Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2675 (RAJ)

Richa Rathore v. State of Rajasthan

2011-12-05

M.N.BHANDARI

body2011
Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 31.10.2011, whereby, petitioner's services have been terminated for want of educational qualifications. 2. It is stated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.6.2004 when petitioner stood in merit, he was appointed on the post of Teacher Gr III vide order dated 2.4.2005. Documents pertaining to educational qualifications and other documents were sent for verification which were found to be genuine, accordingly, petitioner was allowed to join the services. On successful completion of period of probation, petitioner was confirmed in service w.e.f. 8.4.2007. Services of the petitioner were terminated vide impugned order without following principles of natural justice. Thus prayer is to set aside the impugned order. 3. It is contended that once petitioner has been selected to the post and given appointment followed by confirmation, he could not have been terminated in the manner it has been done by the respondents. Petitioner was in possession of required qualification as she possesses educational qualifications of Secondary and Senior Secondary examinations as recognised by the Government of Rajasthan yet petitioner has erroneously been treated ineligible only on the ground that Senior Secondary examination was passed with vocational subjects instead of academic subjects. 4. It is stated that the issue regarding qualification with vocational subjects has already been settled by this court in the case of “Mohammad Iqbal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, DB Civil Appeal (Writ) No. 646/2001, decided on 19.11.2009. In the aforesaid case, appointment was denied on the ground that petitioner, therein, was possessing qualification of Senior Secondary with vocational subjects. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that distinction between the two course namely Senior Secondary (Vocational) and Senior Secondary (Academic) was an issue for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Sunita Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, reported in JT 2001(10) SC 178 and, therein, it was held that distinction taken by the State regarding two qualifications is bad. Accordingly, number of cases were decided by this court referring to the judgment in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra). The Division Bench of this court in the case of Mohammad Iqbal allowed the appeals. It is, accordingly, submitted that present matter is covered by the judgment in the case of Mohammad Iqbal (supra) thus prayed that the impugned order of termination may be set aside. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Mohammad Iqbal allowed the appeals. It is, accordingly, submitted that present matter is covered by the judgment in the case of Mohammad Iqbal (supra) thus prayed that the impugned order of termination may be set aside. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. 6. It is a case where petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Gr III followed by confirmation of services, however, now service of the petitioner has been terminated vide impugned order dated 31.10.2011. The appointment of the petitioner is pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2004. Petitioner was given appointment subject to final outcome of certain writ petitions and verification of documents pertaining to educational qualification with a clear stipulation that if the qualification is not found to be recognised or the certificate is found to be incorrect, termination can be effected without prior notice. Petitioner was given posting thereupon followed by confirmation on the post. However, when it was found that petitioner had undertaken qualification of Sr Secondary (Vocational) then the impugned order was passed. The issue for my consideration is as to whether petitioner is having the qualification as required under the Rules and further her services can be terminated without following principles of natural justice. 7. To address the first issue, it would be relevant to quote the rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, as existed at the time of recruitment providing qualification for the post of Teacher Gr III (Primary School Teacher) :- 3. Primary School Teacher (100%) by direct recruitment (i) Senior Secondary under new (10+2) scheme or Higher Secondary under old scheme from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent and Secondary School Certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with 5 subjects, 3 of them shall be Mathematics, English and Hindi. (ii) B.S.T.C. Course 8. Perusal of the rule quoted shows that one was required to possess qualification of Senior Secondary under new scheme or High Secondary under old scheme with Secondary School Certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with five subjects three of them shall be Mathematics, English and Hindi. (ii) B.S.T.C. Course 8. Perusal of the rule quoted shows that one was required to possess qualification of Senior Secondary under new scheme or High Secondary under old scheme with Secondary School Certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with five subjects three of them shall be Mathematics, English and Hindi. The rule aforesaid was amended vide the Notification dated 30.06.2006, however, the issue in reference to the qualification as existing then came up for consideration before this court in the case of Kanta Parihar reported in 1995(3) WLC (Rajasthan) 593 and in the case of “Dinesh and 79 Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” reported in 1999 (1) WLC (Raj) 584 = RLW 1999(2) Raj. 795. 9. The matter finally came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in the case of “State of Rajasthan through the Director Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan & another vs. Mukesh Kumar Jhajharia and anr”, reported in RLW 1999 (2) Rajasthan 1305. The issue, therein, was in reference to the rule as quoted above and challenge was as to whether qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Senior Secondary. The Division Bench, in reference to the circular dated 19.8.1998, held that qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is not equivalent to the qualification of Senior Secondary (Academic). The issue aforesaid was considered in the light of the earlier judgment of Division Bench in the case of “Usha Kumari vs. Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar” (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3638/1993 decided on 6.10.1993), “Gurmail Kaur vs. Zila Parishad, Sriiganganagar” (DB Civil Special Appeal No.699/1993, decided on 14.11.1994 and “Prem Kala vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DB Special Appeal No.630/1997, decided on 17.6.1997. Therein, it was found that Usha Kumari's judgment was approved by the Division Bench in the case of Gurmail Kaur wherein reliance was also placed on the Full bench judgment in the case of Ram Chandra Swami, reported in 1993(3) WLC 741 = RLW 1992(2) Raj. 281. Paras 18 to 24 of the judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Jhajharia (supra) are quoted hereinunder:- “(18). This Court in Ram Chandra Swami vs. State of Rajasthan (7), relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Sukh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (8). 281. Paras 18 to 24 of the judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Jhajharia (supra) are quoted hereinunder:- “(18). This Court in Ram Chandra Swami vs. State of Rajasthan (7), relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Sukh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (8). The Apex Court in the said judgment observed thus: “The job that a primary school teacher is to teach tiny tots in the primary schools or the villages as per the prescribed syllabus and not to teach art, handicraft or any tread. They are not taught there. The candidates holding State Trade Certificate (S.T.C.) were not equivalent to Basic School Training Certificate and were not eligible for appointment on the post of teacher Gr. III.” (19). Again in State of Rajasthan vs. Shyam Lal Joshi (9), the Apex Court took the view that the persons possessing National Trade Certificate were not eligible to be appointed as general teachers in primary schools. (20). In Vijay Kumar Budrak (supra), the issue that was considered-”whether senior secondary (Vocational) qualification is equivalent to senior secondary (Academic) of the Board?” (21). After analysing elaborately and keeping in view Section 27 of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957, it was held that both the qualifications were equivalent. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajpal Singh's case (supra). The issue of equivalence was not considered by the Division Bench. It is clear from the observation made that the view taken by the Division Bench earlier in the aforementioned cases was affirmed. The observations made in Rajpal Singh's case read thus: “The equivalence of Vocational and Academic Certificates have already come for consideration before this court in two different matters. The Division Bench of this court in Gurmail Kaur .... with other three connected appeals and in case of Prem Kala and others... have held that the certificate of vocational cannot be treated as equivalent to that of the Certificate of Academic.” (22). Hence, the distinction sought to be made relying on the decision of Vijay Kumar Budrak (supra) cannot be accepted. In Usha Rani's case (supra), the court did not accept the vocational qualification for the post of Teacher for the following reasons: “The Higher Secondary (Vocational) Course gives educational training to the students which provides a working experience in a particular occupational trade. In Usha Rani's case (supra), the court did not accept the vocational qualification for the post of Teacher for the following reasons: “The Higher Secondary (Vocational) Course gives educational training to the students which provides a working experience in a particular occupational trade. A training in a specific occupation, still or trade, though it is a composition of theoretical teaching and practical experience by a special institution, are given with a view to provide gainful employment soon after completion of the course. The students who take these Vocational Courses are given instructions or guidance in a particular occupation or vocation which will choose a career.” (23). It may be notices that the reasons given in Usha Rani's case were approved by the Division Bench of this court in Gurmail Kaur (supra), wherein the reliance had also been placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this court in Ram Chandra Swami (supra). It was held that, a person having the training in a particular trade as Smt Gurmail Kaur, was having the training in tailoring. Crafting and cutting etc. could not be held eligible for the post of Teacher Gr III; the candidates possessing the vocational certificate may be eligible for the post if available anywhere in a trade in which they acquire skill but they are not eligible to be considered for the post of Teacher Gr III either in the Panchayat Samiti or in the Education Department. It is to be added that the reasoning adopted in the case of Usha Rani and Gurmail Kaur have subsequently been followed in the case of Prem Kala (supra) by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench stating that the vocational certificate is meant for self employment generally and as there are no vocational classes in the primary schools, such persons possessing certificates in vocational courses cannot be held eligible for being appointed as Teacher Gr III. It is pertinent to mention herein that in the case of Prem Kala, the issue involved was the same, namely, the equivalence of Sr. Secondary (Academic) quo the Senior Secondary (Vocational). Thus, having regard to earlier Division Bench judgments of this court in the cases of Usha Rani, Gurmail Kuar and Prem Kala (supra), the controversy is resolved and concluded against the respondents (writ petitioners). Secondary (Academic) quo the Senior Secondary (Vocational). Thus, having regard to earlier Division Bench judgments of this court in the cases of Usha Rani, Gurmail Kuar and Prem Kala (supra), the controversy is resolved and concluded against the respondents (writ petitioners). The impugned circular dated 19.8.1998, in our view, is clearly consistent with the decisoin of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Usha Rani, Gurmail Kaur and Prem Kala (supra). The impugned circular itself makes the position clear that the clarification was issued based on the judgments of this court. Having regard to the conclusions arrived at in the judgments of the Division Bench aforementioned, it cannot be said that by the impugned circular Rule 266 of the Rules was sought to be amended. The circular is only clarificatory in nature, that too, based on inconsistent with the judgements of the Division bench of this court, aforementioned. By the impugned circular the rule is not amended in the prescriptions of qualification is not altered. The qualification referring to Senior Secondary is only to be understood as Sr. Secondary (Academic) and not as a Senior Secondary (Vocational) in the light of judgments of Division Bench of this court referring to the very rule. Learned counsel for the respondents pointing out to the observations made in the case of Rajpal Singh as noted by the learned Single Judge in para 13 of the judgment under appeals, submitted that the impugned circular cannot be sustained. The relevant observations made in Rajpal Singh's case as cannot be sustained. The relevant observations made in Rajpal Singh's case as extracted by the learned Single Judge in para 13 of the judgment read thus: “In our opinion, the qualification of eligibility for the post of Teacher Gr III could not have been changed by circulars when they have specifically been mentioned in the rules. As such, the candidates having certificates of Senior Secondary (Vocational) which of course could have been obtained after passing secondary examination, were eligible for the post of Teacher Gr III for the relevant year and such candidates have the right for consideration for appointment to the said post.” (24). As can be seen from the observations extracted above, in that case the qualification for eligibility for the post of Teacher Gr III was sought to be changed by the circular as against the qualification prescribed in the rules. As can be seen from the observations extracted above, in that case the qualification for eligibility for the post of Teacher Gr III was sought to be changed by the circular as against the qualification prescribed in the rules. That is, by the impugned circular dated 19.8.1998 the prescribed qualification is not sought to be altered or amended. But, it is only intended to clarify the position in the large public interest having regard to the judgments of this court on the issue. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned circular is either violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or arbitrary. On the other hand, it is consistent with the pronouncements of the Division bench of this court referred to above. In our opinion, with all respects, the learned Single Judge was not right in quashing the impugned circular dated 19.8.1998. Hence, we are unable to sustain the common judgment under appeals.” 10. Perusal of the paras quoted above show that the issue as to whether a candidate having qualification of Senior Secondary (vocational) is eligible for appointment to the post of teacher has been settled therein. The qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) was not held to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic). It was in reference to the Rules quoted above. 11. In the case of Mohd Iqbal (supra) reliance has been placed on the subsequent judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of “Deep Chand vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4080/2001, decided on 5.9.2002, reported in RLR 2003 (3) 90 and “Badri Lal Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3483/2002, decided on 10.2.2003, reported in 2003(3) RLR 91 = RLW 2003(3) Raj. 1677. In the aforesaid judgment, reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Sunita Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in JT 2001(10) SC 178. In the aforesaid background, it would be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma. Therein, the required qualification was only Secondary Class but later on a circular was issued for determination of merit on the basis of marks of Senior Secondary. In the aforesaid background, it would be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma. Therein, the required qualification was only Secondary Class but later on a circular was issued for determination of merit on the basis of marks of Senior Secondary. The High Court granted equitable relief therein and same was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court which clearly come out from the following paras which are quoted herein. “2. A batch of writ petitions were filed before the High Court in relation to recruitment to the posts of primary school teachers gr.III in rural schools under the panchayat samitis. The minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as primary school teacher is matric (secondary) with BSTC/STC training or any other qualification declared equivalent by the education department of the state government. However, the government in exercise of its power under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Rule, 1959 issued directions fixing minimum qualification for the eligibility to be appointed as teachers in primary school as secondary with five subjects including Hindi, English and Maths and senior secondary with BSTC or B.Ed. Or any other qualification declared equivalent by the education department and the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. It was also contended before the Court that the students passing senior secondary (vocational) examination are eligible for taking the admission in BSTC or for higher course and are also eligible to be appointed to the posts of teacher gr.-III. 3. On these aspects, the High Court posed two questions in relation to prescription of minimum qualification by the government by its circular in exercise of its power under rule 17 of the rules and whether senior secondary (vocational) qualification is equivalent to senior secondary (academic) qualification of board. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the qualification for eligibility for the post of teacher gr.-III could not have been changed by circulars by the government when the same is covered specifically under the relevant rules, without amending the rules. Therefore, it was held by the learned single judge as well as by the division bench that the candidates who have passed secondary school examination and completed training of BSTC/STC are eligible for the post of teacher gr.-III for the relevant year and such candidates have the right for consideration for appointment to the said post. 5. Therefore, it was held by the learned single judge as well as by the division bench that the candidates who have passed secondary school examination and completed training of BSTC/STC are eligible for the post of teacher gr.