Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners have challenged a letter contained in Annexure-2 issued by the District Magistrate, Samastipur, addressed to Block Development Officer, Sarai Ranjan, asking for terminating the services of such teachers who were appointed under any of the Provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions), Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), if they have shown to be Intermediate passed on the basis of any equivalent degree in Sanskrit. In fact the letter contained in Annexure-2 is based upon a letter of Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar bearing no. 4240 dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-1). By that letter a decision has been communicated to all the District Magistrates that since in Rule 6 of the Rules teachers having qualification in Urdu are eligible only for the post of Urdu teachers, hence holders of degree of Moulvi, Up-Shashtri and other vocational degrees equivalent to Intermediate will not be entitled for appointment on the general post of teachers under the Rules. 3. On behalf of petitioners it has been submitted that petitioners have obtained degree in Sanskrit from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi which was recognized by the State of Bihar to be equivalent to Intermediate degree and on that basis they were appointed or continued to be teachers under the Rules after under going proper selection. It has further been submitted that under Rule 8 it is clearly provided that degree equivalent to Intermediate will also confer eligibility for appointment to the concerned post of teachers. Lastly, it has been submitted that the decision of the District Magistrate contained in Annexure-2 is based upon wrong interpretation and understanding of Rule 20 inasmuch as Rule 20(i) provides for supersession of only such Rules, Circular, Orders etc. from the date of coming into force of the Rules, which related to appointment of primary teachers/Panchayat Shikshak in the rural area. It has further been submitted that this clause does not annul all Government decision and circular of the Education Department or Personnel Department recognizing equivalence of institutions and degrees. from the date of coming into force of the Rules, which related to appointment of primary teachers/Panchayat Shikshak in the rural area. It has further been submitted that this clause does not annul all Government decision and circular of the Education Department or Personnel Department recognizing equivalence of institutions and degrees. Lastly, it has been submitted that the decisions contained in Annexure-2 as also in Annexure-1 issued by the Principal Secretary, in so far as they relate to degrees in Sanskrit equivalent to Intermediate degree must be held to be bad in law because the rules must be given precedence over executive decision and Rule 8 clearly prescribes that for Panchayat Teachers the degree of Intermediate from any institution recognized by the Government or any equivalent degree from such institutions would be sufficient educational qualification. 4. On behalf of State it was submitted that although Annexures-1 and 2 take a view which may affect the service of the petitioners but no cause of action has arisen for them because they have yet not been removed from service on the basis of Annexure-2. Next, it was submitted that the State Government has the necessary power under Rule 19 of the Rules to issue notification and circular for the purposes of clarifying any of the provisions in the Rules and for removing defects in implementation of the Rules. It has been submitted that under this power Annexure-1 was issued by the Principal Secretary. It was also submitted that all earlier Rules, Resolutions, Orders etc. relating to appointment of teachers like the petitioners have lost their force on account of Rule 20(i) and therefore, unless the State Government issues fresh orders granting equivalence and recognition to different degrees and institutions, the degree of the petitioners cannot be treated equivalent to intermediate. 5. On a proper consideration of the submissions advanced by both the parties, this court finds merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. They have a valid cause of action against their threatened removal. The executive decision contained in annexure-1 which is basis for Annexure-2 is found to be contrary to eligibility criteria laid down in the Rules. Such a change in the eligibility criteria cannot be treated as clarification or an order removing defects in implementation of the rules. Such changes can be brought about only by suitable amendment in the Rules. The executive decision contained in annexure-1 which is basis for Annexure-2 is found to be contrary to eligibility criteria laid down in the Rules. Such a change in the eligibility criteria cannot be treated as clarification or an order removing defects in implementation of the rules. Such changes can be brought about only by suitable amendment in the Rules. It is also found that provisions in Rule 20(i) will not amount to, supersession of all circulars, decisions and rules which are not directly related only to the appointment of primary teachers/physical teachers/panchayat teachers. The equivalence of degrees and recognition of institutions by the State Government in the Department of Education or Personnel have purposes other than merely of appointment to post of such teachers as are mentioned in Rule 20(i). However, it goes without saying that if the State Government is so inclined it can alter its earlier policy decisions but only from a prospective date. 6. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners are found to have merit. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order contained in Annexure-2 is quashed. It is found and held that interpretation of the Rules and earlier Circulars as made in Annexures-1 and 2 so as to hold that Sanskrit degrees which were earlier recognized by the State Government as equivalent to Intermediate are no longer equivalent is erroneous and it cannot be lawfully held that on the basis of such Sanskrit degree, teachers like the petitioners already appointed under the Rules are not properly appointed teachers. 7. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs.