( 1 ) PETITIONERS have approached this Court, questioning the validity of decisions dated 25. 04. 2000 and 23. 08. 2003 taken by District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, declaring the appointment orders passed in favour of petitioners as inoperative and void. ( 2 ) BRIEF background of the case is that an advertisement was published on 21. 08. 1997 by District Basic Education Officer, for making selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in primary institutions run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, U. P. At Allahabad. The eligibility criteria which was prescribed for in the said advertisement was that incumbent should possess training qualification equivalent to B. T. C. or H. T. C. along with Intermediate Examination or any other qualification as recognized by the State Government. Each one of the petitioners did not possess B. T. C. or H. T. C. Certificate, and as they were ineligible, they preferred writ petition No. 29701 of 1997 before this Court, and this Court on 18. 08. 1998 disposed of the writ petition by mentioning that issue involved in that case was fully covered by the decision of this Court in case of B. Ed. Berozgar Sangh v. State of U. P. , 1997 (3) UPLBEC 1774 , and the said decision would also apply in the petitioners case. Petitioners have contended that copy of said order was produced before the concerned authority, and thereafter, District Basic Education Officer. Passed order dated 25. 04. 2000, holding petitioners ineligible. Subsequent to the same, they were offered appointment on 30. 10. 2001 in untrained grade, and they joined. Thereafter, it was revealed that petitioners had been offered appointment without undertaking any process of selection. On 15. 02. 2002 order was passed mentioning therein that petitioners would not be permitted to perform and discharge their duties. At the said point of time, petitioners preferred writ petition No. 8146 of 2002, wherein initially interim order was passed and thereafter on 21. 04. 2003, said writ petition had been dismissed by recording categorical finding of fact that petitioners lacked training qualification of B. T. C. and their appointment was illegal and same had been rightly cancelled. Petitioners submit that against the said judgment they filed Special Appeal No. 499 of 2003, which is pending. Thereafter on 23. 08. 2003 petitioners appointment had been cancelled. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Petitioners submit that against the said judgment they filed Special Appeal No. 499 of 2003, which is pending. Thereafter on 23. 08. 2003 petitioners appointment had been cancelled. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed and therein, precise plea has been taken that selection and appointment of petitioners was clearly an act of manipulation and manoeuvering, and once petitioners are ineligible, no relief can be granted to them. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterating that of writ petition. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed in the present case. ( 3 ) AFTER pleadings aforementioned have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri Lal Chandra Yadav, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case arbitrary treatment has been accorded to petitioners and on totally unsustainable grounds their candidature has been sought to be cancelled, and in this background, it has been urged that writ petition deserves to be allowed. ( 4 ) SRI B. P. Singh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Basic Shiksha Parishad, on the other hand, contended that petitioners claim is based on fraud and manipulation, coupled with this, they even do not fulfill requisite eligibility criteria as is provided for under U. P. Basic Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981, as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges is to the effect that the petitioners are B. Ed certificate holders and are claiming appointment in primary institutions run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad. Selection and appointment in such institutions is governed by the provisions as contained under U. P. Basic Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981. ( 5 ) AS to whether B. Ed. and L. T. can be considered as training qualification in the context of 1981 Rules, has already been subject matter before Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 2005 (1) ESC 713, wherein precise view has been taken that B. Ed. and L. T. cannot be considered as teachers training course for the purposes of possessing minimum qualification in the context of 1978 Rules and 1981 Rules. and L. T. cannot be considered as teachers training course for the purposes of possessing minimum qualification in the context of 1978 Rules and 1981 Rules. Relevant paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the said judgment are being quoted below: "2]. It is not in dispute that the Junior High School is recognised and aided though managed by a private Managing Committee and that the conditions of service of teachers are governed by the 1978 Rules. The recommendations of the Selection Committee in favour of the appellant for appointment to the post of Headmaster were accepted by the Managing Committee and subsequently the Basic Shiksha Adhikari also granted approval to his appointment on 26. 3. 1998. A letter was thereafter issued on 27. 3. 1998 appointing the appellant to the post of Headmaster in the Junior High School. This appointment was challenged by another teacher of the Junior High School, namely, Dharamveer Singh who is respondent No. 4 in this Special Appeal on the ground that the appellant did not possess the requisite minimum qualification since he did not possess the Teaching Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board as provided for in Rule 4 (2) (b) of the 1978 Rules. The appellant had to his credit the B. Ed. certificate, which according to the petitioner-respondent did not satisfy the requirement. The learned Judge, after a careful analysis of the various provisions of the 1978 Rules came to the conclusion that the B. Ed. certificate possessed by the appellant was not a Teachers Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board and, therefore, he did not possess the minimum qualification for being considered for appointment to the post of Headmaster. The appointment order was accordingly quashed. 3]. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P. R. Ganguly and Sri Sudhakar Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record. 4]. The State Government enacted the Uttar Pradesh `basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The statement of objects and reasons, inter alia, mentions that the responsibility for primary education had so far vested with the Zila Parishads in rural areas and with Municipal Boards and Mahapalikas in urban areas. 4]. The State Government enacted the Uttar Pradesh `basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The statement of objects and reasons, inter alia, mentions that the responsibility for primary education had so far vested with the Zila Parishads in rural areas and with Municipal Boards and Mahapalikas in urban areas. The administration of education at this level by the local bodies was not satisfactory, and it was deteriorating day by day. Hence for recognizing, reforming and expanding elementary education it became necessary for the State Government to take over its control into its own hands. It was, therefore, decided by the Government to transfer the control of primary education from the local bodies to the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board ). Basic education has been defined to mean education up to class VIII imparted in School other than the High Schools or Intermediate Colleges. While the constitution of the Board has been provided for in Section 3 of the Act, the functions of the Board have been enumerated in Section 4. Section 4 (1) provides that it shall be the function of the Board to recognise, co-ordinate and control the imparting of basic education and teachers training thereof in the State, to raise its standards and to co-relate it with the system of education as a whole in the State. Section 4 (2) (b) provides that the Board shall have, amongst others, the power to conduct the junior high school and basic training certificate examinations and such other examinations as the State Government may from time to time by general or special order assign to it and to grant diplomas or certificates to candidates successful at such examinations. Section 19 of the Act provides that the State Government may make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. 5]. There are basically two sets of Junior High Schools in the State of U. P. One set is owned and managed by the Board and the other by privately managed recognised Junior High Schools. Separate Rules have been framed for these Junior High Schools in exercise of the powers under Section 19 of the Act. 5]. There are basically two sets of Junior High Schools in the State of U. P. One set is owned and managed by the Board and the other by privately managed recognised Junior High Schools. Separate Rules have been framed for these Junior High Schools in exercise of the powers under Section 19 of the Act. The recruitment and conditions of service of teachers in privately managed recognised Junior High Schools is governed by the 1978 Rules whereas the conditions of service of teachers in Junior High School owned and managed by the Board are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Rules ). In the instant case we are concerned with the 1978 Rules because the Junior High School in question is privately managed and is not one, which is either owned or controlled by the Board. 6]. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the Special Appeal it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the 1978 Rules and the 1981 Rules. A junior High School has been defined under the 1978 Rules to mean an Institution other than High School or Intermediate College imparting education to boys or girls or both from Classes VI to VIII (inclusive) and a recognised School has been defined to mean any Junior High School not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body recognised by the Board as such. The minimum qualifications are provided for in Rule 4 and are as foallows:- "4. Minimum Qualification.- (1) The minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher of a recognised school shall be Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination with Hindi and a teachers training course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training. (2) The minimum qualifications for the appointment to the post of Headmaster of a recognised school shall be as follows: (a) A degree from a recognised University or an equivalent examination recognised as such; (b) A teachers training course recognised by the State Government or the Board, such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certificate; and (c) Three years teaching experience in a recognised school. " 8]. Rule 5 specifically provides that no person shall be appointed as Headmaster or Assistant Teacher in substantive capacity in any recognised School unless he possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed for such post and he has been recommended for such appointment by the Selection Committee. Rule 10 lays down the procedure for selection while Rule 11 relates to appointment. 