JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—All these writ petitions raising common questions of facts and law, have been heard together. The writ petition No. 58 of 2003 is being treated as leading case and reference to pleading in the said writ petition is sufficient for deciding the controversy raised in all these writ petitions. 2. Brief facts giving rise to writ petition No. 58 of 2003 are; the petitioner passed High School examination and Higher Secondary School examination from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The petitioner also obtained Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra (two years course) from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad in the rural area of Jaunpur. The advertisement provided that the candidates who have obtained B.T.C. Training certificate from District Institute and Training, Jaunpur may apply. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of the Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra, 1993 granted by Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The petitioner filed the present writ petition alleging that in view of the advertisement dated 18.10.12002, the application of the petitioner is not being considered and the process of selection is going to start on 6.1.2003. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition: “(i). Issue wit in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to consider the application/candidature of the petitioner on merit for selection on the post of Asstt. Teacher of Basic School in pursuance of the advertisement dated. 18.10.2002, Annexure 6 to the writ petition.” 3. Hon’ble Single Judge heard the writ petition on 10.1.2003 but rejected the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner. The writ petition was subsequently heard by Hon’ble Single Judge on 27.1.2004. Teacher of Basic School in pursuance of the advertisement dated. 18.10.2002, Annexure 6 to the writ petition.” 3. Hon’ble Single Judge heard the writ petition on 10.1.2003 but rejected the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner. The writ petition was subsequently heard by Hon’ble Single Judge on 27.1.2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on judgments of this Court in Smt. Asha Devi Pal v. State of U.P. and others, 2003(3) ESC 1140 (All) and Neeraj Trivedi v. State of U.P. and others, 2002(1) ESC 162 (All) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sandhya Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2002(4) ESC 136 (All), contended that the petitioner’s candidature cannot be rejected on the ground that he had obtained training certificate from the institution outside the State of U.P. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court dated 27.11.2003 in writ petition No. 8994 of 1998, Mahendra Pratap Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, contended that Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra, issued by Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal does not entitle a candidate to apply for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Hon’ble Single Judge opined that since there is a conflict of opinion in two Hon’ble Single Judges, the matter be referred to a Division Bench. In pursuance of the order of Hon’ble Single Judge dated 27.1.2004, Hon’ble the Chief Justice directed the matter to be placed before the Division Bench hence, the writ petition has been placed for hearing before the Division Bench. The Division Bench hearing the writ petition noticed that the questions involved in the writ petition have been referred to a Full Bench in writ petition No. 2856 (M/s) of 2004 Rajeshwar Singh v. State of U.P., the Division Bench took the view that case be listed after decision of the Full Bench. The aforesaid Full Bench decision has been delivered on 14.7.2010. Thereafter the writ petition has again been listed for hearing before this Bench. 4. In writ petition No. 3929 of 2003, Smt. Hemesh Kumari, the petitioner had obtained Shikshak Prashikshan Pariksha from the State of Rajasthan, which was granted in the year 1998 by Shiksha Vibhageey Parikshayen Rajasthan Bikaner. The aforesaid Full Bench decision has been delivered on 14.7.2010. Thereafter the writ petition has again been listed for hearing before this Bench. 4. In writ petition No. 3929 of 2003, Smt. Hemesh Kumari, the petitioner had obtained Shikshak Prashikshan Pariksha from the State of Rajasthan, which was granted in the year 1998 by Shiksha Vibhageey Parikshayen Rajasthan Bikaner. An advertisement dated 6.9.2002 was issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Mathura inviting applications for appointment of Assistant Teachers from the candidates having B.T.C. Of 2002 from District Institute of Education and Training, Mathura. The petitioner made an application in response to the said advertisement. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mathura vide order dated 13.12.2002 which was challenged by means of writ petition No. 42368 of 2002 and vide order of this Court dated 10.10.2002, the matter was referred to the District Basic Education Officer to consider the claim of the petitioner. 5. In writ petition No. 46471 of 2002, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the petitioner claims to have obtained Diploma in Education certificate in the year 1998 from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. In response to the advertisement dated 11.9.2002, issued by District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh, inviting applications for Assistant Teachers, the petitioner made an application. The petitioner prayed for a mandamus, commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. 6. We have heard Sri Aditya Narayan, Sri V.B. Srivastava and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing of the petitioners in the above writ petitions and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad as well as learned Standing Counsel. 7. Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that writ petitions be heard and finally decided. 