JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) There has been some delay in preferring these appeals and, accordingly, Applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeals. We have considered the averments made in the Applications for condonation of delay in preferring the appeals and, being satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons furnished therein, allow the Applications for condonation of delay in preferring the appeals. 2. The subject matter of these appeals are identical. The facts giving rise to the writ petitions, on which a combined judgment and order was passed, which has been appealed against in these appeals, are also identical and laws applicable thereto are also identical. We have, accordingly, decided these appeals together. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that the recruitment in the instant case is governed by The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grades) Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the said “Rules”). The validity of the said Rules has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171. For the post of LT Grade (TGT) Teacher in Physical Education, the said Rules provide as follows: “Bachelor’s Degree from a recognised University or a Degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto, and Diploma in Physical Education.” 4. The above-quoted words have been provided against Serial No. 6 appended below Rule 8 of the said Rules. Rule 8 of the said Rules provides as follows: “A candidate for direct recruitment to the various posts in the service must possess the following qualifications or as specified by the Government from time to time.” 5. The stipulation, thus contained in Rule 8 of the said Rules, created a confusion. Whereas the Diploma Holders contended that, unless a candidate is possessed of Diploma, he is not qualified; the Degree Holders contended that, since they have a better qualification, because they do not have the lesser qualification, they cannot be ignored. The contention of the Degree Holders succeeded before a Division Bench on the principle laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, reported in (2002) Supp. 1 JT 85 / (2002) 2 UJ 941. The contention of the Degree Holders succeeded before a Division Bench on the principle laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, reported in (2002) Supp. 1 JT 85 / (2002) 2 UJ 941. The success of the Degree Holders before the Division Bench, however, was for a small duration, inasmuch as, on review, the Division Bench recalled the said order. 6. The principle, upon which the Division Bench upheld the contentions of the Degree Holders, is sound and, accordingly, cannot be questioned. 7. Inasmuch as the Division Bench had upheld the contentions of the Degree Holders, that called for making a re-exercise of determining the final selection list. Accordingly, a final selection list was made. In terms thereof, some of the Diploma Holders, who had already been selected and appointed, lost their appointments. Those Diploma Holders applied to the Division Bench for reviewing its order. At their instance, Division Bench reviewed its decision. Those Diploma Holders also filed independent writ petitions contending that they, and not the Degree Holders, had requisite qualification in terms of the said Rules. Therefore, the writ petitions of the Degree Holders and the Diploma Holders came to be decided together and, by the judgment and order under appeal, those have been decided together. The learned Judge has upheld the contention of the Degree Holders that, since Degree is a superior qualification than Diploma, there was no just reason not to consider the candidature of the Degree Holders. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding. 8. At the time when the writ petitions were being heard, learned Additional Advocate General made a statement to the Court that 193 vacancies are still available. The Court, accordingly, directed adjustment of the writ petitioners/respondents, Degree Holders, in those 193 vacancies by the judgment and order under appeal. It is the contention of the State that, before such statement was made, 193 vacancies were advertised and selection process, pursuant to that advertisement, continued and, during the pendency of the writ petitions itself, those vacancies were supplied. It has been contended that, in view of the matter, the direction contained in the judgment and order under appeal to adjust the Degree Holder writ petitioners/respondents is, now, not possible. It has been contended that, in view of the matter, the direction contained in the judgment and order under appeal to adjust the Degree Holder writ petitioners/respondents is, now, not possible. It has been correctly stated by the counsel for the respondents that, when the Court was made to believe a fact by a representation made by the learned Additional Advocate General, if the representation made by the learned Additional Advocate General was based on mistaken instructions, law required the State to approach the Court, who relied upon such statement, for rectification/correction thereof, but not to assail such statement by filing an appeal. 9. However, the fact remains that, in the instant appeals, a statement has been made by the State in its stay petitions to the effect that, when the combined list was prepared after the Division Bench held that the Degree Holders are also entitled to be considered, none of the writ petitioners, respondents in these appeals, came within the list of selectees. This assertion, made in the affidavit filed in support of the Stay Application, has not been denied by filing an independent affidavit by any of the writ petitioners. Be that as it may, that is a new fact brought to the notice of this Court in the appeals for the first time. The appellate court will not place any credence thereon. The logical conclusion would be that the State would be required to, once again, make a select list in respect of the posts, which were advertised and, in respect whereof, writ petitioners had applied and, in the event, writ petitioners are not within the select list in respect of those advertised posts, they must be informed individually in that regard. The above exercise must be carried out within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the exercise, as above, should be made only in respect of the writ petitioners vis-à-vis those who have been selected and appointed and not in respect of any other Degree Holder. It is made clear that, in the event, it is found that any of the writ petitioners was entitled to be appointed for he should have been selected, he be given an appointment in a post that will fall vacant in future without disturbing the appointments already given to the Diploma Holders. 10. With the directions as above, the appeals are disposed of.