9]. In so far as the 1981 Rules are concerned a basic School has been defined to mean a School where instructions are imparted from classes I to VIII. A junior Basic School has been defined to mean a Basic School where instructions are imparted from classes I to V while a senior Basic School means a Basic School where instructions are imparted from classes VI to VIII. A nursery School, on the other hand, means a School in which children ordinarily of the age up to 6 years are taught in classes lower than class I. Rule 3 provides that the Rules shall apply to all teachers of local bodies transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act and to all teachers employed for the Basic and Nursery Schools established by the Board. Rule 5 contained in part III deals with the sources of recruitment and is as follows:- "5. Sources of recruitment.- The mode of recruitment to the various categories of posts mentioned below shall be as follows:- (a) (i ) Mistresses of Nursery Schools By direct recruitment as provided in Rules 14 and 15; (ii) Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistresses of Junior Basic Schools By promotion as provided in Rule 18; (b) (i ) Headmistresses of Nursery Schools By promotion as provided in Rule 18; (ii) Head Masters and Head Mistresses of Junior Basic Schools By promotion as provided in Rule 18; (ii) Assistant Masters of Senior Basic Schools By promotion as provided in Rule 18; (iii) Assistant Mistresses of Senior Basic Schools By promotion as provided in Rule 18; (iv) Head Masters of Senior Basic Schools By promotion as provided in Rule 18; (v) Head Mistresses of Senior Basic Schools By promotion as provided in Rule 18; Provided that if suitable candidates are not available for promotion to the posts mentioned at (iii) and (iv) above, appointment may be made by direct recruitment in the manner laid down in Rule 15. " Part IV of these 1981 Rules deals with qualification and the relevant portions of Rules 6 and 8 are quoted below:-"6. Age.- A candidate for recruitment to any post referred to in clause (a) or proviso to clause (b) of Rule 5, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have attained the age of more than thirty-two years on the first day of July following the year in which the vacancy is notified: provided also that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of Basic Schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non-availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained unappointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment: provided also that no upper age limit shall apply in case of B. Ed. /l. T. /b. P. Ed. /c. P. Ed. or D. P. Ed. trained candidates who have completed special B. T. C. Training course in the year 1999. 8]. Academic qualifications.- (1) The essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in clause (a) of Rule 5 shall be as shown below against each: post Academic qualifications (i)Mistress of Nursery Schools Certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from a recognised Training Institution in Uttar Pradesh or any other training qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. (ii)Assistant Master and Assistant A Bachelors Degree from a University Mistress of Junior Basic established by law in India or a Degree School recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teachers Certificate, Hindustani Teachers Certificate, Junior Teachers Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto: provided that the essential qualification for a candidate who has passed the required training course shall be the same which was prescribed for admission to the said training course. 10]. 10]. Rule 14 deals with the determination of vacancies and preparation of list in respect of appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Mistress of Nursery Schools and Assistant Masters of Junior Basic Schools under Rule 5 (a), while Rule 15 deals with the notification of vacancies and preparation of list for certain posts of Assistant Masters of Senior Basic School in respect of direct recruitment under the proviso to Rule 5 (b ). Rule 18 deals with the procedure for recruitment by promotion. 11]. As stated above, in the instant Appeal we are primarily concerned with the 1978 Rules since the Junior High School in question is neither owned nor controlled by the Board of Basic Education. Rule 4 (1) deals with the minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher which is Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent Examination with Hindi and a Teachers Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training. On the other hand Rule 4 (2) deals with the minimum qualifications for the post of Headmaster and it provides that the person must have a Degree from a recognised University or any equivalent examination recognised as such together with a Teachers Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training and three years teaching experience in a recognised School. Rule 5 specifically provides that no person shall be appointed as Headmaster or Assistant Teacher in substantive capacity unless he possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed for such post and has been recommended for such appointment by the Selection Committee. Thus for either of the post of Assistant Teacher or Headmaster the person, amongst other requirements, must also possess a Teachers Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training. 12]. Thus for either of the post of Assistant Teacher or Headmaster the person, amongst other requirements, must also possess a Teachers Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training. 12]. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the 1978 Rules and 1981 Rules are different even though both of them are applicable to the Junior High Schools and by comparing the two he submitted that though under the 1978 Rules appointment of Assistant Teachers and Headmaster can be made only by direct recruitment but under the 1981 Rules appointments to the posts of Assistant Teachers or Headmasters of a Senior Basis School can be made by way of promotion and only the post of Mistress of Nursery School and Assistant Master of Junior Basic School are filled in by direct recruitment. He further submitted that the minimum educational qualification required for appointment as Mistress of Nursery School and Assistant Master of Junior Basic Schools under the 1981 Rules is a training qualification consisting of a Basic Teachers Certificate, Hindustani Teachers Certificate, Junior Teachers Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other Training Course recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto and there being no prescription of any educational qualification separately for the post of Assistant Teacher and Headmaster of a Senior Basic School, it should not be insisted upon that candidates directly recruited under the 1978 Rules should possess a Teachers Training qualification required for direct recruitment at the Primary and Nursery level under the 1981 Rules. He further contends that the language used in Rule 8 of the 1981 Rules and Rule 4 of the 1978 Rules is entirely different and from this he contends that the Teachers Training qualification under Rule 4 of 1978 Rules is not exhaustive but merely illustrative. 13]. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Rule 4 of the 1978 Rules is very specific and that the person must possess the Teachers Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training. The appellant, however, did not possess any of these Teachers Training Course though he had the B. Ed. certificate and, therefore, he cannot be considered eligible for the post of Headmaster. The appellant, however, did not possess any of these Teachers Training Course though he had the B. Ed. certificate and, therefore, he cannot be considered eligible for the post of Headmaster. According to him both under the 1978 Rules and the 1981 Rules, it is necessary for a person to possess the aforesaid Teachers Training Course. 14]. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 15]. It cannot be disputed that the Teachers Training imparted to teachers for B. Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes whereas the Basic Teaching Certificate (hereinafter referred to as b. T. C. ) is given to teachers for teaching small children and the two cannot be compared with, as has been clearly observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others Vs. Government of NCT Delhi and others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548 . The duration of courses of B. T. C. and LT/b. Ed. are entirely different and have been devised keeping in view the stages through which the students pass. In the case of B. T. C. the method of Training Course is devised so as to meet the requirement of teaching at a formative stage for a student who enters the School. Thus it is evident that the training qualification for teaching small children is B. T. C. while the training qualification for teaching children in High Schools and Intermediate Colleges is B. Ed. or L. T. 16]. We should, therefore, interpret Rule 4 (1) of the 1978 Rules keeping in mind the observations made by us above and if we do so then there can be no manner of doubt that the Teachers Training Course referred to in the said Rule should be confined to such Training Course which are imparted to teach small children only. We should, therefore, interpret Rule 4 (1) of the 1978 Rules keeping in mind the observations made by us above and if we do so then there can be no manner of doubt that the Teachers Training Course referred to in the said Rule should be confined to such Training Course which are imparted to teach small children only. This is the reason why the Legislature has specifically referred to four such Training Courses which are specifically confined to Specialised Training for imparting education to small children and if we interpret it in such a manner then the question whether the four Certificates referred to in Rule 4 (1) of the 1978 Rules are exhaustive or illustrative may not assume much significance since even if it is held that they are merely illustrative then too we are of the opinion that only such other certificates can be taken into consideration which relate to Specialised Training for imparting education to small children. The B. Ed. /l. T. /b. P. Ed. /c. P. Ed. or D. P. Ed. Certificates cannot, therefore, be taken into consideration. 17]. The Legislature was conscious of the distinction between Training Course Certificates received by candidates to teach small children and the certificates received to teach higher classes as is apparent from the fact that those who had obtained the B. Ed. /l. T. /b. P. Ed. /c. P. Ed. or D. P. Ed. Certificates were required to complete a special B. T. C. Training Course under the Government Order dated 9. 1. 1998. If such trained candidates having B. Ed. /l. T. /b. P. Ed. /c. P. Ed. or D. P. Ed. Certificates were eligible to be considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers or Headmasters of a Junior High School, there would have been no necessity at all for them to have undergone the Special B. T. C. Training Course. This again emphasises what we had observed earlier that to teach small children a Specialised Training Course is necessary. In this respect reference may also be made to the provisions of Rule 6 of 1981 Rules referred to above wherein also while providing for the age limit of the candidates it has been clearly provided that there shall be no upper age limit in case of B. Ed. /l. T. /b. P. Ed. /c. P. Ed. or D. P. Ed. /l. T. /b. P. Ed. /c. P. Ed. or D. P. Ed. Certificates candidates who had completed the Special B. T. C. Training course in the year 1999. The Legislature was, therefore, clearly conscious of the fact that for such candidates a special B. T. C. course was required to be undertaken before they could be considered eligible for appointment. 