Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-In these writ petitions, though the petitioners are different but the relief claimed for is identical proceeds on the same facts and thus these are taken up for hearing together and being decided by this common order. For the decision of the matter, the facts are taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5504/2004. 2. The petitioners by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are challenging the Notification dated 28th of February, 2004 and the advertisement dated 2nd of June, 2004 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that prior to the amendment in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Rules, 1996) by the notification aforesaid, the academic qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 was “Senior Secondary with B.S.T.C. Course”. Now by way of amendment in the Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 by the aforesaid notification the academic qualification for Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher prescribed is that a candidate should possess the Senior Secondary under new (10+2) Scheme or Higher Secondary under old scheme from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent and Secondary School Certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with 5 subjects, 3 of them be Mathematics, English and Hindi; and B.S.T.C./B.Ed.; and, accordingly the advertisement has been issued. 4. The petitioners have passed their Secondary and Senior Secondary Examination from the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. The petitioners also passed their B.S.T.C. from the District Institute of Education and Training conducted by the Government of Rajasthan. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that training pattern for B.S.T.C. and B.Ed. students is entirely different. In the B.S.T.C. two years training is imparted to the candidates whereas in the B.Ed. course only one year training is imparted. In the B.S.T.C. the candidates are trained to teach the students of Clases 1st to 5th in their first year and Clases 6th to 8th in their second year. The training of B.S.T.C. is so self-contained and composite, which provides the teaching methodology to teach to Claseses from 1st to 8th. The B.Ed. is one year course and it provides teaching methodology upto secondary Claseses i.e. from 6th to 10th. The training of B.S.T.C. is so self-contained and composite, which provides the teaching methodology to teach to Claseses from 1st to 8th. The B.Ed. is one year course and it provides teaching methodology upto secondary Claseses i.e. from 6th to 10th. The B.S.T.C. training laid emphasis on child centered approach for teaching at primary level and deals with the recognition of the education at different stages and it is aimed in educating the child appropriately at different levels to his mental growth. As per the syllabus which has been placed on record, the curriculum of B.S.T.C. has been framed in such way that one who trained in B.S.T.C. training is able to teach all the subject of a particular Clases of students, whereas the B.Ed. curriculum emphasis on specialization in any two subjects. In the B.S.T.C. training there is a methodology for teaching to the candidates in such a manner to enable them to teach the students of 1st to 8th Claseses in the subjects of social utility production work, social services, art oriented education training, health and physical education, education is psychology, environment study education and learning in regional languages, etc. So far B.Ed. training is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is only one year course and do not impart training to the candidates to teach the students of Clases 1st to 5th either in theory or practical. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the B.Ed. training and its syllabus prescribes the mode of teaching to higher Claseses i.e. 6th to 10th and thus in their submission the B.Ed. trained candidates are only able to taught the Claseses from 6th to 10th and not the primary Claseses i.e., 1st to 5th and for teaching the primary Claseses the B.S.T.C. course is prescribed. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that an identical issue arose for consideration before the Delhi High Court in Atul Haque vs. Government of E.C.T. of Delhi & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6798/2000, whether the over qualified candidates holding B.Ed. or M.Ed. Degrees are eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools of Municipal Corporation and the Court held that over-qualified candidates holding B.Ed. Degree are not eligible to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools. or M.Ed. Degrees are eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools of Municipal Corporation and the Court held that over-qualified candidates holding B.Ed. Degree are not eligible to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools. The aforesaid Judgment dated 9th of February, 2001 of the Delhi High Court was challenged before Honble the Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar vs. Government of NCT , Delhi, by filing Civil Appeal No. 3897/2001 which was dismissed under the Judgment dated 5th of March, 2003, reported in 2003 (3) SCC 548 . 7. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that the Government of Rajasthan by way of amendment in the Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 the nomenclature of the post of Primary School Teacher has been changed to “Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher” and by this way the qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher as “Senior Secondary with B.S.T.C. Course” has also been changed to “Senior Secondary under new (10+2) Scheme or Higher Secondary under old scheme from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent and Secondary School Certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with 5 subjects, 3 of them be Mathematics, English and Hindi; and (II) B.S.T.C./B.Ed. Course” for appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher. This has been done by amendment of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 vide notification dated 28th of February, 2004. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer has issued the advertisement dated 2nd of June, 2004 on the basis of the amendment made in the Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 for appointment on the post of primary school teacher and in the condition No. 5 (ii) thereof it has been prescribed that candidates must possesses the qualification of Senior Secondary under new (10+2) Scheme or Higher Secondary under old scheme from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent and Secondary School Certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with 5 subjects, 3 of them be Mathematics, English and Hindi; and B.S.T.C./B.Ed. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it should have been only “B.S.T.C.” instead of “B.S.T.C./B.Ed.”. It is urged that it is in contravention of the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumars case (Supra). 8. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it should have been only “B.S.T.C.” instead of “B.S.T.C./B.Ed.”. It is urged that it is in contravention of the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumars case (Supra). 8. On 17th of August, 2004 the notices of the writ petition were issued to the respondents. After service of notices the matter was placed for admission on 6th of September, 2004. The writ petition was admitted. Matter was placed for hearing on 28th of September 2004. The respondents were directed to complete their pleadings in the meanwhile if they so desire. The interim relief granted in the matter ordered to be continued till further orders. The reply to the writ petition has been filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer which starts from page 94. 9. The reply to the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3689/2004 has been filed by the Advocate General but nobody is present on its behalf to make the submissions. 10. Briefly stated the case of the State of Rajasthan, in the reply to the writ petition, is that the selections of the Teachers are to be made for teaching the students of the Claseses of primary and upper primary schools i.e. from 1st to 5th and 6th to 8th. Previously the elementary education was within the control of Panchayati Raj Department and, in elementary education, the Teachers Grade III were to be appointed at District level on the basis of the list prepared by the District Selection Committee and for such Teachers their Academic qualification was Senior Secondary or Higher Secondary with BSTC. At present the education system, as per the case of the State Government, is under the Panchayat but the Government has handed over upper primary schools to the primary/elementary education, Panchayati Raj Department where the students from 1st to 8th Claseses are being taught by Teachers Grade III. 11. It is submitted that over 14371 posts of Teacher Grade III are sanctioned under the secondary schools. These posts of Teacher Grade III are to be filled by transfer of Teacher under the Panchayati Raj Department. 11. It is submitted that over 14371 posts of Teacher Grade III are sanctioned under the secondary schools. These posts of Teacher Grade III are to be filled by transfer of Teacher under the Panchayati Raj Department. Thus, the teachers who are to be appointed will not only teach the students of Clases 1st to 5th but their appointment is also for teaching the students of Clases 6th to 8th and as such the amendment in the Rules, 1996 vide Notification dated 28th of February, 2004 is just and proper. 12. In para No. 5 of the reply to the writ petition it is stated that the appointment of Teachers Grade III are to be made to teach the students of Clases 6th to 10th and thus the training of B.Ed. has rightly been added under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996. As regards to the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumars case (Supra), it is submitted that it is of little help to the petitioners. In the instant case the appointment of Teachers is to be made for teaching the students of primary and upper primary i.e., from Clases 1st to 8th and as such the amendment made in the Rules, 1996 is just and lawful. Clubbing the education upto 1st to 8th Clases is just and proper and the same has been done under the policy decision of the State Government which cannot be gone into and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 13. In reply to Ground B to the writ petition the State Government has come up with the case that before 28th of February, 2004 the selections were made at District levels and since the appointment of teachers to teach the Claseses 1st to 8th in primary, upper primary, secondary and senior secondary schools throughout Rajasthan were to be made, therefore, it was rightly considered just and proper to make selection through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer and also keeping in view that the Teachers Grade III for the Upper Primary, Secondary and Senior Secondary Schools, who are governed by the Directorate of Elementary & Secondary Schools were to be appointed, therefore, the candidates holding B.S.T.C. and B.Ed. qualifications were rightly invited for selections to the post of Teacher Grade III under the policy decision of the State Government. 14. qualifications were rightly invited for selections to the post of Teacher Grade III under the policy decision of the State Government. 14. It is reiterated that since Primary and Upper Primary Schools are governed by the same Directorate and the Teachers Grade III are to teach the students of Clases 1st to 5th and 6th to 8th in Upper Primary Schools and also the students of 6th to 8th in Secondary and Senior Secondary Schools, those are to be appointed from the candidates possessing the qualification of B.S.T.C./B.Ed. 15. It is most unfortunate, unexpected and undesirable on the part of the respondents that they have not bothered, cared and concerned to this important matter where validity of the Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 is in issue. The State of Rajasthan, impersonal machinery, though has highly paid officers, but nobody cares for the litigation on its behalf or against it. They felt contented and satisfied by filing reply to one of the writ petitions but that is not enough. They are being highly paid officers have a duty and responsibility to be honest, reasonable and fair to their employer and to make all sincere efforts to contest the matters. The worst part is that though in the Court the State of Rajasthan has large number of law officers including the Advocate General and Additional Advocate Generals but none is present to defend it in these matters. It has not happened in this case but is prevailing state of affairs in almost all the litigations of the State of Rajasthan. Be that as it may be, it is for the State of Rajasthan to correct its house and not for this Court. For negligence and carelessness in discharge of the duties unless stern action is taken against the erring officer, it is difficult for it to correct its house. From the absence of the respondents and their Advocate, two-fold inference can reasonably be drawn; first, either they are wholly negligent, irresponsible and careless in discharge of their duties which they owe to their master as well as public at lage or are interested, for consideration or without consideration, to see that the petitioners may get easy assail in the matter. It is a matter concerned with the State of Rajasthan to find out and identify the erring officers and to hold an enquiry and on being found guilty therein to punish them appropriately. However, the hearing of these matters cannot be deferred only on the consideration that it is a litigation against the State and its Law Officers and the respondents are not present. 16. We have given out anxious and thoughtful considerations to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and have also carefully gone through the entire record of the writ petition. 17. On the record of the writ petition the petitioners have submitted the syllabus of 1st and 2nd Year of B.S.T.C. course of one of the Institutions as Annexures-3 and 4 and 4-A, respectively. The petitioners have also taken care to submit the syllabus of B.Ed. degree as Annexure-5. 18. Having carefully gone through the syllabus of these two courses of B.S.T.C. & B.Ed. we are satisfied that the same are formulated in a way which focuses on imparting education to two different categories of Claseses. Syllabus of B.S.T.C. is provided to trained the persons to teach the children of specific age group/Clases. The National Education Policy of 1986 laid emphasis on child centered approach for teaching at primary level. Reorganization of the education system at different stages is aimed at educating the child appropriately at different levels of his mental growth. It will be seen that the BSTC syllabus is framed in such a way that one single teacher is able to teach all subjects of a particular Clases of students. In the B.Ed. syllabus the emphasis is on specialization in two subjects. BSTC is designed specially keeping in view the children of Clases 1st to 5th standard in mind which is not the case in B.Ed. syllabus. A primary school teacher has to undergo training to impart education to primary Claseses i.e. Clases 1st to 5th standard, whereas a B.Ed. degree holders is required to undergo training to teach the Claseses from 6th 10th standard. 19. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision dated 09.02.2001 of the Delhi High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6798/2000 (Atul Haque vs. Government of E.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.). degree holders is required to undergo training to teach the Claseses from 6th 10th standard. 19. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision dated 09.02.2001 of the Delhi High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6798/2000 (Atul Haque vs. Government of E.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.). The Delhi High Court in the Judgment aforesaid, making reference to the curriculum frame work of quality teachers education framed by the National Council for Teachers Education, an autonomous body, observed that the curriculum for primary school teachers has been formulated specially to enable the teachers to teach primary Claseses i.e., 1st to 5th standard. Referring to Clause 7.2.9 of the curriculum aforesaid framed by the National Counsel for Teachers Education, the Delhi High Court observed that for teaching at the secondary level the qualification which is most sought after is B.Ed., which, in fact, is meant for this stage alone. Here in this case also it is not in dispute that the subject contents as well as teaching methodology are different for BSTC and B.Ed. courses. The teaching practice for primary, upper-primary and secondary teachers are also of different durations and different levels. These two qualifications operate in different fields and at different levels. It is a misnomer and incorrect approach and wrong to say that B.Ed. is a higher qualification than the BSTC in the same sense as BA is higher than Senior Secondary, BA degree is considered to be higher than the Senior Secondary because for passing BA one has necessarily to pass Senior Secondary but in order to obtain B.Ed. Degree it is not necessary to pass BSTC first. These two qualifications are specifically meant for different levels of students and there is no question of one being higher than the other. .20. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties we find there is no variance on the following points; .(1) BSTC& B.Ed. Degree it is not necessary to pass BSTC first. These two qualifications are specifically meant for different levels of students and there is no question of one being higher than the other. .20. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties we find there is no variance on the following points; .(1) BSTC& B.Ed. courses are two different qualifications; .(2) For primary school teachers the basic qualification is BSTC; .(3) Primary School Teachers possessing BSTC qualification are specifically trained to teach the students of primary Claseses; .(4) The primary school teachers have no special knowledge and training to teach the Secondary Claseses; .(5) Under the Rules, 1996 prior to the Amendment in Rule 266 thereof vide Notification dated 28th of February, 2004, the qualification for appointment to Primary School Teacher was BSTC and; .(6) Under the Act, 1994 there is no conception of Upper Primary Schools. 21. Here we consider it necessary to make reference to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Rules, 1971). In Section F of the Schedule thereto the qualification and other eligibility has been provided for Teachers. The Rules, 1971 deals with the recruitment and other service conditions of the Teachers in Primary, Secondary and Senior Secondary Government Schools. 9.22. The Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Atul Haques case (Supra), on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has been confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar vs. Government of NCT , Delhi (Supra). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the teacher training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for teaching higher Claseses. Specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with the training given for awarding B.Ed. degree. Replying to the contention raised that the B.Ed. qualification be treated as higher qualification than the TTC (here the BSTC) because primary teachers recruited on TTC (here the BSTC) qualification basis can get promotion as Teachers (here Senior Teachers) to teach higher Claseses and B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification for higher Claseses, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of Teacher (here Senior Teachers) to teach higher Claseses and for which B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification for higher Claseses, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of Teacher (here Senior Teachers) to teach higher Claseses and for which B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B.Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC (here the BSTC) qualification. The Honble Supreme Court concluded that looking to the different nature of TTC (here the BATC) qualification, it is not comparable with B.Ed. degree qualification and the latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former. The Honble Supreme Court, taking into consideration the nature of training imparted for grant of certificate and degree in education, held that between BSTC and B.Ed. there is no parity whatsoever. .23. Much emphasis has been led in the reply to the writ petition wherein it is stated that the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumars case (Supra), is distinguishable on the ground that in that matter under the rules as well as the recruitment advertisement the B.Ed. qualification was not prescribed. On facts as what it is stated, the respondents to certain extent may be correct but we cannot oblivious of the fact that there the question was raised that more candidates available for recruitment to primary school were from B.Ed. category and very few from TTC category and the Honble Supreme Court replied that 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. It is not the case of the respondents in the reply to the writ petition that the .candidates holding the qualification of BSTC are not available in requisite numbers to fill up the vacancies of primary school teachers in the Panchayats. It may be a different matter and consideration that to teach the primary Claseses requisite number of candidates with the prescribed qualification may not be available and in that eventuality the Government may take the policy decision to make eligible the candidates who possess the other qualification in teaching. The candidates, possessing the qualification of BSTC, are available in plenty and still the qualification of B.Ed. degree has been inserted in the Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996. The candidates, possessing the qualification of BSTC, are available in plenty and still the qualification of B.Ed. degree has been inserted in the Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996. That apart, by this insertion of the qualification by making amendment in the Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 the candidates, who have not taken specialized training for teaching the primary Claseses, will be the teachers in the primary schools. The justification given by the respondents for this insertion of B.Ed. degree as eligibility for appointment on the post of primary school teacher is that those teachers are to teach in the upper primary, secondary or senior secondary schools. They have also taken a plea that the elementary education was within the control of the Panchayati Raj Department and now the education system is under the Panchayat but the Government handed over the Upper Primary Schools to the Primary/Elementary Education, Panchayati Raj Department, where the students from Clases 1st to 8th standard are taught by the Teachers Grade III. We fail to see any logic, justification or explanation in support of adding of B.Ed. qualification for appointment to primary school teachers. The respondents neither pleaded nor produced any material to show that under the Panchayats, henceforth there will not be any primary school. There may be some combined schools where primary and upper primary or upper primary, secondary and senior secondary students are imparted education but only on this ground it cannot be taken and accepted that the teachers possessing the qualification of B.Ed. become eligible to teach the primary Claseses. Even if there are combined schools having primary and upper primary Claseses or upper primary, secondary and senior secondary Claseses, it is obligatory and necessary on the part of the respondent State Government to draw a clear distinction in the qualification and eligibility of the teachers to teach these different Claseses i.e., primary, upper primary and secondary. 10.24. In the Rules, 1971 encadred post is of Teacher which is the lowest post in the cadre; the next higher post is Teacher Grade II for which the minimum qualification prescribed is Graduate with B.Ed. Degree. Under the Rules, 1971 further appointment can be made on the post of School Lecturer and such like applicants who are Graduate with B.Ed. Degree plus Post Graduate are made eligible for the post of School Lecturer. Degree. Under the Rules, 1971 further appointment can be made on the post of School Lecturer and such like applicants who are Graduate with B.Ed. Degree plus Post Graduate are made eligible for the post of School Lecturer. From the scheme of the Rules, 1971 the persons possessing the qualification of Graduation with B.Ed. or Post Graduation with B.Ed. have ample opportunity of appointment in the Government services on the post of Teacher Grade II and School Lecturers. Comparing thereto, the persons possessing the qualification of Senior Secondary with BSTC have only the opportunity of employment as primary school teacher in the Panchayat or in the Government. 125. The learned Counsel for the petitioners made a statement at the Bar that thousands of the primary schools are there in the Panch