Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. All these petitions are by trained teachers and raise the issue about validity of rules 4, 8, and 9 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006, published by notification no. 974, dated 1.7.2006. 3. It appears to be another round of litigation about the recruitment of teachers to the Panchayat in this State. Earlier litigation had been to challenge the rules of 2003 namely, Bihar Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2003, under which a common selection list was prepared for giving appointment to trained teachers and untrained teachers. The said process was challenged being contrary to the scheme of the Central legislation, the Act of 1994 which provides for a common standard for recruitment of teachers. The said recruitment rules were quashed by this Court, by a Division Bench vide its order dated 1.7.2004 passed in another group of matters viz. CWJC No. 13246 of 2003 (Nand Kishore Ojha V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and analogous cases, issuing certain directions including the following direction: "(f) The State Government may now proceed by taking into account the totality of the circumstances and after having reckoned the availability of trained teachers, consider the recruitment of untrained teachers who will be given in-service training should the occasion so arise." 4. The State Government being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment had moved a special leave petition before the Supreme Court but the same was later on withdrawn vide order dated 24.1.2006 passed in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 22882-22888/ 2004 and SLP © Nos. 23075-23078/2004 & 24373-24375/2004. 5. For the present purposes, it may be relevant to notice certain averments made in the withdrawal application made by the State, as below: "7. That it is respectfully submitted that since the number of available trained teachers in the State is expected to be less than the available vacancies, no test for the selection is required. To that extent, a reference to the Bihar Public Service Commission for initiating the process of recruitment of trained teachers may not be necessary, and the order of this Hon ble Court and of the Patna High Court in this regard may be modified." 6. Pursuant to this request, the order of the High Court was modified by the Supreme Court directing refund of the examination fee received from the applicants. 7. Pursuant to this request, the order of the High Court was modified by the Supreme Court directing refund of the examination fee received from the applicants. 7. It is in the aforesaid background, Rules of 2006 have been promulgated by the State and the relevant provisions which are challenged as ultra vires the Central enactment, inter alia, provided under rule 4 that two lists shall be prepared separately for trained teachers and untrained teachers and after giving appointment to the trained teachers, if any vacancy remains to be filled, the same may be filled by the untrained teachers and they will be provided two years in-service training. 8. Rule 8 provides for requirement of degree/diploma or certificate of training from a recognized institution under National Council of Teacher Education Act, as well as such qualification acquired from a recognized institution prior to the commencement of NCTE Act, 1994. The presence of this qualification also does not concern the petitioner. 9. Likewise, rule 9 deals with the procedure for appointment and allotment of requisite number of vacancies to be filled by the Panchayat Samittee which also directly does not affect the appointment of trained teachers in any manner. 10. In the aforesaid scenario, every trained teacher in the State who has been assured appointment without any test or interview, cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by the rules as none of his interest for appointment to the post of primary teacher is affected because of the subsequent appointment after the process for filling the available vacancies to the extent of availability of trained teachers is carried out. This being so, we are of the opinion that the petitioners challenge to the validity of the rule being of academic importance is only academic. These petitions must fail for that reason as this Court would not exercise ordinarily extraordinary jurisdiction to decide merely an academic issue. 11. These petitions are accordingly dismissed.