18]. The matter can also be examined from a different angle. Under Rule 4 (1) of the 1978 Rules, the Rule making authority has not merely restricted the minimum qualification to a Teachers Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board. Had it done so there would have been no difficulty at all and all Teachers Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board would have been treated to be sufficient. However, the clause proceeds further and goes on to illustrate the meaning of "teachers Training Course" by mentioning Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certificate. This could not have been done without a purpose. It could only be to indicate the type of Teachers Training Course, the Rule making authority had in mind and if we examine the four Certificates referred to in Rule 4 (1) we find that all of them relate to Certificates granted in respect of imparting education to small children. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the B. Ed. /l. T. /b. P. Ed. /c. P. Ed. or D. P. Ed. Certificates cannot be considered as a Teachers Training Course for the purposes of possessing the minimum qualification under the 1978 Rules. The view, which we have taken, finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. State of A. P. and others reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 429. 19]. We also do not agree with the contention of the learned Senior counsel that because of the difference in the wordings of the 1978 Rules and the 1981 Rules, it must be held that a Teachers Training Course can also include the Training Certificates like B. Ed. /l. T. /b. P. Ed. /c. P. Ed. or D. P. Ed. Certificates so far as the 1978 Rules are concerned. /l. T. /b. P. Ed. /c. P. Ed. or D. P. Ed. Certificates so far as the 1978 Rules are concerned. We have carefully perused both the aforesaid Rules and find that in both of them for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher or Headmaster under the 1978 Rules or the appointment to the post of Assistant Master or Headmaster of Senior Basic Schools under the 1981 Rules there is hardly any difference with regard to the possession of the training qualification and under both of them the candidates must possess the Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certificates which are recognised by the State Government or the Board. 20]. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant then submitted that the possession of B. T. C. Certificate should be restricted to the level of Junior Basic Schools i. e. Classes I to V and not in respect of Classes VI to VIII. According to us this is a requirement, which is to be considered by the Legislature. The 1978 Rules are applicable in respect of Junior High Schools for imparting education from Classes VI to VIII and, therefore, we see no reason to limit the requirement to Classes I to V only. The Supreme Court in the case of P. M. Latha and another Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 541 held as follows:-"we find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that BEd qualification is a higher qualification that TTC and, therefore, the BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to complete for the post. On behalf of the 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 BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. BEd 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 TTC qualification or BEd qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC and not BEd. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or BEd qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC and not BEd. Whether BEd qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider BEd candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible. " 21]. In the end, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that practical difficulty should also to be taken into consideration since there is an extreme shortage of candidates possessing the Teachers Training Certificate of B. T. C. We can only say that these are the matters to be considered by the State Government and so far as the Courts are concerned, we have to interpret the Rules in the form they exist. We cannot alter the meaning assigned to the Teachers Training Course merely on account of the fact that there is a shortage of B. T. C. teachers in the State. " ( 6 ) HONble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U. P. and others (2006) 2 SCC 315 has taken the view that on account of lack of requisite qualification for the post in question, appointment being dohors Rules, cannot be permitted to continue. Paragraphs 11 and 21 of the judgment being relevant are quoted below: "11. The requisite qualification is High School examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. or equivalent qualification recognised by the State Government together with the training qualification which consisted of either one among the Basic Teachers Certificate (BTC) Hindustani Teachers Certificate, Junior Teachers Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto. Thus, under the Rules, the basic qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher, apart from the educational qualification, was the training qualification of the Basic Teachers Certificate or Hindustani Teachers Certificate or Junior Teachers Certificate or Certificate of Teaching or equivalent training course recognised by the State Government. It is an admitted position by both the parties that these qualifications are required for appointment of the post of Assistant Teacher. It is an admitted position by both the parties that these qualifications are required for appointment of the post of Assistant Teacher. It is also not the case of the appellants that the academic qualifications were amended at the time of their appointment. Thus, admittedly on the date of appointment, the appellants did not hold the training qualification to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers as prescribed under Rule 8. 21. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the State by various orders had given equivalence to the degree of Moallim-e-Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh with that of Basic Teachers Certificate, is not correct. In the government order dated 28. 1. 1985 the Governor was pleased to approve the candidates in State services who qualified Moallim-e-Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu Aligarh and who had got experience of teaching Urdu at Higher Secondary schools. This order did not provide for equivalence of Moallim-e-Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, to that of BTC. Another order dated 28. 10. 1988 issued by the Government, which was clarificatory in nature, to all Heads of Departments and the Chief of Officials of the U. P. Karmik Anubhag, directed that the candidates who have got degree of Moallim-e-Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh and who had experience of teaching Urdu at Higher Secondary level may be appointed in State services. This also does not indicate the equivalence of Mollim-e-Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh to that of BTC. The aforesaid two orders only indicate that the persons who are having degree of Moallim-e- Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh can be appointed in the State Services. The orders do not equate the degree of Moallim-e- Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh to that of Basic Teachers Certificate, Hindustani Teachers Certificate, Junior Teachers Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course, indicated in the Rule. As far as the training is concerned there is no equivalence of the Certificate of Moallim-e- Urdu. It is for the first time by order dated 13. 9. 1994 the Government issued an order whereby the Governor granted a sanction that Moallim-e- Urdu degree for teaching Urdu in junior/senior basic schools is equivalent to BTC. As far as the training is concerned there is no equivalence of the Certificate of Moallim-e- Urdu. It is for the first time by order dated 13. 9. 1994 the Government issued an order whereby the Governor granted a sanction that Moallim-e- Urdu degree for teaching Urdu in junior/senior basic schools is equivalent to BTC. It is settled law that that qualification should have been seen which the candidate possessed on the date of recruitment and not at a later stage unless rules to that regard permit it. The minimum qualification prescribed under Rule 8 should be fulfilled on the date of recruitment. Equivalence of degree of Moallim-e- Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh with that of BTC in the year 1994 would not entail the benefit to the appellants on the date they were appointed. The appellants could not have been appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers without having training required under Rule 8. That being the case, the appointments of the appellants were dehors the Rules and could not be treated to be continued. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any substance in the appeals and they are accordingly, dismissed. However in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. " ( 7 ) ALL these judgments clearly point out that appointment of Head Master/assistant Teacher has to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules. Laying down educational qualification is under the realm of policy decision and once Rules have been framed and qualifications have been prescribed for, then this Court has no authority or jurisdiction to proceed on its own and give directive for treating an ineligible person under the Rules as eligible. It is within the domain of the recruiting authority to evolve policy of recruitment and to decide the way and manner in which recruitment is to be made. ( 8 ) ONCE position is clear that petitioners have to their credit B. Ed. Degree, which is not requisite training qualification as per 1981 Rules, as such, on the date when petitioners had been appointed, they lacked requisite training qualification, and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, they could have been accorded appointment. Order dated 25. 04. ( 8 ) ONCE position is clear that petitioners have to their credit B. Ed. Degree, which is not requisite training qualification as per 1981 Rules, as such, on the date when petitioners had been appointed, they lacked requisite training qualification, and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, they could have been accorded appointment. Order dated 25. 04. 2000, had already been passed by District Basic Education Officer, clearly holding petitioners ineligible, and in spite of said order being there, petitioners succeeded in getting themselves appointed as untrained teachers. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of B. Ed. Berozgar Sangh District Sonbhadra and others v. State of U. P. and others, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1774 , wherein, it has been mentioned that when there is dearth of candidates, Government may treat any other qualification as equivalent to B. T. C. and the said action should be for the entire State and not only for a particular district. In the said judgment, it has been mentioned that State Government, unless there is proper reason justifying classification, cannot act in different manner and only when there is different situation prevailing in different parts of the State, Government may in appropriate cases exercise some power restricting it to a part of the State, but when want of sufficient number of candidates with B. T. C. Qualification is the sole reason for considering candidates with B. Ed. or L. T. Degrees then the same policy is to be applied in the whole State of Uttar Pradesh. Division Bench judgment of this Court, which has been noted in earlier part of this judgment, has clearly held that dearth of teachers cannot be a ground to violate the Rules. As per Rules, as it has been framed and drawn, till date, as discussed above, B. Ed. has not at all been recognized as training qualification equivalent to B. T. C. Judgment in the case of B. Ed. Berozgar Sangh District Sonbhadra and others v. State of U. P. and others, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1774 , was delivered on 24. 04. has not at all been recognized as training qualification equivalent to B. T. C. Judgment in the case of B. Ed. Berozgar Sangh District Sonbhadra and others v. State of U. P. and others, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1774 , was delivered on 24. 04. 1997, giving direction to the respondents to follow same principles in every case and consider the case of petitioners having B. E. /l. T. qualification, if no sufficient candidates with B. T. C. Qualification were available in respect of selection process involved in said writ petition, but if sufficient candidates with B. T. C. qualification were available, the respondents were given liberty to appoint them in accordance with law. In the said judgment, itself, this much had been made clear that on the material present, it does not mean, that qualification of B. Ed. /l. T. is to be treated as equivalent to B. T. C. , particularly, when Government has not recognized the same as equivalent and only in case when candidates with B. T. C. are not available, the candidates with B. Ed. /l/t. qualification are being considered. Interse parties this Court while delivering judgment on 21. 04. 2003, has clearly taken the view that in view of the law laid down in case of P. M. Latha vs. State of Kerala, J. T. 2003 SC 423, and Yogesh Kumar (supra), the observation of learned Single Judge, in the case of B. Ed. Berozgar Sangh (supra), does not lay down good law. ( 9 ) THIS is undisputed position that in the present case, petitioners are not at all eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teachers. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that petitioners have been non-suited on the basis of judgment in case of P. M. Latha vs. State of Kerala, J. T. 2003 SC 423. Said judgment will not apply retrospectively and would apply prospectively. There is complete misconception on the part of petitioners on this score, inasmuch judgment of the Apex Court has clarified the existing legal position that a candidate, who is not equipped with prescribed training qualification, cannot be appointed as Assistant Teacher. Appointment in primary institutions is governed by U. P. Basic Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981, and therein educational qualification has been prescribed for, and once the said qualifications were lacking, then by no stretch of imagination, petitioners could have been offered appointment. Appointment in primary institutions is governed by U. P. Basic Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981, and therein educational qualification has been prescribed for, and once the said qualifications were lacking, then by no stretch of imagination, petitioners could have been offered appointment. ( 10 ) IN the present case circumstances are showing that under the garb of judgment of this Court large scale manipulation and manoeuvring has been done. This Court on 18. 08. 1998 had merely disposed of the writ petition on the same terms and conditions, as the matter in case of B. Ed. Berozgar Sangh (supra) had been decided. This Court never intended that full fledged procedure , which was prescribed under U. P. Basic Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981 was to be given complete good-by and straightaway appointments had to be made. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated that at no point of time vacancies had been determined and at no point of time any selection committee had been constituted and in ignorance of Rules, appointments had been made. This situation has been conceded in the rejoinder affidavit that no such selection committee was constituted, Once this is factual position, then no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Apart from this, petitioners claim was considered and thereafter by reasoned order, holding them ineligible, District Basic Education Officer passed orders on 25. 04. 2000. During subsistence of that order, ignoring the said order, petitioners succeeded in procuring appointment as untrained teachers on 30. 10. 2001. Thereafter on 15. 02. 2002, order has been passed by District Basic Education Officer, mentioning petitioners appointment to be illegal and further directing not to take work. Against the same, Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 8146 of 2002, has been dismissed, on 21. 04. 2003, and same grounds which have already been repelled by this Court are sought to be agitated again. Order dated 23. 08. 2003, passed by District Basic Education Officer notes down, the factum of dismissal of earlier writ petition. Note has also been made that entire documents have been manipulated, as there is no record available in the office of District Basic Education Officer, and documents are forged or issued by Sri Hari Singh Shakya in individual capacity. Sri Hari Singh Shakya has already been placed under suspension, and disciplinary proceeding is going on against him. Note has also been made that entire documents have been manipulated, as there is no record available in the office of District Basic Education Officer, and documents are forged or issued by Sri Hari Singh Shakya in individual capacity. Sri Hari Singh Shakya has already been placed under suspension, and disciplinary proceeding is going on against him. Writ petition lacks merit on all counts, as such the same is dismissed.