Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. All these four special appeals, preferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 27-03-2006, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in four writ petitions: Writ Petition No. 1540 (S/S) of 2004, Writ Petition No. 1723 of 2002 (S/B), Writ Petition No. 495 of 2005 (S/S) and Writ Petition No. 1500 of 2005 (S/S). By said impugned order learned Single Judge has directed the present appellants to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners for appointment as Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade, against the vacant posts. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts in the Writ Petition No 1540 of 2004 (S'S) filed by the petitioners Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, Jaipal Singh, Vipin Kumar, Mukesh Kumar S/o Chotey Singh, Hemant Kumar, Mukesh Kumar S/o Bhishma Singh, Sanjeev Kumar and Geeta Devi, are that the services of Assistant Teacher LT. Grade in Government Institutions are governed under the provisions of U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Teachers) Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1983). Part IV of the Rules of 1983 provide the academic qualifications required for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in different disciplines including Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade for Art subject. Petitioners' case is that they fulfill the qualification as they passed their High School and Intermediate examination with drawing and also possessed certificate of Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination issued by Government of Maharashtra. Till 1992 Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination of Government of Maharashtra was given equivalence for the purposes of qualification required for appointment in C.T. Grad (to teach students of 6th, 7th and 8th class). Later on C.T. Grade merged into L.T. Grade, which consists of the teachers who teach students of 9th and 10th standard, as such C.T. Grade became dying cadre. It is further stated by the petitioners that the certificate of Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination (hereinafter referred as I.G.D.E.) issued by State of Maharashtra is recognised under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as such same cannot be treated unrecognized for the purposes of applying for the appointment of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in the Government Schools. It is further stated by the petitioners that the certificate of Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination (hereinafter referred as I.G.D.E.) issued by State of Maharashtra is recognised under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as such same cannot be treated unrecognized for the purposes of applying for the appointment of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in the Government Schools. In 2002, Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Mandai and Garhwal Mandai of State of Uttarakhand got published advertisement inviting applications for L.T. Grade teachers including for the subject .of Art. But the petitioners' applications were not considered for said recruitment on the ground that I.G.D.E. is not a recognised certificate for the purposes of recruitment of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade Art. Again on 22-10-2004 another advertisement came for filling fresh vacancies in the L.T. Grade including for the subject of Art and the petitioners applied once again for the post. However, the petitioners are being deprived of their entitlement to be considered therefore the writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking mandamus directing the respondents to recognize I.G.D.E. as one of the equivalent qualification for the appointment of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. A further mandamus has been sought commanding respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for said post. 4. In the Writ Petition No. 1723 of 2002 (S/B) filed by Kailash Chandra Pandey, Kastuba Nand, Kamlesh Kumar and Rajendra Singh Mehta, similar issue is raised in respect of advertisement of 2002 and similar reliefs are sought. In Writ Petition No. 495 of 2005 (S/S), petitioner Smt. Ritu Raj Sharma has raised similar issue on the similar ground as mentioned above in respect of advertisement of 2004. And in Writ Petition No. 1500 of 2005 (S/S), writ petitioners Veer Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Arbind Kumar have raised similar issue in respect of advertisement of 2004 and sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in Art. In short in all the four writ petitions same question of law was involved whether I.G.D.E. is a qualification recognised under the Rules applicable for the appointment of L.T. Grade teachers in Art in the Government Schools or not. 5. In the counter affidavits filed in the writ petitions on behalf of respondents no. 5. In the counter affidavits filed in the writ petitions on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 4, it is admitted that appointments were made to the post of Assistant Teachers C.T. Grade (Art) considering the I.G.D.E. as recognised qualification. But it is stated that said appointments were not il1 the L.T. Grade and were not made under U.P. Subordin9te Educational (Trained Graduate Teachers) Rules, 1983. It is further stated that the impugned appointments are to be made under the Rules 1983. As to the I.G.D.E. being recognised under the Rules of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, ,921, it is stated that said Rules apply to recognised non Government Institutions while the petitioners are seeking appointments in the Government Institutions. It is further stated by the answering respondents that there is no mention of I.G.D.E. in the Rules of 1983, as compared to Rules framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, recognizing I.G.D.E. as a requisite qualification for L.T. Grade. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Rules of 1983 are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and have the force of law. 6. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1540 of 2004 (S/S), copy of appointment letters dated 24-08-1998 is filed wherein three persons appointed in the L.T. Grade hold certificate of I.G.D.E. This supplementary affidavit has been controverted by filing supplementary counter affidavit by the respondents and it is stated that Sunil Chandra Tamta and Satya Vratt, possessed Art as a subject in their Bachelor of Arts Examination. The third example of Pal Singh Kamboj, it is stated that he was having technical drawing in Intermediate as such his case was also covered under the Rules of 1983, while the petitioners do not fulfill said qualifications. 7. Before further discussions we think it just and proper to quote the relevant prescribed qualification mentioned in the Rules of 1983, which is prescribed for appointment of teachers in L.T. Grade (Art) : "Assistant Master/Asstt. Mistress (Arts).-1.Intermediate examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or any equivalent examination with Art Masters Training certificate (formerly known as Drawing teacher Certificate) of Government School of Arts and Crafts, Lucknow or a certificate recognised as equivalent thereto. 2. Mistress (Arts).-1.Intermediate examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or any equivalent examination with Art Masters Training certificate (formerly known as Drawing teacher Certificate) of Government School of Arts and Crafts, Lucknow or a certificate recognised as equivalent thereto. 2. Bachelor of Arts Degree from a recognised University or a degree recognised as equivalent thereto with a certificate awarded by the Government Drawing and Handicrafts Centre, Allahabad (since abolished) or a certificate recognised as equivalent thereto. Or 3. Intermediate Examination with Technical Drawing with one of the following examinations(a) Fine Arts Diploma of the Government School of Arts and Crafts, Lucknow. Or (b) B.A., with Drawing and Painting from a recognised University or a degree recognised by the Government or equivalent thereto. Or (c) Fine Art Diploma of Kala Bhawan Shantiniketan. Or (d) Final Drawing Teachership Examination, Calcutta. Or (e) Teacher Senior Certificate Examination Mayor School of Arts, Lahore." 8. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the appellants argued that learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions has erred in law by taking the view that since I.G.D.E. is recognised for the purposes of appointment of teachers in C.T. Grade, as such the same cannot be said to be unrecognized for the appointment of teachers in L.T. Grade. In our opinion when the Rules for both the grades of teachers are different a qualification which is recognised for C.T. Grade (for teaching students of VI, VII and VIII standard) cannot be said to be a valid qualification automatically for teaching students of IX and X standard. Merely for the reason that C. T. Grade is a dying cadre and service of the C.T. Grade teachers were to be merged in the L.T. Grade after certain years of experience in C.T. Grade, it does not become a recognised qualification for direct recruitment in L.T. Grade. As such, we find force in the argument of learned Brief Holder that I.G.D.E. cannot be said to be a recognised qualification unless the same finds its recognition under the Rules of 1983, which are admittedly applicable for the appointment of teachers to L.T. Grade. 9. As such, we find force in the argument of learned Brief Holder that I.G.D.E. cannot be said to be a recognised qualification unless the same finds its recognition under the Rules of 1983, which are admittedly applicable for the appointment of teachers to L.T. Grade. 9. As to example of Sunil Chandra Tamta, Satya Vratt and Pal Singh Kamboj, mentioned in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of answering respondents (present appellants) it is clearly explained that though the said three were holding certificate of I.G.D.E. and were appointed in L.T. Grade in the year 1998, but they had additional qualification of subject Art in their Bachelor of Arts degree as such they were otherwise also qualified and their cases could not have been rejected merely for the reason that they had an additional qualification of holding certificate of I. G. D. E. In other words even after ignoring I. G.D. E. possessed by three still they were qualified for the appointment to the post of L.T. Grade teachers under the Rules. 10. On behalf of the appellants it is also contended that unless the Rules admittedly applicable for the appointment to the L.T. Grade teachers are declared ultra vires, the same cannot be ignored. None of the petitioners have challenged the vires of the Rules of 1983 as such in our opinion the learned Single Judge has erred in law by issuing direction for considering the case of the petitioners against the Rules. 11. On behalf of the respondents (writ petitioners) it is argued that since I.G.D.E. is a recognised certificate for appointment in L.T. Grade in the aided schools under Rules framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as such it cannot be said that said certificate is not recognised for the purposes of Government schools. It is pertinent to mention here that U .P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921. is applicable to the recognised private institutions and not to the Government colleges. The impugned selection process pertains to the appointment of teachers in the Government colleges and not in private aided institutions. It is pertinent to mention here that U .P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921. is applicable to the recognised private institutions and not to the Government colleges. The impugned selection process pertains to the appointment of teachers in the Government colleges and not in private aided institutions. Though to some extent the argument advanced on behalf of respondents (writ petitioners) is true that the qualifications for L. T. Grade teachers should be at par for both the kinds of schools but since there are separate Rules for both the kinds of institutions as such in our opinion it cannot be directed that the candidature of the writ petitioners should be considered on the basis of the Rules applicable to the private colleges, when they are not applicants for said institutions but have sought job in the Government colleges. It is for the Government to amend the Rules to make consistency as to the qualifications required for L.T. Grade teachers in aided schools and Government schools but till such amendment is made it cannot be said that the petitioners are entitled to the appointment as L.T. Grade teachers (Art) in Government colleges without fulfilling the conditions required under the Rules applicable to such institutions. 12. For the reasons as discussed above, therefore, all the four appeals deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, Special Appeal No. 156 of 2006, Special Appeal No. 166 of 2006, Special Appeal No. 167 of 2006 and Special Appeal No. 169 of 2006 are allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 27 -03-2006, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1540 (S/S) of 2004, Writ Petition No. 1723 of 2002 (S/B), Writ Petition No. 495 of 2005 (S/ S) and Writ Petition No. 1500 of 2005 (S/S), is hereby set aside. All the four writ petitions are dismissed.