JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioners, who are 49 in number, are graduates and have a degree of B.Ed. They have passed the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination (hereinafter referred to as ‘TET Examination’). The petitioners seek quashing of the Government Order dated 5th December, 2012 as well as the advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur. The petitioners also seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents-authority from making any selection in pursuance to the impugned Government Order/ advertisement by applying reservation and lastly a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioners with reference to the reservation in terms of the advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 and further to complete the process of selection in terms of the Rules existing prior to 30th November, 2011. 2. Sri Shailendra Advocate on behalf of the petitioners has raised the following pleas in respect of the reliefs prayed for (a) vacancies of Apprentice Teachers were advertised on 30th November, 2011, the advertisement was subsequently cancelled on 31st August, 2012 because of the amendments made in the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1981 Rules’), although the cancellation of advertisement is not being questioned in the present writ petition, but the vacancies earlier advertised should be filled in accordance with the Rules applicable on the date the advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 was made, and (b) that in ‘TET Examination’, reservation was applied and the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, were declared passed in the ‘TET Examination’ with reference to the marks fixed for the reserved categories. While making selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 7th December, 2012, the State Government cannot now apply reservation, as it will amount to double reservation. 3. The contentions raised by Sri Shailendra on behalf of the petitioners do not appeal to this Court. The advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 was published by the State inviting applications for appointment as Apprentice Teachers. This advertisement was cancelled under an order of the State Government dated 31st August, 2012. The legality of the decision so taken by the State Government was subject-matter of challenge in civil misc. writ petition No. 39674 of 2012, which has been dismissed by this Court under judgment and order dated 16th January, 2013. This advertisement was cancelled under an order of the State Government dated 31st August, 2012. The legality of the decision so taken by the State Government was subject-matter of challenge in civil misc. writ petition No. 39674 of 2012, which has been dismissed by this Court under judgment and order dated 16th January, 2013. Amongst others, it has been held that the advertisement for appointment as Apprentice Teachers was not inconformity with the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. The ‘1981 Rules’ did not contemplate any appointment as Apprentice Teachers on the relevant date. Therefore the vacancies subject-matter of advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 were non existent. 4. So far as the existing vacancies as per the cadre strength provided under Rule 4 of the ‘1981 Rules’ is concerned, this Court may record that prior to 16th amendment (amendment made by the State Government on 4th December, 2012), only substantive appointment on the post of Teacher in Parishadiya Vidyalayas was contemplated. Under 16th amendment in ‘1981 Rules’, appointment of Trainee Teachers has been introduced. 5. The ‘1981 Rules’ do not contemplate advertisement of vacancies year-wise. At no point of time, the vacancies against cadre posts were earlier advertised. Generally it is in cases where right of promotion occurs or where the vacancies are required to be published every year that the concept of application of Rules as applicable on the date of occurrence of the vacancies is to be applied. In all other cases on the date mentioned in the advertisement and in case no date is mentioned then the last date mentioned in the advertisement for making the application become the crucial date for judging the qualification of the candidates as per the Rules applicable. In the case of U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and another v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the contention raised by Sri Shailendra that the earlier vacancies should be filled in accordance with the Rules, which were existing on the date of occurrence of the vacancies, has no force. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the contention raised by Sri Shailendra that the earlier vacancies should be filled in accordance with the Rules, which were existing on the date of occurrence of the vacancies, has no force. It may also be noticed that Division Bench of this Court in Prabhakar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(1) ADJ 651, has held that subsequent to the notification of the minimum qualification by the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCTE’) dated 23rd August, 2010, passing of ‘TET Examination’ is an essential qualification for appointment as teachers in the institutions covered by the Right to Education Act, 2009 and no person, who has not possessed TET Examination, can be selected/appointed, except for the contingency covered by clause (3) of the notification. 7. So far as the plea of double reservation is concerned, the plea appears to be misconceived. Fixation of lower qualifying marks in the matter of TET Examination 2011 for the reserved category candidates has nothing to do with the reservation, which is to be applied in the matter of appointment as Trainee Teachers in terms of Advertisement of 2012 read with the 16th amendment affected in ‘1981 Rules’. Therefore it cannot be said that double reservation is being applied in the facts of the case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners made a reference to the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Prabhakar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No. 2366 of 2011), wherein it has been observed that it is not of much material as to whether the appointments are made as Trainee Teachers or Teachers. In my opinion, the observation is only a passing remark made by the Division Bench in the judgment, which was in respect of an entirely different issue. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 , has held that a decision is an authority for which it decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. A little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in Delhi Administration v. Manohar Lal, AIR 2002 SC 3088 . 9. A little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in Delhi Administration v. Manohar Lal, AIR 2002 SC 3088 . 9. So far as making of the application with reference to the new advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 is concerned, this Court under order passed in civil misc. writ petition No. 65811 of 2012, decided on 16th January, 2013 has granted liberty to persons who are B.A., B.Ed. to submit their applications in response to the advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 before 24th January, 2013. Such applications have also been directed to be considered. The present petitioners are also at liberty to avail the benefit of the said order passed in civil misc. writ petition No. 65811 of 2012. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for grant of the reliefs prayed for. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ——————