-III for the relevant year and such candidates have the right for consideration for appointment to the said post. 5. The High Court also held that qualification of senior secondary (vocational) is equivalent to senior secondary (academic) of the board. Learned single judge set aside and quashed the orders/circulars passed by the district establishment committees holding the appellants to be ineligible for appointment and directed for preparation of fresh merit lists taking the qualification of secondary school examination for the eligibility of candidates and fresh merit list should be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in secondary school examination instead of senior secondary and also made certain adjustments in regard to the candidates who had been selected pursuant to certain interim orders. 6. While certain candidates filed appeals before the division bench, the High Court on discussion of the matter in the court and after due deliberations arrived at some consensus to resolve the matter. What influenced the High Court was that on the principle adopted by the government resulted in 8647 persons being appointed, out of 9584 vacancies and if the order of learned single judge is given effect to in full, would disturb the entire selection and the working of the department will come to a standstill. On that basis, the High Court proceeded to hold that some other principle will have to be adopted and gave certain directions stating that average of the marks obtained in secondary and BSTC be counted for adjudging their merit in the respective zila parishads and be given appointments as per their merit on the remaining unfilled vacancies of the relevant year in the concerned zila parishads. 7. The division bench modified the order made by the learned single judge to the extent to consider the applications of those candidates also who are possessing certificate of senior secondary (vocational) and have submitted their applications in the respective zila parishads after adjudging their merit on the basis of average of the marks obtained by them in secondary plus training. Such candidates, attaining merit, be given appointment only against unfilled vacancies of the relevant year in the concerned zila parishads. 8. Such candidates, attaining merit, be given appointment only against unfilled vacancies of the relevant year in the concerned zila parishads. 8. It appears to us that the High Court passed its order only to adjust equities in the case. If that is so, we fail to understand as to why the appellants before us should not be accommodated by the government when they possess the due qualifications, as noticed by the learned single judge. Their cases ought to have been considered as per the directions issued by the learned single judge. In that view of the matter, we direct the respondents to consider the cases of the appellants before us and appropriate action be taken thereof within a period of two months on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the higher secondary examination subject to the condition that their appointments shall be treated as fresh appointments and they will not have any claim as to the seniority or other benefits. It is made clear that we have passed this order in the peculiar circumstances arising in these appeals and the same shall not be treated as a precedents.” 12. Perusal of the paras quoted above reveals that it was a case where minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Teacher was matric (Secondary) with BSTC/ STC. The government issued directions for fixing minimum qualification to be Senior Secondary apart from the qualification of Secondary. The challenge was made to the competence of the government to issue such directions without amending the Rules as is clearly coming out in paras 2 and 4 of the judgment quoted above. 13. In para 5 of the said judgment, reference of directions issued by the court is given wherein order/ circular issued by the government to provide minimum qualification of Senior Secondary was quashed and, accordingly, they were directed to prepare fresh merit list on the basis of the marks obtained by a candidate in Secondary school examination instead of Senior Secondary examination though a reference of the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) has also been given but the merit list was ordered to be prepared on the basis of marks in Secondary class thus higher qualification lost its significance. 14. 14. In para 6, it is clearly indicated that the Division Bench resolved the matter keeping in mind that large number of appointments have already been made and action at that stage would disturb entire selection. Accordingly, Division Bench issued directions that average of the marks obtained in Secondary and BSTC be counted for adjudicating merit of the candidate. Thus, qualification of Senior Secondary lost significance therein. Since marks of Secondary and BSTC were taken into consideration hence subsequent to Secondary if anybody had undertaken qualification of Senior Secondary with vocational or academic was not of any effect looking to the Rules applicable then which were different than the Rules now applicable in this case and also in the case decided by the Division Bench in the case of Mukesh Kumar Jhanjharia (supra). 15. Para 7 of the above judgment clearly shows that marks of Secondary class was made relevant and not the marks of Senior Secondary. This is more so when vocational course is not provided at the level of Secondary class but it is at Senior Secondary level. If the Hon'ble Apex Court would have given equivalence to the two courses then there was no reason to direct the respondents to prepare the merit on the basis of marks of Secondary class instead of higher qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational). There is no discussion to treat qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) though reference of the aforesaid issue is given in reference to the judgment of the Division Bench. 16. So far as he issue in the case of Deep Chand and Badri Lal Joshi (supra) are concerned, there, judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mukesh Kumar Jhanjharia was not brought to the notice of the Court, moreso when the case of Ram Sukh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1990 SC 2592 was relied therein. In the case of Ram Sukh (supra), it was held that the Teacher Gr III is not to teach Craft, Arts etc thus one is not eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III unless possesses required qualification. The situation is same as vocational courses are given in the particular trade whereas academic subjects are taught in the schools. The situation is same as vocational courses are given in the particular trade whereas academic subjects are taught in the schools. The Government of Rajasthan issued a circular to say that a candidate with Senior Secondary (Vocational) would not be eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III vide circular dated 19.8.1998. After the judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Jhanjharia (supra), the Government of Rajasthan came out with the circular to provide bridge course to the candidates having Senior Secondary (Vocational) so as to make them eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. This was to get their examination for main academic teaching subjects and, accordingly, those who had undertaken bridge course were then held eligible to the post of Teacher Gr III on possessing qualification of Academic course. 17. Learned counsel was asked to show whether petitioner has undertaken bridge course. To find out the aforesaid, time was sought and granted by this court and, thereupon, counsel fairly conceded that petitioner had not undertaken bridge course. In the aforesaid background, and in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mukesh Kumar Jhanjharia, petitioner having Senior Secondary (Vocational) was not qualified to hold the post of Teacher Gr III as a person having qualification of vocational subjects is not having subjects for teaching tiny tots. In the aforesaid background, it cannot be said that petitioner is in possession of required qualification of Teacher Gr III. 18. The question now comes as to whether termination of the petitioner without providing an opportunity of hearing is legal or not. 19. It is stated that petitioner was not only appointed but confirmed in service thus the normal rule is that an adverse order should not have been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the candidate. The fact, however, remains that having adjudicated the issue on merit, that too, as to whether petitioner was in possession of required educational qualification or not, thus setting aside the order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice with liberty to take a fresh action would be nothing but an empty formality. The fact, however, remains that having adjudicated the issue on merit, that too, as to whether petitioner was in possession of required educational qualification or not, thus setting aside the order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice with liberty to take a fresh action would be nothing but an empty formality. It is only to cut short the whole issue and to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by this court, the matter has been thresh-hold on its merit to find out as to whether petitioner was in possession of required qualification or not. 20. In the aforesaid background, now no purpose survive in remitting the matter to the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing by setting aside the impugned order. This is more so when a candidate is lacking in requisite qualification for the post, thus not entitled to continue. The aforesaid issue has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan and anr vs. Kulwant Kaur”, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 564 , that too, in regard to the appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. In the case of “Andhra Kesri Educational Society vs. Director of School Education”, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 392 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :- “20. Before parting with the case, we should like to add a word more. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the 'engine' of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefitter. He must keep himself abreast of ever changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill trained or substandard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration.” 21. In the case aforesaid, petitioner was possessing only diploma in Tailoring. The Apex Court held that petitioner Kulwant Kaur was not in possession of requisite educational qualification thus had no right to continue on the post. It was again in reference to the circular issued by the government not recognising certain courses equivalent to BSTC as limited recognition was given for that purpose. Reference of the judgment in the case of “Mohd. Sartaj vs. State of UP”, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 315 has also been given therein. 22. In the aforesaid background and as held by the Apex Court that ineligible candidate has no right to continue in service, the issue aforesaid stands settled thus petitioner herein cannot be ordered to be continued even if lacking in qualification. This is more so when earlier an opportunity was existing with the petitioner to undertake bride course to become eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III but petitioner has not undertaken bridge course to get education of academic course. In the aforesaid background, judgments in the case of Mohd Iqbal (supra) rendered by the Division Bench of this court cannot be applied as prior to the aforesaid, Division Bench of this court gave a detailed judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Jhanjharia (supra) and it has not been referred in the later judgment of Mohd. Iqbal (supra). This is more so when in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra), Apex Court did not held the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), rather, therein Division Bench decided the matter taking note of equities as at the relevant time, set of Rules were requiring qualification of Secondary. 23. Iqbal (supra). This is more so when in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra), Apex Court did not held the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), rather, therein Division Bench decided the matter taking note of equities as at the relevant time, set of Rules were requiring qualification of Secondary. 23. In the aforesaid background, no case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order of termination. Hence, writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed.