JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—In all these writ petitions the questions of fact and law are common and therefore, as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties all these matters are heard together and being decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners have challenged the Government Order dated 10th July, 2007 whereby qualification for admission to Special B.T.C. Course 2007 has been prescribed as "B.Ed. degree having obtained from an Institution/University duly recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as NCTE’)” on the ground that it amounts to creating two classes namely those who have valid B.Ed. degree but not recognized NCTE and those who have B.Ed. degree recognized by NCTE and this classification is irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is contended that the said classification is wholly irrational, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the orders passed by the Director. State Council for Education Research and Training, Nishatganj Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as SCERT),. rejecting candidature of petitioners on the ground that they do not possess requisite qualification i.e. B.Ed. degree recognized by NCTE and the consequential order of the Principal of District Institute of Education and Training, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to ‘DIET’) are also illegal. 3. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the matter is squarely covered by Division Bench decisions of this Court in Special Appeal No. 392 of 2008, Sanjai Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, and Special Appeal No. 391 of 2008 reported in, Smt. Sunita Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 13th March, 2008 reported in 2008(4) ADJ 672 (DB), whereby persons not fulfilling the requisite qualification have been held to be ineligible for admission to Special B.T.C. Course, 2007. He thus contended that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid judgments. 4. He thus contended that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid judgments. 4. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on another Division Bench decision of this Court in Ekta Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(1) ESC 531, contended that the matter has not been considered correctly in the other Division Bench judgments of this Court and therefore, needs to be considered by a larger Bench and till then, as an interim measure, the petitioners be allowed to continue their training for Special B.T.C. Course in the concerned DIET. 5. I have heard Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. 6. In writ petition No. 27578 of 2008 the petitioner. Manjusha Arora holds the qualification of L.T. Certificate which she has obtained in the year 1991. In Writ Petition No. 27579 of 2008, there are eight petitioners who have obtained B.Ed. degree in the years 1993, 1994 and 1998 from different institutions affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya, Varanasi and Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. In writ petition No. 27577 of 2008, the petitioner Anjana Singh has obtained B.Ed degree from Sankeertan Brahmachariashram Mahavidhalaya, Jhunsi, Allahabad affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi in the session 1995-96. It is not in dispute that none of the aforesaid courses are recognized by NCTE. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 itself came into force in the year 1995 and thereafter the steps for recognition of the institutions and teachers training courses was initiated under the said Act. In the circumstances, it is evident that at least in 1996-97 there was no occasion for any institution to get a teachers’ training course recognized by NCTE. The aforesaid courses thus, done by various students from the respective Universities, duly established by law, cannot be invalidated or nullified by making a condition in the Government Order that only those candidates shall be eligible who have obtained B.Ed. degree from an institution which is recognized by NCTE. The aforesaid courses thus, done by various students from the respective Universities, duly established by law, cannot be invalidated or nullified by making a condition in the Government Order that only those candidates shall be eligible who have obtained B.Ed. degree from an institution which is recognized by NCTE. It is further contended that in respect to similar courses conducted by Sampurnanand Sanskrit Viswavidhyalaya, Varanasi, the matter was considered by this Court in the case of Ekta Shukla and others (supra), where this Court clearly held that degrees for the academic years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and indeed for all academic years pursued either in the Faculty of Education of the University i.e. Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi or in any of the affiliated Colleges in question is valid and that the qualification granted by these bodies shall be treated to be valid for the purpose of pursuing Special B.T.C. Course, either of the year 2004 or any other year for public employment. It is, thus, contended that once a declaration has been given by this Court and Special Leave Petition has already been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondent-State is bound to treat the said Courses valid for giving admission to the Special B.T.C. Course 2007 and cannot deny petitioners’ admission to the said course only on the ground that degrees obtained by the petitioners is not recognized by NCTE. He further contended that the classification, sought to be made by the Government Order in para 3(2) conferred eligibility only to those candidates who possess B.Ed. degree obtained from the institution duly recognized by the NCTE is wholly artificial, irrational and constitute a micro-classification infringing right of equality in the Constitution of India. He lastly submitted that all the aforesaid aspects have not been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjai Kumar and Sunita Upadhyay’s case and therefore, either this Court may hold that the aforesaid judgment is per incuriam or grant recognition to the petitioners above qualification for the purpose of admission in Special B.T.C. Course-2007. It is contended that the matter need to be reconsidered and be referred to a larger Bench. 8. In my view, none of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are tenable either in law or otherwise. It is contended that the matter need to be reconsidered and be referred to a larger Bench. 8. In my view, none of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are tenable either in law or otherwise. It is not in dispute that DIET is an institution established by the State Government where training is imparted to the persons who are either appointed as teachers or likely to be appointed as teachers. Normally, a DIET in the State of U.P. has been established to impart education in B.T.C. Course and training to the respective candidates which is meant for appointing teachers in primary schools. Due to sudden increase in the number of primary institutions in the State and not commensurating with the requirement of trained teachers for appointment therein due to lack of infrasstructure of teachers training institutions in the State of U.P., a huge deficiency of trained teachers for primary schools had become a serious problem of the State of U.P. attracting its attention requiring urgent steps to be taken. It is in furtherance thereto, time and again, the State Government sought to get a special training course conducted by DIET to the candidates possessing specific teachers training qualifications for making them eligible for appointment to the post of teacher in primary schools in accordance with the relevant rules. As is evident from record, in the year 2006, it appears that the State Government estimated requirement of appointing about 60000 teachers in primary schools, whose deficiency it was facing due to non-availability of trained BTC teachers and thus a proposal was submitted to NCTE seeking its approval to a Special B.T.C. Course to those candidates who are already B.Ed. The Government requested NCTE that they may be allowed to give a Special B.T.C. Training course of six months duration so that they may become |i eligible for appointment as teachers in primary schools. The said proposal was accepted by NCTE and approval was granted on 27th June, 2007 passing the following order : WHEREAS, NRC in its 118th (1st sitting, Meeting held on 16th-18th June, 2007 after thorough discussion and observation of related documents, noted the following : As per proposal submitted by the Government, it has been informed that admission will be granted in this special BTC programme of six months duration only to those candidates who are already B.Ed. The NRC appreciated the proposal of UP. Government and decided to grant approval to conduct the special BTC programme bridge course as proposed by the State. It will be only one time approval. Teachers are to be trained only in DIETs recognized by NRC-NCTE. The committee also observed that as this programme will be conducted only in recognized DIETs, so there is no need for any inspection. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 15 (3)(b) of the NCTE Act, the Regional Committee hereby grants one time approval for training 60,000 candidates for primary teachers who are already B.Ed. subject to the fulfilment of the following : (a) The teachers are to be trained only in the DIETs recognized by NRC-NCTE. (b) The SCERT to submit the date of commencement of the course alongwith the list of the recognized DIETs where the proposed training is to be conducted. (c) The quarterly progress report of the programme is to be submitted to NRC-NCTE. (d) The curriculum as finalized in the meeting between the NCTE and the State Government of U.P. to be followed for the programme. 9. After obtaining permission from NCTE for conducting Special B.T.C. Course for the candidates who possess B.Ed. degree, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 10th July, 2007, inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission in DIET for Special B.T.C. Course-2007 but the eligibility qualification as notified by the State Government mentioned in para 3(2) reads us under : “3(2) : For selection in Special B.T.C. 2007, the minimum educational qualification shall be graduation and only those candidates who have passed B.Ed. examination as regular candidates from a recognized college/Degree College run by State/Central Government /Training College approved by NCTE and fulfil all other eligibilities, will be eligible.” [English Translation of para 3(2) by the Court] 10. Thus, apparently though the Government got approval from NCTE for Special B.T.C. Course of those candidates who are already B.Ed. but in its wisdom, as a matter of policy decision, to give admission in DIET, it has restricted eligibility qualification to only those B.Ed. candidates who have obtained such degree from an institution recognized by NCTE. 11. Thus, apparently though the Government got approval from NCTE for Special B.T.C. Course of those candidates who are already B.Ed. but in its wisdom, as a matter of policy decision, to give admission in DIET, it has restricted eligibility qualification to only those B.Ed. candidates who have obtained such degree from an institution recognized by NCTE. 11. The questions raised by the petitioner can be examined from two angles : (i) Whether it is permissible for the State Government to provide an eligibility qualification for admission to a teacher’s training course which is stringent than what has been permitted and approved by NCTE ? (ii) Whether it is permissible to State Government to prescribe qualification restricting it to a certain category of the candidates and not extending it to the others though the nature of qualification is same? 12. It is true that NCTE has granted approval for Special B.T.C. Course-2007 with respect to the candidates who are already B.Ed. meaning thereby, as permitted by NCTE, every candidate who holds B.Ed. degree may be eligible for admission in the Special B.T.C. Course-2007 but right of a candidate to claim admission in a particular course conducted under the aegis of the State Government would not be controlled by what has been provided by NCTE but it is always open to the Government to provide a further higher or stricter qualification for admission to the course which has duly been recognized by NCTE. Considering almost a similar controversy, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and others, (1999) 7 SCC 120 in para 36 of the judgment observed as under : "36. ...........Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example, a State may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for, admission to the higher educational courses. 13. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in State of Tamilnadu and another v. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and others, (2004) 4 SCC 513 . 13. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in State of Tamilnadu and another v. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and others, (2004) 4 SCC 513 . A Full Bench of this Court in Tuples Educational Society and another v. State of U.P. and another, in Writ Petition No. 34114 of 2007 decided on 31" March 2008 reported in 2008(4) ADJ 112 (FB) (in the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, in para 28 and 29 of the judgment, both the aforesaid judgements of the Apex Court have been referred to and followed for a similar preposition. In view thereof the State Governments decision to provide a qualification or eligibility for admission to Special B.T.C. Course, which is not inconsistent with what has been approved by NCTE, but over and above thereto, cannot be held to be illegal or invalid in any manner. Such power of the State has repeatedly been upheld by various Courts and this Court is bound by such decisions. 14. Now, coming to the second aspect of the matter as to whether the Government’s decision to restrict admission to Special B.T.C. Course-2007 to only those B.Ed. degree holders whose degree is approved by NCTE can it be said that the said decision is wholly irrational, arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Here the qualification possessed the petitioners and its validity is not in dispute at all. In fact, the State Government has neither de-recognized the qualification possessed by the petitioners nor has made it invalid. On the contrary, for giving admission in the DIET for undergoing Special B.T.C. Course-2007, it has provided eligibility qualification restricting admission to only those candidates whose degree of B.Ed. is duly recognized by NCTE. NCTE is an expert body constituted under a Central Act conferring statutory obligation of maintaining standard of training for teachers educational courses and institutions. The standard of such courses, therefore, would be consistent and upto a particular level as per the rules, regulations and guidelines laid down by the expert body like NCTE. Before the enactment of 1993 Act, there was no such body in existence and though courses of different teachers training were being offered and conferred by educational institutions as well as Universities but they could not have been said to be of same or similar standard in any manner. Before the enactment of 1993 Act, there was no such body in existence and though courses of different teachers training were being offered and conferred by educational institutions as well as Universities but they could not have been said to be of same or similar standard in any manner. This by itself does not talk off the validity of such qualification but an authority, who is empowered to certain conditions for giving admission in an educational prescribe institution maintained by it chose to prescribe qualification which is of a particular standard. It cannot be said that the said decision of such authority is per se illegal and arbitrary. In Basic Education Board v. Upendra Rai, 2008(2) ADJ 515 (SC) while reversing a Division Bench judgment of this Court, the Apex Court held that the policy decision of the Government not prescribing a particular qualification or course as a condition of eligibility for admission to Special B.T.C. Course or B.T.C. Course would neither be violative of Article 14 of Constitution nor otherwise irrational. While upholding Government circular excluding certain qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school, the Apex Court, in para 14 and 15 of the judgment, held as under : "14..........................The D.Ed. Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to BTC after the circular dated 11.8.1997. This was a policy decision of the U.P. Government, and it is well settled that the Court cannot interfere with policy decisions of the Government unless it is in violation of some statutory or constitutional provision. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Master of a Junior Basic School in U.P. 15. Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it." 15. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it." 15. It would be useful to refer to a Division Bench decision in Sanjai Kumar (supra) and Sunita Upadhyay (supra) where also the Honble Court has noticed this distinction that in the Government Order providing for admission to Special B.T.C. Course-2007, the eligibility is confined only to those B.Ed, degree holders whose degree is recognized by NCTE and it is not extended to all B.T.C. Degree holders. This was not in dispute at all in Ekta Shuka’s case. Moreover, this Court was not confronted in Ekta Shukla’s case (supra) with the situation that the eligibility for admission in Special B.T.C. when confined by the Government to only those B.T.C. degrees which are duly recognized by NCTE whether such condition of the State Government can be said to be valid or not. Therefore, in my view no support can be drawn by the petitioners from the judgment of this Court in Ekta Shukla’s case (supra) and on the contrary the matter is squarely covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sanjai’s case (supra) and Sunita Upadhyay’s case (supra) which has already been followed by the respondents in holding the petitioners ineligible for admission to Special B.T.C. Course-2007 as per the Government Order dated 10th July, 2007, hence no interference is called for. 16. The writ petitions are, therefore, devoid of merit and are dismissed in limine. No costs. ———