Ed. qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher does not confer any right of appointment on the candidates. The B. Ed., B.P. Ed., C.P. Ed. and L.T. qualifications cannot be treated as higher qualification or at par to B.T.C. due to their different nature and object of training. The B. Ed. qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher does not confer any right of appointment on the candidates. Thus, those candidates who have not undergone six months special training of B.T.C. as per Government notification dated 9.1.1998 are not eligible as the training course undergone by the applicants have not been recognized by the State Government as equivalent to B.T.C. training as per Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. The mere fact that a person holds a higher training qualification than what is required by the rules does not entitle him to be treated as qualified for teaching in Junior Basic School where a different kind of training is required. The course of studies by B.T.C., H.T.C. and J.T.C. are different from that of B. Ed. 26. Now, it is settled position of law that for imparting different levels of education, different types of training courses are required for the teachers. It does not appear to reason or justice for the Courts to prescribe a qualification or direct an authority to accept a particular qualification as a proper one. It is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts and assess the comparative merits with others having different qualification. I am supported in my view by the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28243 of 1996, Nirmal Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P., decided on 29.10.1996: 1997 (1) AWC 4 , in which it has been held that when the candidates having B. Ed. qualification claimed to be treated equally for the purpose of appointment against posts requiring B.T.C. qualification then the Courts of law will be reluctant to express its view as to whether B. Ed. is equivalent to B.T.C. or being a superior qualification is required to be treated as sufficient qualification for such posts. 27. If the Government has taken decision for recruitment from candidates possessing B.T.C. qualification, then candidates having other qualification are not eligible to apply against the qualifications advertised for the post. is equivalent to B.T.C. or being a superior qualification is required to be treated as sufficient qualification for such posts. 27. If the Government has taken decision for recruitment from candidates possessing B.T.C. qualification, then candidates having other qualification are not eligible to apply against the qualifications advertised for the post. The candidates having other qualifications than B.T.C. in such circumstances have to undergo special B.T.C. training course which would equip them for teaching children of primary classes. It is not open to the Court to choose the feeding cadre or qualification for appointment to a particular post or to allow or recognize any other qualification to be equivalent and proper qualification for the post. Considering the situation it is open to the Government to make appointment after the vacancy remains unfilled after selection by making fresh advertisement in that region. The Petitioner has not stated anywhere that after the selection the post had remained unfilled because of the non-availability of the candidates possessing B.T.C. qualification. The advertisement had been made notifying the vacancies for those persons who possess the qualification as required under Rule 8 of 1981 Rules. They on the basis of the advertisement are not entitled to apply for selection to the posts on the assumption that sufficient numbers of candidates are not available for appointment to the posts advertised. 28. The Petitioner cannot assail the advertisement on the ground that he is eligible even though qualification prescribed and advertised for the post is different. 29. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the applicant could not have applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in pursuance of advertisement and were ineligible for the post. The authorities have rightly not considered the Petitioner having different qualification than advertised for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools as the judgments aforesaid impose a legal bar to his appointment. No wilful disobedience of the interim order of this Court is made out by the applicants. The contempt application is dismissed. No order as to costs.