Anil Kumar,J.:— Heard Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel as well as Sri M.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 2 to 4. The facts, in brief, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners , are that on 29.8.2002 , an advertisement ( Annexure no.1 to the writ petition) was in issued in Daily Newspaper ' Danik Jagran' for appointment on the post Assistant Teacher in the institutions , managed and run by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishand , Faizabad. Further, in the said advertisement the essential qualification which is to be possessed by the candidate for appointment on the post in question mentioned in Column 2 . As per submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners , who posses C.P.Ed Degree submitted their candidature in response to the said advertisement. However, their candidature were rejected and not called for interview on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification . Hence the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the opposite parties may be directed to issue admit card, and to allow them to participate in the interview whenever the same is held in pursuant to the advertisement issued by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari , Faizabad and another relief which has been prayed that the opposite parties be directed not to exclude the petitioners from consideration for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the Primary Schools of Rural Areas of district Faizabad run and managed by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad on the ground that they had equivalent degree of C.P.Ed. . Learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned action on the part of the respondents thereby rejecting the petitioners ' case for appointment and not calling them for interview on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification as per terms of the advertisement for the post in question, is an action which is wholly illegal and arbitrary as the C.P.Ed. Degree possessed by the petitioners is equivalent to B.T.C. as such they are fully eligible for consideration for appointment on the post in question as per terms of the advertisement so the opposite parties may be directed to issue admit card and call them for interview/test in pursuance to the advertisement and select them on the post in question. Sri. Degree possessed by the petitioners is equivalent to B.T.C. as such they are fully eligible for consideration for appointment on the post in question as per terms of the advertisement so the opposite parties may be directed to issue admit card and call them for interview/test in pursuance to the advertisement and select them on the post in question. Sri. M.M. Asthana, learned counsel for respondents, while opposing the writ petition submits that as per rules known as U.P. Education ( Teachers) Service Rules 1981( amended by notification dated 28..6.1993 in exercise of its power under Section 19(2) (9) of the 1972 Act., the rule 8 of the said service rules 1981 provides intermediate Education U.P. or any other qualification reconsigned by the State Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of basic teacher training (BTC) , Hindustani Teacher Certificate , Junior Teacher Certificate, Certificate of Teacher in other course reconsigned by the State Government as equivalent thereto. Sri Asthana submits that there are training institutions in almost each district of Uttar Pradesh known as ' District Education and Training Institute (DIET) meant for imparting training for recognized certificate courses of teaching . Thus, the candidates under going educational BTC training are specifically framed to teach the students of primary classes and more so , the BTC syllabus is so designed that a person possessing BTC qualification can alone be able to teach the students of primary schools and to cope with the psychological behavior of the children of tender age studying in these primary school run by Basic Shiksha Parishad whereas a B.Ed trained candidates are tought an altogether different syllabus which is meant to teach students of higher class having higher age. He further submitted that the field of employment of BTC trained persons is limited only to primary and junior high schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad and if any kind of encroachment is being allowed to be made by a candidate not possessing the B.Ed. Qualified persons , in that circumstances there will be surplus number of BTC trained person being rendered unemployed as such the petitioners who are not B.Ed or L.T. Trained lecturer have no legal right even to submit the application form in pursuance to the advertisement for the appointment on the post of assistant teacher in primary schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad. Learned counsel for respondents also submits that petitioners do not fulfill the requisite qualification as per terms and conditions of the advertisement hence their case was not considered by official respondents for appointment on the post in question as the C.P.Ed. is not equivalent to BTC course and in this regard he placed reliance on the averments made in para -11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.4 and submits that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification as per terms of advertisement , so they are not called for interview. Moreover, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 29.12.2002 the selection has already been taken place and persons, who are selected as per merit, have already been appointed on the post in question, discharging their duties , so at this stage, the relief,as claimed by the petitioners, cannot be granted in the present writ petition, thus the same is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, for the appointment on the post in question, an advertisement ( Annexure no.1) was issued and in column no.2 of the said advertisement qualification has been prescribed, on the basis of documents which are on record, it transpires rather clearly established that the petitioners does not possess the qualification for appointment on the post in question hence there is neither any illegality nor infirmity on the part of the official respondents not to call them for interview because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another ( 2011) 9 SCC 438 has held as under:- " The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualification as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra . The Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262 this Court referred to the earlier judgments in A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669 , Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residentical School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi ( 1990 ) 3 SCC 665, M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India (1993) 2SCC 429, Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan 1993 Sup(3) SCC 168, U.P. Public Servie Commission Vs. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723 and Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. B Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669 , Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residentical School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi ( 1990 ) 3 SCC 665, M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India (1993) 2SCC 429, Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan 1993 Sup(3) SCC 168, U.P. Public Servie Commission Vs. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723 and Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court : "13......(1) that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications ; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the application have to be received by the competent authority." Further, admittedly in the present case as per advertisement dated 29.8.2002 (Annexure no.1) the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the institutions which are managed and run by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad , Faizabad has already been made and the selected candidates as per merit list are placed in the said capacity on the basis of merit secured by them in the selection as per the advertisement dated 29.8.2002 and are discharging their duties . Further , the said person are also not impleaded as respondents in the present case, so at this stage I do no find any reason whatsoever to grant any relief to the petitioner in view of the facts stated herein above under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the instant writ petition accordingly same lacks merit, thus dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________