JUDGMENT Hon’ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.—Heard Mr. Mansoor Ahmad for the appellant in support of appeal No. 1294 of 2007. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 14.9.2007 rendered by a learned Single Judge on a group of writ petitions. One of them is Writ Petition No. 47044 of 2006 (Smt. Reshma and others Vs. State) wherein Qamar Raza was one of the petitioners. The appeal seeks to challenge the judgement for non-consideration of appellants’ prayer that the certificate of Muallim-e-Urdu be considered equivalent to B.T.C. (Urdu). Mr. D.K. Arora, Additional Advocate General, appears for the State, to oppose this appeal. Mr. Shashi Nandan has appeared in support of the impleadment application moved in Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2007. 2. We allow the impleadment application filed by Aaisha Parveen and seven others for joining in Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2007. Mr. Shashi Nandan, appears for these applicants. They are students who have their graduation with Urdu as a subject. They are opposing the prayer of appellant in Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2007, which seeks to join Basic Teacher Certificate (BTC) Course (Urdu) on the basis of Muallim-e-Urdu Certificate. 3. This appeal arises out of the common judgment rendered by Single Judge on 14th September, 2007 on a group of matters concerning admission to Urdu BTC Course run by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Single Judge has disposed of those petitions but it was not clear whether those petitions are allowed or dismissed. He has held the BTC Urdu Course to be illegal. The petitioners who wanted admission to the Urdu BTC Course felt aggrieved by the judgment and so also the State Government. All of them filed appeals against that judgment. As far as the appeals filed by the State Government are concerned, those of them which were concerning the scheme floated by the State Government were separated, heard and decided by judgment rendered by this Court in Special Appeal No. 1330 of 2007: State of U.P. and others v. Km. Sumbul Naqvi. This Court by its judgment dated 28.11.2007 has already held that the Government Order dated 18lh March, 2006 and the advertisement dated 26lh March, 2006 are valid and there is no diversion of any seat from the regular BTC Course (through Hindi medium) to BTC (Urdu) course. Sumbul Naqvi. This Court by its judgment dated 28.11.2007 has already held that the Government Order dated 18lh March, 2006 and the advertisement dated 26lh March, 2006 are valid and there is no diversion of any seat from the regular BTC Course (through Hindi medium) to BTC (Urdu) course. This Court has already perused the correspondence between the State Government and NCTE and has held in its judgment in the above matter that wherever there are ten or more students opting for basic education through Urdu medium they have to be provided the facility and for that purpose this course is being conducted for teachers training for primary education through Urdu medium. The judgment dated 14.9.2007 has been set aside. 4. (i) As far as appeal No. 1294 of 2007 is concerned, this is filed by one such candidate, namely, Qambar Raza. He has two prayers in his petition. One prayer is to set aside the government Order dated 18th March, 2006 and the advertisement dated 26th March, 2006. Inasmuch as the said Government Order and the advertisement has already been held to be valid, this prayer does not survives and stands rejected. (ii) The second prayer in the petition is for direction to the respondents authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner and similarly situated persons directly for the post of Assistant Teachers in Urdu Language in Junior Basic/Senior Basic Schools against the existing vacancies. As far as this prayer is concerned, the submission of the appellant has been that the petitioners have qualification of Muallim-e-Urdu from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. These petitioners have placed reliance upon a Government Order dated 13th September, 1994 and Government Notification dated 16lth February, 2005 which provides the equivalence to Muallim-e-Urdu to BTC Urdu. It is, therefore, submitted that since the Government decision is in their favour their prayer may be allowed. Reliance has also been placed upon Rule 14(1) and 14(4) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and it is contended that since they have a prior degree they ought to be placed higher than those who have obtained such qualification subsequently in the matter of employment. 5. Mr. Arora, Additional Advocate General, submitted that the appellants are confusing between two types of courses. 5. Mr. Arora, Additional Advocate General, submitted that the appellants are confusing between two types of courses. One is for appointment as Teachers of Urdu Language in Junior/Senior Basic Schools and the other is for primary teachers on the basis of Urdu BTC course. As far as appointment as Urdu Language Teacher is concerned that is a different aspect. The objective of the BTC (Urdu) Course by the State Government is to have sufficient number of primary teachers as part of the ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’. This is a course to bring out primary teachers who may teach primary students through the medium of Urdu as against other primary teachers who are teaching primary students through the medium of Hindi. 6. (i) Mr. Arora submits that to become a primary teacher, the candidate concerned has to be a graduate and he ought to do a course in teacher’s education from an institution which is recognised by the NCTE. The rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellant contains a letter from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh dated 23rd November, 2007. It records in paragraph 2 that Muallim-e-Urdu Educational Course is conducted all over India and outside India also (say in Saudi Arabia). The letter gives the number of students who have taken the course. For example in the session 1996-97, the number given is 17039. However, so far the recognition from NCTE is concerned, in paragraph 5 of this letter, it is clearly stated that the process for recognition from NCTE is going on. Thus, it is clear that this course and the certificate of Muallim-e-Urdu is not a certificate recognised by the NCTE. That is why, the appellant-petitioner cannot claim having a degree equivalent to BTC since his degree is not recognised by the NCTE. (ii) The candidates cannot seek admission to B.T.C. Urdu Course on the basis of their degree also since it is specified in the Government advertisement that they must have a degree from an institution recognised by the NCTE. As has been held by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3879 of 2001, Yogesh Kumar and others v. Government of N.T.C. Delhi and others, JT 2003 (2) SC 453, it is for the employer to consider and decide as to what qualification a person ought to have for joining employment. As has been held by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3879 of 2001, Yogesh Kumar and others v. Government of N.T.C. Delhi and others, JT 2003 (2) SC 453, it is for the employer to consider and decide as to what qualification a person ought to have for joining employment. In the instant case, after BTC course the persons passing out with the certificate will be eligible for applying and have very good chances of employment. This being so, the qualification possessed by the appellants is not such which can get them an admission for this course. Hence no writ can be issued, as prayed by the appellants through prayer clause (iii) also, which is for any other appropriate order. 7. The submissions of the appellants with respect to equivalence granted by the State Government is also of no relevance for the BTC Course. That may be relevant for appointment as Urdu Language Teacher in the Junior/Senior Basic Schools but not as far as the present advertisement for Urdu BTC Course is concerned. Moreover, the equivalence granted in 1994 has been subsequently withdrawn by the Government Order dated 11th August, 1997. This controversy is also decided by one Single Judge vide order dated 4.1.2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10815 of 2006 (S/s) Mushir Ahmed Indrees and others v. State of U.P. and others. This being the position, as far as Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2007 filed by Qambar Raza is concerned, the same is required to be dismissed and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs. ————