8. Sri Aditya Narayan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Vinod Kumar Singh Singh in support of the writ petition submitted that certificate which has been obtained by the petitioner from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal of Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra 1993 is B.T.C. certificate and according to Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, the petitioner is clearly eligible to apply as Assistant Teacher and the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not eligible, is incorrect. He submits that the Government Order dated 11.8.1997 withdrawing the equivalence to various certificates obtained from outside the State of U.P. had no effect on the claim of the petitioner. He submits that Rule 8 of 1981 Rules has to be construed to mean that declaration of equivalence is necessary for other category of certificates obtained outside the State of U.P. and not for the certificates which are Basic Teacher’s Certificates (B.T.C.). Sri A.N. Singh in support of his case relied on the judgment of the apex Court in Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, 2005 (58) ALR 457; Basic Education Board U.P v. Upendra Rai and others, 2008 (2) ADJ 515 and Full Bench judgment in Jitendra Kumar Soni and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 403 . 9. Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the petitioners fulfill the eligibility for the post of Assistant Teacher in the primary education run by Basic Shiksha Parishad in the State of U.P. they having obtained training certificates from the institutions outside the State of U.P. He submits that according to the Government Order dated 11.8.1997, the equivalence which was granted earlier to the different certificates obtained from outside the State of U.P. had been withdrawn and Government Order dated 11.8.1997, permits consideration of only those candidates who have obtained their training certificates i.e. B.T.C., H.T.C., Junior Teacher’s Certificate, Certificate of Teaching from State of U.P. from the institutions within the State of U.P., are eligible and petitioner having obtained teaching certificate outside the State of U.P. are not eligible and they have no right to be considered. He submits that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Upendra Rai v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1340 , had taken the view that the Government order dated 11.8.1997 prescribing that training certificates should be obtained within the State of U.P. is void and no such restriction can be imposed in view of the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. He submits that against the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Upendra Rai (supra), the Basic Education Board U.P. filed an appeal before the apex Court, which has been allowed by the apex Court vide its judgment in Basic Education v. Upendra Rai, 2008 (1) ESC 160 (SC), where the Government Order dated 11.8.1997 has been upheld and it has been held that the requirement of the Government Order dated 11.8.1997 that training certificates should have been obtained within the State of U.P. is valid and in accordance with law. Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh submits that in view of the judgment in Basic Education Board’s case (supra), the controversy has come to an end and the said judgment fully covers the issue. The Full Bench judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner in Jitendra Kumar Soni and others (supra) is distinguishable since the said judgment confines its consideration with regard to eligibility for admission in Special B.T.C. course. He submits that in the above Full Bench judgment, the issue which is involved in the present case was not under consideration nor any such ratio has been laid down that for appointment of Assistant Teachers, persons having training certificate from outside the State of U.P. are eligible. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has also adopted the submissions made by Sri Bhanu Pratap and contended that the petitioners are not eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in a primary school. Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh further submits that Full Bench judgment in Rajeshwar Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) has also taken the view that in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Basic Education Board (supra), the controversy referred to Full Bench has been settled. It is submitted by Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh that Full Bench also supports his contentions. 10. It is submitted by Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh that Full Bench also supports his contentions. 10. The main issue which has arisen for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners, who have obtained their training certificates from outside the State of U.P. have fulfilled the qualifications as prescribed under Rule 8 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “1981 Rules”) and as to whether the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Smt. Asha Devi, Sandhya Srivastava and Neeraj Trivedi (supra) that no such restrictions could be imposed by the Government Orders lays down the correct law or another judgment in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra) lays down the correct law, where it has been held that a candidate, who has obtained Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal is not eligible for consideration on the post of Assistant Teacher. The appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad is governed by the 1981 Rules framed under Section 19 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Rule 8 of the 1981 Rules has been amended from time to time, Rule 8 (1) as amended by 8th Amendment Rule, 1998 provides as follows . “8. Academic qualifications.—(1) The essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to In clause (a) of Rule 5 shall be as shown against each : 11. From the materials brought on record, it is clear that State of U.P. had from time to time issued various orders granting equivalence to the training certificates obtained from outside the State of U.P. The Director of Education Basic by letter dated 16.3.1973 had issued a Circular to all educational authorities forwarding a list of training certificates/diploma obtained from different States which were treated to be equivalent to the certificates and degree granted in the State of U.P. At item No. 21 Madhya Pradesh Buniyadi Prashikshan Patropadhi has been declared equivalent to B.T.C. Basic STC of Rajasthan was also declared equivalent to B.T.C at item No. 19, likewise other certificates of diploma were also given equivalence to other certificates. The State of U.P. took a decision on 11.8.1997 by which the equivalence granted to various certificates and diplomas from other States was withdrawn. The State of U.P. took a decision on 11.8.1997 by which the equivalence granted to various certificates and diplomas from other States was withdrawn. Consequently the diplomas and certificates granted by other States, which were earlier treated as equivalent to B.T.C. and candidates were eligible to apply for Assistant Teacher became disentitle to apply on the post of Assistant Teachers. We may first notice the divergent views expressed by different Hon’ble Single Judges of this Court after issuance of the aforesaid Government Order dated 11.8.1997. In Neeraj Trivedi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Single Judge considered the restrictions contained in an advertisement published which provided that B.T.C. certificates obtained from District Rampur is not eligible for applying for post of Assistant Teacher in the institutions of Kanpur Nagar. Hon’ble Single Judge held that there cannot be any restriction for such eligibility criteria from particular place and if such a restriction is enforced in that event it will be against the principles of equality. Another judgment in the case of Sandhya Srivastava (supra), the candidature of the petitioner who had obtained B.T.C. from an institution outside the State of U.P. was rejected. This Hon’ble Court relying on the Division Bench judgment in Uprendra Rai v. State of U.P. (supra) held that rejection of the candidature on the aforesaid ground was unreasonable and arbitrary. In another judgment of Smt. Asha Devi Pal v. State of U.P. and others (supra), the candidature of the petitioner who had obtained B.T.C. Degree from district Bareilly was not being considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher in District Jaunpur, following the ratio of the judgment in the case of Neeraj Trivedi (supra) such condition was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. Another view which was expressed by another Hon’ble Single Judge in Mahendra Pratap Singh’s case (supra) was a case where, the petitioner had made an application for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement issued by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Banda. The petitioner has obtained Buniyadi Prashikshan Pramanpatra, from Madhya Pradesh. His candidature was rejected by order dated 22.1.1998 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil eligibility for appointment. The petitioner has obtained Buniyadi Prashikshan Pramanpatra, from Madhya Pradesh. His candidature was rejected by order dated 22.1.1998 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil eligibility for appointment. The order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari rejecting the candidature of the petitioner was upheld and it was held that only those candidates, who have obtained training qualification from the institutions within the State of U.P. shall only be eligible. 13. The Division Bench in Upendra Rai’s case which was noticed by Hon’ble Single Judge in Smt. Sandhya Srivastava’s case (supra) needs to be noted in detail. Upendra Rai had obtained certificate of Diploma in Education from Zila Shiksha and Training Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Advertisement dated 28.4.1999 inviting the applications for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the primary institutions as well as the Government order dated 11.8.1997 withdrawing the equivalence earlier granted to the certificate of the outside the State, was challenged by Upendra Rai in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Single Judge. Special Appeal was filed against the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge. It was contended before the Division Bench of this Court that certificate of Diploma in Education was earlier recognised as equivalent to B.T.C. vide circular dated 16.3.1973. Submission was made that under National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 1993 Act), the training qualifications which has been recognised under the said 1993 Act cannot be ignored and any requirement contrary to 1993 Act is void. A Division Bench of this Court took the view that provisions of Circular dated 11.8.1997 as well as the advertisement in so far as it excludes the candidates having teachers qualifications obtained from an institution recognised under the 1993 Act are void. Following was laid down in paragraph 4: “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 provision 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 subsection (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 schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify 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 56 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 hold 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. 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 purposes 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 the 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 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.” 