JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the applicants and standing counsel. 2. Non-compliance of order dated 3.11.2000, passed in Writ Petition No. 47043 of 2000 is alleged in this contempt application. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that in Writ Petition No. 47043 of 2000, following ad interim order dated 3.11.2000 was passed: The controversy involved in this petition is covered by Division Bench decision of this Court in Secretary, Board of Basic Education, U.P. Allahabad and Ors. v. Rajendra Singh and Ors. (2003) 3 ESC 1894. This petition is finally disposed of on the same terms and conditions as provided in Secondary Board of Basic Education Allahabad and Ors. v. Rajendra Singh and ors.. This order shall be complied by Respondent No. 3 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. Sd. V.M. Sahai, J. 3.11.2000. 3. It is alleged by the applicants that the aforesaid interim order dated 3.11.2000 was served on the Respondent, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Gorakhpur. It is further alleged that when the applicants along with original papers appeared before the Selection Committee at Gorakhpur, their candidature were not considered and were told that since they do not hold Basic Teachers Certificate hereinafter referred to as B.T.C. qualification as per advertisement, they are not eligible for appointment on the post of assistant teacher. It is also submitted that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari also refused to acknowledge receipt of the aforesaid order of the Court dated 28.5.1999. According to the applicants this amounts to non-consideration and cancellation of their candidature by the Respondents, illegally, and on wholly non-existent grounds. 4. An advertisement was issued by the Respondent inviting applications for post of the assistant teacher in primary schools in the rural areas prescribing qualification of B.T.C. Pursuant to the advertisement, the applicants having C.P. Ed. qualification applied for the post. It is alleged that the qualification of C.P. Ed. is equivalent to the B.T.C. qualification required for appointment to the post of assistant teacher in primary schools in rural areas and hence they are qualified for the post. 5. qualification applied for the post. It is alleged that the qualification of C.P. Ed. is equivalent to the B.T.C. qualification required for appointment to the post of assistant teacher in primary schools in rural areas and hence they are qualified for the post. 5. 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) which has been amended from time to time. These rules are applicable to Basic Schools, Juniors 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 lays 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 the 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 recognised 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 recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. 6. The aforesaid Rule, 1981, amended from time to time is to be read with the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the provisions of N.C.T.E. Act, 1993, for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in the petition. 7. The qualification for appointment as assistant teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad is graduation degree from a recognised university along with training qualification of B.T.C., H.T.C., J.T.C. and C.T. etc. It is alleged that the training qualification of the Petitioner has never been declared equivalent to B.T.C. by the Government of U.P. Under Rule 8 only such candidates can be granted appointment who possess the specified training qualifications or the training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. It is alleged that the training qualification of the Petitioner has never been declared equivalent to B.T.C. by the Government of U.P. Under Rule 8 only such candidates can be granted appointment who possess the specified training qualifications or the training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. There does not exist any decision of the State Government treating the Buniyadi Prashikshan Pramanpatra issued from Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, as equivalent to Basic Teachers Certificate, Hindustani Teachers Certificate, Junior Teachers Certificate or Certificate of Teaching. 8. The Court in Writ Petition No. 40070 of 2001 has passed order to notify the list of the training qualifications which are not recognised/not treated as equivalent for appointment of assistant teachers. In pursuance thereto a comprehensive list of said unrecognised training qualifications have been published by the Secretary Board of Basic Education, U.P. Allahabad in which Buniyadi Prashikshan Pramanpatra of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal is specified at Item No. 21. A copy of this list is annexed as Annexure-2 to supplementary counter-affidavit-III in Writ Petition No. 2550 of 2002, Poonam Devi v. A. N. Maurya. 9. The training in C.P. Ed. is of physical education and the same has been treated as training qualification of Secondary Institutions and NOT FOR BASIC INSTITUTIONS and there is no post of physical education in BASIC INSTITUTION. The claim of the Petitioner for appointment is wholly misconceived and they have no legal or statutory right to claim appointment on account of their having physical training qualification as under the provisions of Section 17 of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993, any training qualification and its issuing institutions to be recognised by the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 as well as by the concerned State Government in absence of any one of which no person can be considered for appointment in the State. 10. It is submitted by the standing counsel that by G.O. dated 23.3.1995, candidates having training qualification of the C.P. Ed. were temporarily permitted to be engaged against the post purely on untrained grade after completing five years services by G.O. dated 24.4.2002. The training of C.P. Ed. had itself been abolished by the Government since the year 1996-97. Though the qualification of C.P. Ed. had never been declared equivalent to B.T.C. but even if there was any such equivalence it stands cancelled and withdrawn by the Government vide G.O. dated 11.8.1997 and amendment dated 1.8.1997 in the Rules, 1981. The training of C.P. Ed. had itself been abolished by the Government since the year 1996-97. Though the qualification of C.P. Ed. had never been declared equivalent to B.T.C. but even if there was any such equivalence it stands cancelled and withdrawn by the Government vide G.O. dated 11.8.1997 and amendment dated 1.8.1997 in the Rules, 1981. 