JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.S. Kushwaha learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. All these writ petitions raise common questions and have been heard together. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in writ petition No. 50254 of 2007 and it is sufficient to refer to the pleadings in writ petition No. 50254 of 2007 for adjudicating the controversy. 2. All these writ petitions challenge the notification/select list issued by the Principals of the District Institute of Education and Training in so far they treated ineligible the candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. Mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to consider those candidates as eligible for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007 who have obtained their Bachelor Degree/Certificate/Diploma in Physical Training from the Institutions situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. In writ petition No. 50910 of 2007 notification dated 1.9.2007 issued on behalf of the Principals of District Institute of Education and Training inviting applications for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007 from all those candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the institutions within the State of Uttar Pradesh has been challenged. 3. The facts of the case briefly noted are : The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government order dated 14.1.2004 for Special B.T.C. Training Course from the candidates who have passed B.Ed. and L.T. The said Government order was amended by the Government order dated 20.2.2004 by which those candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the recognised institution and the University or passed Post Graduate College/Training Institute within the State of Uttar Pradesh were also made eligible to apply for the Special B.T.C. Training Course-2004. The State Government again submitted proposal on 26th June, 2006 praying permission for running Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2006. The proposal contained the stipulation that those candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the recognised institution and Training College within the State of Uttar Pradesh be also permitted to apply for Special B.T.C. Training Course. The National Council for Teacher Education by letter dated 27.6.2007 granted approval for running Special B.T.C, Programme as proposed by the State. By the Government order dated 10th July, 2007 it was decided to select the candidate for imparting Special B.T.C. Training Course 2007. The National Council for Teacher Education by letter dated 27.6.2007 granted approval for running Special B.T.C, Programme as proposed by the State. By the Government order dated 10th July, 2007 it was decided to select the candidate for imparting Special B.T.C. Training Course 2007. The Government order provided that only those candidates who have passed B.Ed. be permitted to apply for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. Bunch of writ petitions being writ petition No. 33428 of 2007 Arvind Kumar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others with other writ petitions were filed challenging the Government order dated 10th July, 2007 in so far as it excluded the candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. This Court passed an interim order dated 31.7.2007 in those writ petitions directing the respondents to permit those candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. and L.T. to apply for Special B.T.C. Training Course 2007. The State Government issued a Government order on 6th August, 2007 by which direction was issued to issue corrigendum permitted the candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. D.P.Ed. and L.T. to apply for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. The Government order was issued in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 31.7.2007. A notification purported to be pp behalf of all the Principals of the District Institute of Education and Training was issued which was published in the news-papers on 1.9.2007 which provided that the candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the State of Uttar Pradesh may apply for Special B.T.C. Training Course by 7th of September, 2007. All the petitioners have applied for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. The petitioners in these writ petitions have passed their B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the Universities/Institutions from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. Lists were issued by different Principals of the District Institute of Education and Training by which candidates who have obtained B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the Universities situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh have been treated to be ineligible for the Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. In above back ground these writ petitions have been filed praying for direction to treat the petitioners who have passed the B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the Universities situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh have been treated to be ineligible for the Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. In above back ground these writ petitions have been filed praying for direction to treat the petitioners who have passed the B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the University/Institutions situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh be treated as eligible to apply in Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the action of the respondents contended that there was no restriction in the Government order dated 10.7.2007 as well as in the interim order dated 31.7.2007 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 33428 of 2007, Arvind Kumar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and the Government order dated 6th August, 2008 hence the respondents committed error in not treating the petitioners not eligible for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. Learned Counsel submitted that the Principal of different District Institute of Education and Training have no jurisdiction to issue a notification dated 1.9.2007 inviting applications from only those candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Counsel further submitted that the National Council for Teacher Education has also not put any restraint on the candidates who have obtained B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh hence there was no justification. Learned Counsel further contends that Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education issued the letter dated 20.9.2007 by which it accepted the proposal of the State Government to permit the candidates passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. For Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007 which did not contain any restriction with regard to candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P. Ed., and D.P. Ed, from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, learned Counsel submits that the State is not competent to put any such restriction and putting any such restriction is contrary to the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and is also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (2) A. W. C. 865, Upendra Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (2) A. W. C. 865, Upendra Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. Learned Counsel submits that the State Government has not put any negative covenant either in the Government order dated 10th July, 2007 or in the Government order dated 6th August, 2007 hence it was not open for the Principals of District Institute of Education and Training not to entertain the applications of the candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State is only recommendatory body and cannot put a condition for eligibility which jurisdiction vest only in the National Council for Teacher Education. The National Council for Teacher Education did not choose to put any such restriction. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the apex Court judgment reported in 2007 (11) Scale 418, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the Government order dated 20th February, 2004 also only those candidates who have passed the B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. were permitted to apply who have obtained the said certificate from the Institute, Training Institute and the University within the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State Government in its proposal dated 26th June, 2006 with regard to B.P. Ed., C.P. Ed. and D.P.Ed. recommended to be eligible for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007 only those candidates who have passed the said certificate, diploma and the Degree from the Institution, Training Institute and the University within the State of Uttar Pradesh and the National Council for Teacher Education having approved the recommendation of the State (as proposed) the said restriction is part of the approval and no error has been committed by the respondents in not treating those candidates who have passed B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the restriction contained in the Government order dated 20th February, 2004 with regard to candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the restriction contained in the Government order dated 20th February, 2004 with regard to candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh was challenged in this Court by writ petition No. 2933 of 2004, Hena Afroj v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and the writ petition No. 2481 (M/S) of 2004, Avadhesh Kumar Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and in both the above cases the restrictions were upheld and it was held that the policy of the State as contained in the Government order dated 20th February, 2004 is not ultra virus and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance on the judgments dated 23.7.2004 and 1.9.2004 in above two writ petitions have been placed by the learned Standing Counsel. The learned Standing Counsel has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2211 , Vifay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others in which judgment similar restrictions imposed by the Government order dated 9.1.1998 were upheld by the Division Bench judgment of this Court with regard to B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. candidates who have obtained the degree, certificate or diploma from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Standing Counsel has also invited my attention to an order of this Court dated 23.10.2007 passed in writ petition No. 51505 of 2007, Ram Kawal Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, where noticing two Division Bench judgments of this Court i.e. Upendra Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) and Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) this Court entertained the writ petition and also noticed that the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments have already been referred to Full Bench in writ petition No. 2856 of 2004. 6. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioners who have obtained B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the Institute/University outside the State of Uttar Pradesh have not been treated to be eligible and their candidature stand rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioners who have obtained B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the Institute/University outside the State of Uttar Pradesh have not been treated to be eligible and their candidature stand rejected. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there is no restriction in making the application by B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. candidates who have passed from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Government order dated 10th July, 2007 and Government order dated 6th August, 2007 and another order passed by this Court in Arvind Kumar Singh’s case (supra). The Government order dated 10th July, 2007 only permitted the applications from those candidates who had passed B.Ed. Thus with regard to B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. candidates the Government order dated 10th of July, 2007 has no relevance. The Government order dated 6th August, 2007 was issued in pursuance of the interim order dated 31.7.2007 passed in writ petition No. 33428 of 2007 Arvind Kumar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. In Arvind Kumar’s case this Court did not consider the issue as to whether the applications from the candidates who have passed B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh should be considered. This issue was not touched nor there is any direction in the said order in this regard. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Government in writ petition No. 50254 of 2007 the specific and categorical stand on behalf of all the respondents including the State of Uttar Pradesh is that the candidates who have obtained B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh are not eligible. The State Government relied on the earlier Government order dated 20th February, 2004 which contained the similar restriction for Special B.T.C. Training Course- 2004 as well as the proposal dated 26th June, 2006 submitted to the National Council for Teacher Education on the basis of which the permission has been granted by the National Council for Teacher Education directing the B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. candidates to apply for Special B.T.C. Training Course. and D.P.Ed. candidates to apply for Special B.T.C. Training Course. In the proposal dated 22nd June, 2006 copy of which order has been made available by the learned Standing Counsel there was clear stipulation in Paragraph 2 (Aa) that only those candidates possessing B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. will be eligible for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007 who have passed from the recognised Institution, Degree Colleges and Institute run in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that the approval of National Council for Teacher Education dated 20th September, 2007 is approval of the recommendation of the State Government which was submitted vide its letter dated 22nd June, 2006 hence the restriction placed by the State Government is very much with regard to B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. candidates. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2004 has also not permitted the B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. candidates who have passed from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and in this course of 2007 also the similar stand has been taken. Learned Standing Counsel justifies the notification issued by the Principals of District Institute of Education and Training dated 1st September, 2007 permitting the applications only from the candidates who have passed the B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. within the State of Uttar Pradesh and according to the learned Standing Counsel the said notification is in accordance with the policy of the State regarding admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course. Learned Standing Counsel has lastly contended that since the conflict in two Division Bench judgments in Upendra Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) and Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) has already been referred to Full Bench and this Court has also noticed the said reference in a similar writ petition being writ petition No. 51505 of 2007 (Ram Kanwal Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) dated 23.10.2007 pertaining to Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007 the matter should await the answer by the Full Bench. 8. From the pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on record it is clear that the stand of the State is that those candidates who have obtained B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh are not eligible. 8. From the pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on record it is clear that the stand of the State is that those candidates who have obtained B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh are not eligible. The issue is as to whether any such restriction was placed by the State of Uttar Pradesh with regard to Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007 and as to whether the State has jurisdiction in view of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 to put any such restriction. It is relevant to refer the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in this context. In Upendra Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2000 (2) A.W.C. 865 the petitioner had obtained two years diploma in Education from Jabalpur (M.P.). The circular dated 11.8.1997 provided that the post of Assistant Teacher be filled up only from those candidates who have obtained B.T.C., Hindustani Teachers Certificate, Junior Teachers Certificate and Teaching Certificates from Institutions run by the Government of Uttar Pradesh or an equivalent qualification. The equivalence to B.T.C. granted to other training courses and degrees/diplomas was done away. The Division Bench noticed the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. The Division Bench held that the circular and the advertisement in so far as they had effect of excluding the candidates having teachers certificate obtained from an Institution recognised under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 are void in view of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Following was laid down in paragraph 4 of the judgment : “4. The question that begs consideration is whether any provision contained in the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, or the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, is repugnant to any provisions contained in the Central Act. The “teacher education” as defined in Section 2 (1) of the Central Act means programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education. The “teacher education” as defined in Section 2 (1) of the Central Act means programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education. Section 12 of the Central Act enumerates the functions of the National Council for Teacher Education as established under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. The functions enumerated in Section 12, inter alia, include : (a) laying down guidelines in respect of minimum qualification for a person employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions, (b) laying down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria, for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum, and (c) formulation of scheme for various levels of teacher education and identity recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes. Section 14 of the Act enjoins upon every institution offering or intending to offer course or training In teacher education to make an application to the Regional Committee concerned for grant of recognition. Section 15 requires prior permission of the Regional Committee as a condition precedent to starting any new course or training in teacher education by any recognised institution and according to Section 16 which has an overriding effect, as the expressions “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force” suggests, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day, grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution or bold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 of permission for a course or training under Section 15, Section 17 provides for withdrawal of recognition in the event of contravention of the provisions of the Act. Clause (4) of Section 17 visualises that if an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition or where an institution offering course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government or “any State Government”. This necessarily implies that qualification in teacher education obtained from an institution duly recognised under the provisions of the Act, would be treated as a valid qualification for purpose of appointment in Schools and colleges or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any other State Government. Regard being had to the purpose and object sought to be achieved by the Act as also the provisions thereunder as discussed above, we are persuaded to the view that the person having obtained the qualification in teacher education from a recognised institution would be qualified for being considered in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government. The appellant in the instant case, has obtained diploma in education from Zila Shiksha and Prashikshan Sansthan (DIET), Jabalpur an institution recognised under the provisions of the Act as would be evident from the certificate filed as Annexure-4 to the said petition. The impugned circular and advertisement in so far as it has the effect of excluding the candidates having teacher qualification obtained from an institution recognised under the provisions of the NCTE Act are void in view of Article 254 of the Constitution. The appellant, in our opinion, was equipped with the requisite qualification for being considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School.” 9. In another Division Bench case Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) the Government order dated 9.1.1998 came for consideration which contained a restriction that those candidates who obtained B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the institution outside the State of Uttar Pradesh where not eligible to join Special B.T.C. Training Course. In another Division Bench case Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) the Government order dated 9.1.1998 came for consideration which contained a restriction that those candidates who obtained B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. from the institution outside the State of Uttar Pradesh where not eligible to join Special B.T.C. Training Course. The Division Bench upheld the Government order dated 9.1.1998 and the restriction therein; paragraphs 2 to 6 of the said judgment are as follows : “2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27948 of 1999. The prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to join B.T.C. training course in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 8.3.1998. The aforesaid advertisement had been issued in pursuance of the Government order dated 9.1.1998 whereby it was provided that only those candidates who had obtained C.P. Ed., B.P.Ed./L.T., D.P.Ed, B.Ed. degrees/certificates from within the State of Uttar Pradesh would alone be qualified to apply. 3. Admittedly, the appellants have obtained B.Ed. degrees from the State of Madhya Pradesh and not from any College/University within the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellants have contended that such a restriction imposed by the said Government order is wholly arbitrary as the degrees obtained by the appellants were duly recognised under the N.C.T.E. Act and as such they were also eligible for applying against the said advertisement dated 8.3.1998. 4. Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the validity of the Government order dated 9.1.1998 has already been upheld in another writ petition No. 29107 of 1999, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., decided on 19.7.1999. It has also been contended that the decision of the Government to impart condensed training of B.T.C. to only those candidates who are covered under the said Government order, was a policy decision of the State Government and could not be interfered with or challenged in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka and others, (1994)1 SCC 550 . 5. 5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that it was open to the State Government to make classification in its Government order and the Government restricted the scope of appointment only to those candidates who obtained degrees from within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Such restriction was held to be a valid restriction and could not be said to be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 27.8.1999 does not suffer from any infirmity. No ground has been made out for interference in appeal. We agree with the learned Single Judge in upholding the vires of the said Government order dated 9.1.1998 and also the selection made in accordance with the said Government order and also the advertisement dated 8.3.1998 issued by the respondents.” 10. The case of the petitioners is that they have obtained B. P. Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. degree from the recognised Institutions and the University which have recognised from National Council for Teacher Education and the Division Bench judgment in Upendra Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) fully supports their case. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel has relied on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra). The conflict between the above two Division Bench judgment was noticed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 2856 (M/S) of 2004, Rajeshwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The learned Single Judge vide its referring order dated 16th July, 2004 has referred following questions for consideration of Full Bench : 1- In Upendra Rai’s case reported in 2000 (2) UPLBEC 1340 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that the restrictions imposed by the State Government are not valid and B.T.C. certificate for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher issued by an institute situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh but recognised by the N.C.E.R.T. is valid. The other Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2211 in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha’s case, upheld the Government rights as well as Government Order which provides that the State has got right not to admit a candidate for appointment as Assistant Teacher in case the training certificate is provided by an institute situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The provision of law as per Vijai Kumar Kushwaha’s case have been restricted in Lalit Kumar Dixit’s case reported in (2004)1 UPLBEC 754 which Division Bench out of two lay down the correct law ? 11. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the said reference is still pending and in one of the writ petitions No. 51505 of 2007 (Ram Kanwal Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) following order was passed on 23rd of October, 2007 : “Sri K. S. Kushwaha has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7. Respondents are allowed three weeks’ time to file the reply. List thereafter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected only on the ground, that he has passed C.P.Ed. from outside the State. Learned Counsel submits that this Court in case of Upendra Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2000)2 UPLBEC 1340 has taken a view that the degree obtained from outside the State cannot be ignored. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed in case of Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2211 wherein this Court has taken the view that restriction of the certificate from institutes within State of U.P., as provided vide Government order dated 9.1.1998, is valid and does not violate Articles 14, 16 and 21. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the matter is already referred to a Full Bench in writ petition No. 2856 of 2004 and the matter has not yet been decided. In view of the above, it is provided that the selection shall be subject to result of the writ petition.” 12. The issue as to whether the State is competent to put any such restriction and as to whether when there is no such restriction with regard to the candidates who have obtained the B.Ed. In view of the above, it is provided that the selection shall be subject to result of the writ petition.” 12. The issue as to whether the State is competent to put any such restriction and as to whether when there is no such restriction with regard to the candidates who have obtained the B.Ed. degree from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh could the B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. be excluded has arisen for consideration in this case. The question which has been referred to in the Full Bench has direct bearing on the issues which have been raised in this writ petition. When the issues which have arisen for consideration in this case have already been referred to the Full Bench it is appropriate that these writ petitions be finally decided after the above reference is answered. 13. In view of aforesaid, these writ petitions be listed for hearing/disposal after reference made to the Full Bench as noted above is answered. The selection for Special B.T.C. Training Course 2007 which is in process shall be subject to result of these writ petitions. ————