14. The Basic Education Board challenged the order of the Division Bench in Upendra Rai’s case (supra) in the apex Court. The apex Court has reversed the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Upendra Rai’s case which judgment in Basic Education Board U.P. v. Upendra Rai, 2008 (2) ADJ 515. The Basic Education Board challenged the order of the Division Bench in Upendra Rai’s case (supra) in the apex Court. The apex Court has reversed the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Upendra Rai’s case which judgment in Basic Education Board U.P. v. Upendra Rai, 2008 (2) ADJ 515. In the aforesaid judgment the apex Court considered Rule 8 of 1981 Rules, the Circular dated 11.8.1997 and the Government order dated 11.8.1997. The provisions of 1993 Act were also considered by the apex Court. Considering the above, following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraphs 14,22,23 and 24. “14. The respondent admittedly got appointment after the Circular dated 11.8.1997 and hence this Circular applies to him. Admittedly, the respondent does not possess the qualification mentioned in the said Circular. He does not either possess BTC, Hindustani Teaching Certificate, JCT or Certificate of Teaching. 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. 22. It may be mentioned that the word “institution” is defined in Section 2(e) of the NCTE Act to mean an institution which offers courses or training in teacher education. Thus, the NCTE Act does not deal with the ordinary educational institutions like primary schools, high schools, intermediate college or university. The word “institution” as defined in Section 2(2) only means teachers’ training institute and not the ordinary educational institutions. Hence, it is only the teachers’ training institutions which have to seek grant of recognition or continuation of recognition from the Regional Committee. The ordinary educational institutions do not have to seek any such recognition or continuation under the NCTE Act. In fact, the NCTE Act does not relate to the ordinary educational institution at all. We, therefore, fail to understand how it can be said that the NCTE Act overrides the UP Basic Education Act and Rules made thereunder. In fact, the two Acts operate in altogether two different fields. In fact, the NCTE Act does not relate to the ordinary educational institution at all. We, therefore, fail to understand how it can be said that the NCTE Act overrides the UP Basic Education Act and Rules made thereunder. In fact, the two Acts operate in altogether two different fields. The NCTE Act deals with the teachers’ training institutions while the UP Basic Education Act deals with the ordinary primary schools in U.P. and not any teachers’ training institute. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent is thus wholly misconceived. 23. The impugned judgment also proceeds with the same fallacy. The Division Bench, in our opinion, wrongly relied upon Article 254 of the Constitution. Article 254, as stated above, has no application in this case at all because the two Acts operate in two different fields. In our opinion, the Division Bench, therefore, wrongly held that the respondent (the appellant before the Division Bench) had the requisite qualification for being appointed as an Assistant Master in a Junior Basic School. 24. In our opinion the Division Bench also erred in holding that there was violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. We see no violation of Article 14 by the impugned circular or the advertisement dated 28.4.1999. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in detail in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 19.12.1997 in writ petition No. 33856 of 1997, Hira Mani v. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari connected with writ petition No. 32184 of 1997 Smt. Kiran Kumari v. State of U.P. and we see no reason to take a contrary view. Hence, the view taken by the Division Bench, in our opinion, is not correct.” 15. The circular dated 11.8.1997 thus was approved by the apex Court and the Upendra Rai who was respondent in the appeal and the writ petitioner was held not eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher of primary institution he having obtained B.Ed. Degree from District Institute of Education and Training Jabalpur. The Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment has expressly approved the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Kiran Kumari v. State of U.P. vide paragraph 24 of the judgment. Degree from District Institute of Education and Training Jabalpur. The Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment has expressly approved the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Kiran Kumari v. State of U.P. vide paragraph 24 of the judgment. In Smt. Kiran Kumari v. State of U.P., 1997(3) ESC 1856 (All), the advertisement was issued on 17.8.1997 for the post of Assistant Teachers in district Sonbhadra. The petitioner, who had obtained certificate of Buniyadi Prashikshan Pramanpatra awarded by Madhya Pradesh Bhopal made an application in pursuance of the said advertisement. The contents in the advertisement that only those candidates shall be considered who has obtained B.T.C. Training certificate from the institution in the State of U.P., was challenged. Rule 8 as well as Circular dated 11.8.1997 was considered by Hon’ble Single Judge. The writ petition was dismissed and following was laid down in paragraphs 6 and 10. “6. The qualification regarding Assistant Teachers and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools provides that the qualification consisting of Junior Basic Teacher’s Certificate, Hindustani Teachers Certificate. Junior Teacher’s Certificate of teaching or other training courses recognised by the State Government as equivalent to that. The Rule clearly contemplates that it is for the State Government to recognise other training courses for the purpose of academic qualification of the candidates. The State Government in its order dated 11th August, 1997 had taken a decision that in view of the fact that large number of candidates who have obtained B.T.C., H.T.C., J.T.C. are available in Uttar Pradesh for the vacancies to be filled up for the post of Junior Basic Schools In the institutions run by U. P. Shiksha Parishad Board, the recognition given to other training courses obtained by the candidates from outside the State of U. P.is derecognised. It was for the State Government to recognise or derecognise the certificates obtained by the candidates regarding the training course for teaching in Junior Basic Schools from other States. In case the Government finds that large number of the candidates are available who have already taken training courses provided by the institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it can limit to the training courses taken by a candidate within the State of Uttar Pradesh. 