11. It is submitted 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 other qualification and training in the field of education such as B. Ed., C.P. Ed., B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. etc. for appointment as assistant teacher. 12. The short question involved in this application is (1) whether the qualification possessed by the applicants is equivalent, higher or compatible with the B.T.C. and (2) whether the Respondents have committed any contempt by wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. 13. Thereafter the State Government took a policy decision in 1998 and issued Government order from time to time was providing that on account of shortage of B.T.C. candidates the candidates having B. Ed., L.T., C.P. Ed. or B.P. Ed. Training will also be eligible for appointment as assistant teacher in primary schools after undergoing B.T.C. training for six months. This training was to be known as Special B.T.C. training and was for academic session 1997-98 only to meet the shortage of B.T.C. trained candidate. Relevant portion of Government order dated 9.1.1998 is as under: 14. The applicants have not taken special B.T.C. training as required to be taken under various Government order issued from time to time for this purpose. Further the qualification of B. Ed. was not prescribed in the advertisement for the post of assistant teachers and the applicants have no right to be considered for appointment, as they does not have B.T.C. qualification required and advertised for the post. The applicants ought not to have applied for the post being ineligible. 15. From various Government orders 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 to overcome the shortage of B.T.C. qualified candidates. The B. Ed., B.P. Ed., C.P. Ed. 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 special B.T.C. training as per Government notifications issued from time to time are not eligible and the training course undergone by the applicant has been derecognised by the State Government and is not 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 that 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. or C.P. Ed. 16. The State Government by notification No. 537 of 1997-98 dated 14.4.1997 decided that various training certificate of diploma's were deemed to be qualified for the post of assistant teachers in Schools managed by U.P. Basic Education Board. In view of this notification large number of candidates having qualification of C.P. Ed. from U.P. and outside of the State having training in physical education such as Amrawati and Bihar were considered eligible. The State Government considered the position and made amendment in U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Teachers Service Rules, 1995, guidelines for recognition of various training institutes were issued, according to which the Government institutes run by the State of U.P. for imparting training, it became necessary that B.T.C. and H.T.C. trained persons were held to be entitled for appointment in assistant teachers and all other training certificates which were deemed to be equivalent to B.T.C. were cancelled and de-recognised by notification No. 2657/15-5-1997-127/97 T.E.C. dated 11.8.1997. The claimed physical education certificates of Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amrawati, Maharashtra, have never been declared equivalent to B.T.C. Notification dated 11.8.1997 is as under: 17. The claimed physical education certificates of Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amrawati, Maharashtra, have never been declared equivalent to B.T.C. Notification dated 11.8.1997 is as under: 17. The State Government thereafter by another notification of the same dated, i.e., notification No. 4911/15-5-97-19/93 dated 11.8.1997 directed on the vacant post of assistant teachers in schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board, again it was stressed that since the training certificates which were recognised as equivalent to B.T.C. have been cancelled, hence appointment shall be made in the manner and for the persons as provided in the said notification. 18. The Petitioners have heavily relied upon Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Allahabad and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others, (2000) 3 AWC 2553 . A perusal of the judgment shows that the two notifications dated 11.8.1997 quoted above were not brought to the notice of the Court. The Division Bench did not disputed the question of law that the State Government has full power to prescribe qualification for a post and it held that such notification of the State Government issued u/s 13(1) are of statutory character. 19. In paragraph 19 the Division Bench held as under: The G.O. dated 23.3.1995 cannot be of help to the Petitioners because no appointment can be made of untrained teachers after coming into force of the 1981 Rules, and a trained teacher means a teacher having training as mentioned in Rule 8 of the Rules and not any kind of training. There is no question of giving appointment to a person who does not even possess the necessary training qualification mentioned in Rules 8 of the 1981 Rules. The G.O. dated 23.3.1995 can at best be said to apply to persons appointed before the 1981 Rules, but in my opinion, it cannot apply to person who claims appointment after the 1981 Rules, came into force. Thus, in my opinion the Petitioners by no stretch of imagination can claim appointment to Junior High School or Primary School as they are not possessing training qualification which is B.T.C. or equivalent qualification unless the State Government makes a clear declaration that C.P. Ed. is equivalent to B.T.C. Hence the Petitioners are not entitled to appointment. Thus, I most respectfully disagree with the judgment of Hon'ble Aloke Chakrabarti, J., in Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1997. 20. is equivalent to B.T.C. Hence the Petitioners are not entitled to appointment. Thus, I most respectfully disagree with the judgment of Hon'ble Aloke Chakrabarti, J., in Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1997. 20. Further, in Para 25 of the aforesaid judgment it has been observed as under: From the aforesaid observation it appears that learned single Judge was not apprised of the correct factual position that C.P. Ed. certificate was never recognised by any Government order as equivalent to B.T.C. certificate. The Government order dated 24.8.1978 only recognised the C.P. Ed. course in Amrawati as equivalent to C.P. Ed. course in U.P. This recognition, however, was withdrawn on 28.2.1996. The C.P. Ed. certificate holders were only directed to be appointed under Government order dated 23.3.1995 as untrained teachers meaning thereby that the said training certificate of C.P. Ed. could not make them eligible for appointment as assistant teachers. The Government order also provided that they should be provided training of B.T.C. during employment. In our opinion, the judgment-dated 28.8.1998 suffers from manifest error of law and cannot be sustained. 21. The Division Bench allowed the Writ Petition No. 292749 of 1997 holding that Petitioners holding C.P. Ed. certificate run by the State Government and were eligible for the post in view of G.O. dated 23.3.1995 but failed to notice that the said G.O. had been superceded by the two notification dated 11.8.1997 as stated above. The judgment can therefore, be said to be per-in curium. On the basis of this judgment interim orders were passed in a large numbers of writ petition. 22. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1987 SC 2027 , was distinguished in the judgment dated 16.9.1997. Attention is also drawn to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642 . In paragraph 14 of the said judgment it has specifically been held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, does not lay down any general principles of law applicable to all cases and was held as being of no avail to the Respondents before the Supreme Court. 23. In paragraph 14 of the said judgment it has specifically been held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, does not lay down any general principles of law applicable to all cases and was held as being of no avail to the Respondents before the Supreme Court. 23. 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 unequal 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 can not be said to be arbitrary or violative of any constitutional or legal right. 24. In Hari Om v. State of U.P. 1998 (3) AWC 2167 : (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 assistant masters of the Junior Basic Schools. The qualification for the post of assistant master is besides other qualification B.T.C., H.T.C. and J.T.C. or any other training course recognised by the State Government equivalent thereto. 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 thought to them, the qualifications 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 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. are not eligible for appointment to teach the students of nursery schools. 25. In B.Ed. Berozgar Sangh Sonebhadra v. State of U.P. 1997 (Supp) AWC 45: (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. 26. 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 recognise other training courses for the purpose of academic qualification of the candidates. It is for the State Government to recognise or de-recognise the certificates obtained by the candidates regarding the training courses for teaching in Junior Basic Schools from other States. 27. In Upendra Rai Vs. State of U. P. and others, (2000) 1 AWC 570, it has been held that qualification prescribed under Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service 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 recognised for the said purpose have been mentioned with an additional clause to include any other training course recognised by the State Government equivalent thereto. Therefore, Government orders issued from time to time under the aforesaid Rule 8 cannot be assailed as against statutory Rule. 28. In Manoj Kumar Singh v. District Basic Education Officer, Bhadohi 1999 (1) 220 : (1999) 1 UPLBEC 4. Therefore, Government orders issued from time to time under the aforesaid Rule 8 cannot be assailed as against statutory Rule. 28. In Manoj Kumar Singh v. District Basic Education Officer, Bhadohi 1999 (1) 220 : (1999) 1 UPLBEC 4. It has been held that B.T.C. 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. 29. 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. 30. In another judgment of the Apex Court In re, P. M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and ors., 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. 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 brors. and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law. 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 brors. 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. 31. 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 Civil Appeal 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. qualifications though is a well recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education but candidates having B. Ed. and other such training qualification 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: Para 5. 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: Para 5. Teachers for B. Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialised 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. 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 ors. 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. No. 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. 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 can not 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. 32. Similarly, the Buniyadi Prashikshan Pramanpatra also has never been recognised as equivalent to B.T.C. Training Course and the Petitioners have failed to bring on record any notification/Government order to this effect. 33. As stated above the certificate/diploma/degree in physical training cannot be a source of recruitment on the post of assistant teachers. Physical training course are not recognised as a qualification for the post of assistant teachers. Any candidate who has undergone course of physical training can apply for the post of physical instructor and not of assistant teacher, as the post of Instructor does not exist in teaching in primary schools. The Petitioner's candidature therefore, cannot be considered after the G.O. dated 11.8.1997. Appointment of any unqualified persons cannot be made in view of the provisions of Sections 14, 16 and 17 of the N.C.T.E. Act read with amended Rule 8 of the Rules 1981. After issuance of G.O. dated 11.8.1997, the other G. Os. have become ineffective and as such are not applicable. 34. In view of the statutory provisions regarding qualifications laid down in different G. Os. which are binding u/s 13(1) of the Act and the amendment in Rule 5 (2) of 1981 a legal impediment has arisen before the authorities in giving effect to the interim orders/judgments which are per-incurium. 35. I, therefore, hold that there is no wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court and no case for contempt is made out. Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.