10. In case the Government finds that large number of the candidates are available who have already taken training courses provided by the institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it can limit to the training courses taken by a candidate within the State of Uttar Pradesh. 10. In P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and another, AIR 1990 SC 405 , it was held that the selection process is to be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Rule as it stood at its commencement and the amended Rule would not invalidate the selection already made. These cases have no application to the facts of the present case. The Government has already by its order dated llth August. 1997 clearly indicated that the certificates regarding the Basic Training Course obtained from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh shall not be recognised. In the advertisement dated 17th August. 1997, this aspect was also made clear. The petitioners cannot claim that a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners treating their certificates relating to the Basic Education Course obtained from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh to be valid.” 16. In view of the judgment of the apex Court in Basic Education Board’s case (supra) and the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge in Smt. Kiran Kumari (supra), which have been expressly approved by the apex Court, a candidate who has obtained Buniyadi Prashikshan Pramanpatra from the State of Madhya Pradesh is not held eligible for applying for the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution run by the U.P. Basic Education Board. 17. The Full Bench in Jitendra Kumar Soni’s case (supra) relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is to be noted. In the aforesaid case, the Full Bench considered following three questions which were referred to it with regard to eligibility for applying in the Special B.T.C Course 2008. “(a) Whether the degree obtained by a student from an institution/university established by law, situate at a place out side the State of Uttar Pradesh but duly recognized by the N.C.T.E. can be refused acceptance as valid qualification for being admitted to Special B.T.C. Course- 2008 by the State? (b) Whether the classification under the Government Order between the degree of B.Ed. obtained from other State being valid for admission to B.T.C. Course-2008, while the degree of C.P.Ed., B.P.Ed. (b) Whether the classification under the Government Order between the degree of B.Ed. obtained from other State being valid for admission to B.T.C. Course-2008, while the degree of C.P.Ed., B.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. similarly obtained from the institutions situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh being invalid for considered for admission to B.T.C. Course-2008 is arbitrary and without any reasonable rational and therefore hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India? (c) Whether the Division Bench judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2211 , lays down the correct law?” 18. The Full Bench was considering as to whether the qualifications obtained from the institutions duly recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education can be refused acceptance. The said qualifications were in context of admission to Special B.T.C. Course-2008 which were to be run by State of U.P. after due approval from the National Council for Teacher Education and the qualifications were being considered for admission to the Course. The Full Bench was not considering a case for appointment in an institution run by Basic Shiksha Parishad nor the Full Bench was considering Rule 8 of 1981 Rules or Circular dated 11.8.1997. The Full Bench also noticed the judgment of the apex Court in Basic Education Board (supra) and the case of Upendra Rai as well as the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rajeshwar Singh’s case. The Full Bench itself had drawn a distinction between the qualifications for admission to Special B.T.C. Course and the qualifications for appointment of Assistant Teacher in an institution run by Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. The judgment in the case of Rajeshwar Singh was distinguished by the Full Bench itself which is apparent from paragraph 25 of the judgment. The answer to the questions were given in paragraph 29. Paragraphs 25 and 29 of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soni are quoted as below: “25. Having considered the aforesaid judgments, the issue as to whether a candidate can be excluded from consideration for admission to the Special B.T.C. Course on the ground that he had obtained degree/diploma/certificate in LT/ B.P.Ed./ D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. from an institution recognized by the NCTE situate outside the State of U.P. was not under consideration, nor in issue in any of the judgments. from an institution recognized by the NCTE situate outside the State of U.P. was not under consideration, nor in issue in any of the judgments. In all the judgments considered, what was under consideration, was merely an issue in the matter of essential qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. As we have noted earlier, the essential distinction is (1) appointment to a post under the Rules of 1981 and (2) eligibility for admission to Special BTC course, which may result in a candidate becoming eligible for appointment as an Assistant Teacher by acquiring an essential educational qualification. 29. We may now answer the reference: (1) In answer to Question No. (a), it is not open to the State or the State authorities to exclude the students, who have obtained degree/diploma/ certificate in LT/B.P.Ed./ D.P.Ed./ C.P.Ed. from Institutions/Universities established by law situate at place outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and duly recognized by the NCTE, from applying either for the Special B.T.C. Course or B.T.C. Course. Any such exclusion is illegal. Question No, (a) is answered, accordingly. (2) Insofar as Question No. (b) is concerned, the classification, if any, is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, the only ground given by the State Government for not putting restriction on B.Ed. degree, and putting restriction on LT/ B.P.Ed./ D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed., is not sustainable in terms of the Rules of N.C.T.E., as the admission can only be based on merit. (3) Insofar as Question No. (c) is concerned, the judgment in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha (supra) did not answer the issue of admission to Special B.T.C. Course, but dealt with the issue of appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Even otherwise, considering the findings on question Nos. (a) and (b), we will have to hold that the judgment in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha does not lay down the correct law. “ 19. The Full Bench having itself distinguished the issue which was considered by the apex Court in Basic Education Board’s case, the judgment of the Full Bench is not applicable in the present case where we are concerned with the qualifications for appointment as Assistant Teacher of the primary institution and not for admission in B.T.C. Course. Thus, Full Bench judgment in Jitendra Kumar Soni’s case does not help the petitioners in the present case. Thus, Full Bench judgment in Jitendra Kumar Soni’s case does not help the petitioners in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on another judgment of the apex Court dated 5.2.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 844-846 of 2002, Secretary Board of Basic Education U.P. v. Rajendra Singh, where the apex Court has considered Rule 8 of 1981 Rules as well as the Circular dated 11.8.1997. The apex Court laid down following in paragraphs 8 and 12 of the judgment: “8. On 11.8.1997, the State Government in supersession of the earlier orders, directed that posts of Assistant Teachers in the Basic Schools run by the Board shall be filled up, only by those candidates who are BTC trained from U.P. Government Training Institutes or those possessing HTC/JCT/Teacher’s Certificate. The said order cancelled the equivalence given to other training courses. The said order dated 11.8.1997 contains a specific direction that the appointment to the posts of Assistant Teachers in the schools run by the Board shall be made only in accordance with the Rules, by candidates possessing BTC/HTC/JCT/Teaching Certificate. According to the government, the said direction dated 11.8.1997 was issued to give effect to the NCTE guidelines and the Rules. In view of the said direction, the Board abandoned the process of selection commenced in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.1.1997 and issued a fresh advertisement dated 17.8.1997 restricting the qualifications to what was stated in the direction dated 11.8.1997. It also made it clear that those claiming the benefit of equivalence or those with CPEd Certificate were not eligible for the post of Assistant Teachers. 12. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the order of the Division bench is set aside and the writ petitions by the private respondents are dismissed. The validity of the Government direction dated 11.8.1997 and consequential advertisement is upheld.” 20. Faced with the above pronouncement of the apex Court upholding the Circular dated 11.8.1997 by which the equivalence granted to the certificates obtained from outside the State of U.P. having been withdrawn, the case of the petitioner Vinod Kumar Singh was sought to be distinguished on the strength of another submission. Faced with the above pronouncement of the apex Court upholding the Circular dated 11.8.1997 by which the equivalence granted to the certificates obtained from outside the State of U.P. having been withdrawn, the case of the petitioner Vinod Kumar Singh was sought to be distinguished on the strength of another submission. The submission which has been pressed by Sri Aditya Narayan is that Rule 8 of 1981 Rules as quoted above does not require obtaining of B.T.C. from the State of U.P. rather Basic Teacher Certificate obtained from any State including the State of M.P. is eligible for appointment. He submits that the certificate obtained by the petitioner i.e. Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra is nothing but a Basic Teacher Certificate hence, no order of equivalence was required to have been passed by the State of U.P. To buttress his submission, Sri Aditya Natrain Singh referring to Rule 8 (1) (a) submits that while providing qualifications for Mistress of Nursery School it has been specifically provided that Certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from a recognised training institution in Uttar Pradesh or any other training qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. Whereas the words “recognised training institutions in Uttar Pradesh” are missing in the very next Rule 8(1)(ii) with regard to Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic School. Sri Aditya Narayan has placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta (supra) for the proposition that while interpreting a statute, literal interpretation has to be given and the Court cannot add any word in the Rule. For appreciating the aforesaid submission, it is necessary to look into the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 under which 1981 Rules have been framed. U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 was enacted for the establishment of a Board of Basic Education and for matters connected therewith. Basic Education Board has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for function of the Board. Section 4(1) and 4(2) (a) and (d) are quoted as below: “4. U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 was enacted for the establishment of a Board of Basic Education and for matters connected therewith. Basic Education Board has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for function of the Board. Section 4(1) and 4(2) (a) and (d) are quoted as below: “4. Function of the Board.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall be the function of the Board to recognise, co-ordinate and control the imparting of basic education and teachers’ training thereof in the State, to raise its standard and to correlate it with the system of education as a whole in the State. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the Board shall, in particular, have power- (a) to prescribe the courses of instruction and books for basic education and teacher’s training therefore; (d) to exercise superevisions, and control over basic schools, normal schools, basic training certificate units and the State Institute of Education; “ 21. U.P. Basic Education Board is thus entrusted to organise, co-ordinate and control the imparting of basic education and teacher’s training certificates which are referred to in Rule 8 i.e. Basic Teacher’s Certificate, Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior Teacher’s Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognised by the State Government. Rule 8 of 1981 Rules was amended vide U.P. Basic Teachers service (8th Amendment) Rules, 1998. Rule 8 of the 1981 Rules as it existed prior to 1998 amendment, is quoted below: “8. Academic qualifications.—(1) The essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in clause (a) of Rule 5 shall be as shown against each: 22. It is relevant to note that prior to 1998 amendments education qualification was intermediate examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or any other qualification recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification. It is relevant to note that prior to 1998 amendments education qualification was intermediate examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or any other qualification recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification. After the amendment, the educational qualifications was deleted and it provided “A Bachelor’s Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualifications” Had the Rule making authority intended that training qualification referred to in Rule 8(1) (ii) should also have been training qualifications obtained from any institutions recognised by National Council for Teacher Education throughout the India, the amendment should have been also reflected that position. When the bachelor’s degree established by law in India has been added in 1998 amendment clarifying that bachelor’s degree shall be entertained which has been obtained in any place of India by a recognised institution and not making such amendment with regard to training qualifications, clearly means that training qualifications which was prevalent in the State of U.P. The submissions of Sri Aditya Narayan is that Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra granted by the State of M.P. Should be treated to be included in the words “Basic Teacher’s Certificates” in Rule 8, cannot be accepted. Rule itself contemplates “ or any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto”. The said power in the Rule enables the State Government to declare any certificate granted by any other institutions from other State also as equivalent to Basic Teacher’s certificate. The Buniyadi Prashikshan Pramanpatra granted by the State of M.P. Cannot be treated to be included in the word “Basic Teacher’s Certificates” under Rule 8(1) (ii). Had the Rule making authority so intended, it was unnecessary to provide for concept of granting equivalence to other certificates by the State of U.P. The Rule making authority was conscious that in so far as the certificates granted by other States or other certificates’ equivalence, can be granted after considering the relevant course curriculum and other aspects and there has to be conscious decision of the State while treating a certificate’s equivalence. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra granted by the State of M.P. should be treated to be included in the words “Basic Teacher’s Certificate” as used in Rule 8(1) (ii), the certificate mentioned in the said Rule namely; Basic Teacher’s Certificate, Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior Teacher’s Certificate, or any other training course recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto, cannot be accepted. The certificates which were granted by the State of U.P., the subsequent Government order dated 11.8.1997 clarified this position that the candidates who have obtained the aforesaid certificates from the institutions in the State of U.P. shall be only eligible for applying the post of Assistant Teachers. The Government order dated 11.8.1997 has been specifically upheld by the apex Court as noticed above. In so far as judgment of the apex Court in Nathi Devi case (supra) is concerned, the apex Court laid down following proposition in paragraphs 13 and 14: “13. The interpretative function of the Court is to discover the true legislative intent. It is trite that in interpreting a statute the Court must, if the words are clear, plain, unambiguous and reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, give to the words that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. Those words must be expounded in their natural and ordinary sense. When a language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of construction of statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself. Courts are not concerned with the policy involved or that the results are injurious or otherwise, which may follow from giving effect to the language used. If the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. In considering whether there is ambiguity, the Court must look at the statute as a whole and consider the appropriateness of the meaning in a particular context avoiding absurdity and inconsistencies or unreasonableness which may render the statute unconstitutional. 14. It is equally well settled that in interpreting a statute, effort should be made to give effect to each and every word used by the Legislature. 14. It is equally well settled that in interpreting a statute, effort should be made to give effect to each and every word used by the Legislature. The Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. A construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons such as obvious drafting errors. (See : State of U.P. and others v. Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963 SC 946 ; Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh and others, AIR 1954 SC 749 ; Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907 ; Nyadar Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1988 SC 1979 ; J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1170 and Ghanshyam Das v. Regional Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, AIR 1964 S.C. 766 )” 23. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid Case. The interpretive function of the Court is to discover the true legislative intent and from the discussions as above, we are of the view that in Rule 8(1) (ii) of the 1981 Rules, while mentioning the Basic Teacher’s Certificate and other certificates, the Rule making authority intended the certificates which are granted in the State of U.P. 24. There is one more reason for not accepting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra of State of M.P. should be treated to be included in word “Basic Teacher’s Certificate” Rule 8(1)(ii) as noticed above. the State of U.P. has issued circular declaring various certificates and diplomas equivalent to B.T.C. Had the Rule making authority intended that certain certificates which would be treated to be included in Basic Teacher’s Certificate, there was no occasion for granting specific order of equivalence. the State of U.P. has issued circular declaring various certificates and diplomas equivalent to B.T.C. Had the Rule making authority intended that certain certificates which would be treated to be included in Basic Teacher’s Certificate, there was no occasion for granting specific order of equivalence. The Circular dated 16.3.1973 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit in writ petition of Vinod kumar Singh which mentions various certificates of different States, which have been treated to be equivalent to Training Certificate Diploma of Uttar Pradesh for example at item No. 21 of the Circular Buniyadi Prashikshan Patropadhi was treated to be equivalent to B.T.C. Buniyadi Prashikshan Patropadhi which was mentioned in the Circular was subsequently changed to the Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra which fact has been noted by Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court, while deciding the case of Lalit Kumar Dixit and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2004(2) ESC 745 (All). Thus the State treated the Buniyadi Prashikshan Patropadhi as equivalent to Basic Teacher’s Certificate prior to 11.8.1997 and State never intended the said certificate to be included in the “Basic Teacher’s Certificate” as provided under Rule 8(1)(ii) of 1981 Rules. Thus, the above submissions of Sri Aditya Narayan cannot be accepted. 25. The Full Bench of this Court in Rajeshwar Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) also had taken the view that the issues are covered by the judgment of the apex Court in Basic Education Board’s case (supra). In the Full Bench of Rajeshwar Singh following question was referred and the Full Bench answered the above questions in following words. “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 U.P. but recognized by the N.C.E.R.T. is valid. “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 U.P. but recognized by the N.C.E.R.T. is valid. The other Division Bench’s judgment of this Court reported in (2003)3 UPLBEC 2211 in Vijai 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 U.P. The proposition of law as per Vijai Kumar Kushwaha’s case have been reiterated in Lalit Kumar Dixit’s case reported in 2004(2) ESC 745 (All) which division bench out of two lay down the correct law.” “During the course of hearing, the judgment of the Apex Court in Basic Education Board, U.P. v. Upendra Rai and others, 2008(1) ESC 160 (SC) : 2008(2) ADJ 515 (SC), has been cited, in which the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of Upendra Rai (supra) passed by a Division Bench of this Court and upheld the finding of other Division Bench judgment in the case of Vijai Kumar Kushwaha (supra). In view of above, the term of reference referred to this Full Bench seems to be settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment referred hereinabove. Keeping in view the fact that the Supreme Court has settled the law with regard to terms of reference, no further adjudication of controversy is required by this Full Bench. The reference is answered accordingly. “ 26. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the petitioners did not fulfil the qualifications as prescribed under Rule 8 of 1981 Rules and they were not eligible for the post of Assistant Teachers in the institutions run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. and they are not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the petitioners did not fulfil the qualifications as prescribed under Rule 8 of 1981 Rules and they were not eligible for the post of Assistant Teachers in the institutions run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. and they are not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. We are of further view that the view taken by Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Sandhya Srivastava v. State of U.P. does not lay down the correct law and the view of Hon’ble Single Judge in Mahendra Pratap Singh has to be approved in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Basic Education Board’s case (supra). 27. In the result all the writ petitions are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. —————