CAV JUDGMENT MIHIR KUMAR JHA, J. 1. All these writ applications, having an identical question and in fact challenging the same order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Department of Education, Government of Bihar clarifying that the degree of Bachelor in Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.Ed.) from the Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as well as from Tribhuvan University would not qualify for appointment on the post of teachers in terms of Bihar Secondary/Higher Secondary Teacher Employment Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2006 Rules’), have been heard by this Court on different dates and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts in all these cases are almost one and the same. The petitioners are aspirant for being appointed on the post of teachers in the High/Higher Secondary Schools of the State of Bihar. All of them claim to be the resident of State of Bihar and are said to have acquired their degree of B.Ed. from the different Institutions/Universities in State of Jammu and Kashmir, primarily from the University of Jammu or University of Kashmir in the academic sessions of 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. According to them, they had filed their applications for appointment on the post of teacher in terms of the advertisement and in fact had also appeared in the teachers eligibility test and were declared successful, but all of a sudden, the said impugned order was issued debarring them from the zone of consideration on account of their degree of B.Ed., acquired from the universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, being not in accordance with Rule 4(d) of the 2006 Rules. 3. 3. Having regard to the importance of the impugned order dated 01.03.2013, which has been assailed in all these writ applications, this Court would find it convenient to extract the copy of the impugned order in verbatim which reads as follows: i=kad&11@fo 1&15@2012 362 fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx izs"kd] ftrsUnz izlkn la;qDr lfpoA lsok esa] lHkh ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh iVuk] fnukad 1@3@2013 egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k eas funs'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd fcgkj ek/;fed@mPp ek/;fed f'k{kd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh 2006 ds fu;e&4¼d½ (iii) ds vuqlkj jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ds vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 vFkok vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds ckn jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 dh fMxzh ek/;fed f'k{kd ds in ij fu;qfDr dh fu/kkZfjr vgZrkvksa esa ls ,d vgZrk gSa Li"Vr;k jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds mijkar fdlh fo'ofo|ky; dks ftls jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr ugha gS ls izkIr ch0 ,M0 fMxzh/kkjh f'k{kd ds in ij fu;kstu dh vgZrk iw.kZ ugha djsaxsA f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky; tks ,d fons'kh fo'ofo|ky; gS rFkk tEew ,oa d'ehj tgka jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e ykxw ugha gksrk gS] esa vofLFkr laLFkkuksa ls ch0 ,M0 dh fMxzh/kkjh ek/;fed@mPp ek/;fed fu;kstu dh vgZrk iw.kZ ugha djsaxsA fo'oklHkktu g0@& 01-3-13 ¼ftrsUnz izlkn½ la;qDr lfpo Kkikad 11@fo 1&15@2012 362 fnukad 1@3@2013 izfrfyfi& funs'kd izkFkfed f'k{kk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA mi;qZDr rF;kas ls lacf/kr fu;kstu bdkbZ ds lnL;ksa lfpoksa dks Hkh voxr djk;k tk;A** 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the aforementioned impugned order, have laid their stress that Jammu and Kashmir is the part of India and since National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which came into force with effect from 1.7.1995, is not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the degree of B.Ed., acquired from the different Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, cannot be held to be inadmissible rendering the candidates including the petitioners passing the examination of B.Ed. from the aforementioned Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, disqualified for appointment for the post of teachers in the State of Bihar. 5. In this regard, Mr. from the aforementioned Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, disqualified for appointment for the post of teachers in the State of Bihar. 5. In this regard, Mr. Yaduvansh Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, was of the view that Rule 4 ¼d½ of the 2006 Rules is in two parts and when the first part itself envisages that degree of B.Ed., acquired form any recognized training institution prior to coming into force of the Act, was a valid qualification and the restriction imposed by the impugned order referring to only second part of the Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) of the 2006 Rules as with regard to acquisition of the qualification of B.Ed. degree from an Institution recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the NCTE’) after enforcement of the Act, is factually incorrect and illegally impermissible. 6. Mr. Mukul Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, having adopted the submission of Mr. Y.V.Giri, had also referred to a judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 6936 of 2009 disposed of on 06.08.2010 to contend that the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 holding the degree of B.Ed. from Tribhuban University becomes bad inasmuch as one part of the impugned order is in teeth of the judgment of this Court, the other part also relating to the degree of B.Ed. from the Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to be not qualifying for the post of teacher in the State of Bihar, has to be essentially also declared to be bad. 7. Mr. Vindhyachal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of these writ petitions, apart from adopting the submission of Mr. Giri and Mr. Sinha, had also referred to the past practice as also discrimination on account of earlier appointment in the State of Bihar on the post of teacher having been made on the basis of B.Ed. degree from the Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He had also expanded his submission by citing the provision of Section 12 of the Act and introducing the concept of deemed recognition. In this regard, reference has also been made to the communication made by NCTE to contend that when NCTE itself has declared the degree of B.Ed. degree from the Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He had also expanded his submission by citing the provision of Section 12 of the Act and introducing the concept of deemed recognition. In this regard, reference has also been made to the communication made by NCTE to contend that when NCTE itself has declared the degree of B.Ed. acquired from the State of Jammu and Kashmir to be a valid degree for appointment in the Central or any State Government, every incidence of acquiring degree of B.Ed. from an Institution/University recognized by the NCTE by the State of Bihar as sought to be projected in the impugned order has to be declared as arbitrary and illegal by this Court. 8. The aforesaid submissions of Mr. Giri, Mr. Sinha and Mr. Singh have also been adopted by other learned counsel appearing in the batch of these writ applications. All of them have also placed reliance on an unreported Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which according to them has also been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. V. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors.; [ (2010) 13 SCC 203 ]. 9. Leading the argument for the State of Bihar, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned G.P. 2, has laid stress on the aspect that the impugned order has been issued only by way of clarification of the rules and nothing new has been stated by way of clarification. He has also submitted that the petitioners are covered only by the second part of the provisions of Rule 4 ¼d½ (d)(iii) of the 2006 Rules inasmuch as all of them have completed their B.Ed. degree course from the different Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and, therefore, none of them can claim benefit of the first part of the 2006 Rules as with regard to acquiring B.Ed. degree from the recognized training institutions prior to coming into force of the Act with effect from 01.07.1995. 10. Expanding his submissions, Mr. degree from the recognized training institutions prior to coming into force of the Act with effect from 01.07.1995. 10. Expanding his submissions, Mr. Singh has emphasized on the aspect that laying down of qualification is a prerogative of the employer and once the same was laid down by the statutory Rule specifying qualification for the post of teacher of the High/Higher Secondary Schools by the State of Bihar no exception can be claimed by the petitioners as with regard to acquisition of qualification of B.Ed. from any another Institutions/Universities, save and except, from those recognized institutions which have been recognized by the NCTE. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioners having not fulfilled such qualification of B.Ed. training cannot claim for being considered for appointment on the post of teachers in terms of the advertisement in question. Mr. Singh has also explained that the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which alone was affirmed by the Apex Court, is clearly distinguishable on facts, particularly such statutory Rule, as is in force in the State of Bihar, was not even in existence in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 11. Having given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions, the first and foremost issue for this Court will be as to whether the petitioners possess the requisite qualification for the post of teachers in the High/Higher Secondary Schools. 12. As noted above, the State Government, in exercise of its power under Article 243 of the Constitution read with Section 73 and 143 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, has framed rules for appointment of teachers in the High/Higher Secondary Schools and while Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary/Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 is in relation to appointment of the teachers in the rural area High/Higher Secondary Schools of the Government of Bihar. Bihar Nagar Nikai Secondary/Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 is with regard to appointment of the teachers in the High/Higher Secondary Schools of the Government of Bihar in the urban area. The impugned order, in fact, has been issued in respect of teachers of both types, High/Higher Secondary Schools in rural and in urban area and both of the Rules being para materia clearly lay down the same thing that in terms of Rule 4 ¼d½ , the candidates passing their B.Ed. The impugned order, in fact, has been issued in respect of teachers of both types, High/Higher Secondary Schools in rural and in urban area and both of the Rules being para materia clearly lay down the same thing that in terms of Rule 4 ¼d½ , the candidates passing their B.Ed. examination from Tribhuban University and/or from the Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir where the Act is not in force, are not eligible for appointment on the post of teachers. 13. It would be thus significant for this Court to consider the impact and scope of Rule 4 ¼d½ of the 2006 Rules which is identical in the case of appointment of the teachers in the High/Higher Secondary Schools either in the rural area or in the urban area which, as noted above, are governed by the two different rules. 13. It would be thus significant for this Court to consider the impact and scope of Rule 4 ¼d½ of the 2006 Rules which is identical in the case of appointment of the teachers in the High/Higher Secondary Schools either in the rural area or in the urban area which, as noted above, are governed by the two different rules. Rule 4(d) of the Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary/ Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 reads as follows: ^^4- fu;qfDr gsrq& ¼d½ ftyk ifj"kn~ ek/;fed f'k{kd ds fy, vgrkZ%& (i) Hkkjr ds ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksA (ii) fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; ls U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk Lukrd dh fMxzh gksA vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ@fiNM+k oxZ ,oa fodykax ds fy, U;wure fu/kkZfjr vad esa 5 izfr'kr dh NwV nh tk,xhA ijUrq fcgkj enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk iznRr vkfye dh fMxzh ,oa dkes'oj flag njHkaxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; }kjk iznRr 'kkL=h ds fMxzh dks Lukrd ds lerqY; ekuk tk;sxkA (iii) jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 vFkok vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds ckn jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ch0 ,M0 dh fMxzhA Rule 4(d) of the Bihar Nagar Nikai Secondary/ Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 reads as under: ^^4- fu;qfDr gsrq& ¼d½ uxj ek/;fed f'k{kd ds fy, vgrkZ%& (i) Hkkjr ds ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksA (ii) fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; ls U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk Lukrd dh fMxzh gksA vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ@fiNM+k oxZ ,oa fodykax ds fy, U;wure fu/kkZfjr vad esa 5 izfr'kr dh NwV nh tk,xhA ijUrq fcgkj enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk iznRr vkfye dh fMxzh ,oa dkes'oj flag njHkaxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; }kjk iznRr 'kkL=h ds fMxzh dks Lukrd ds lerqY; ekuk tk;sxkA (iii) jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 vFkok vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds ckn jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ch0 ,M0 dh fMxzhA** (underlining for emphasis) 14. As would be apparent from Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) in both the Rules, they specifically prescribe qualification of Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) as a condition precedent for appointment on the post of teachers in High and Higher Secondary Schools. As would be apparent from Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) in both the Rules, they specifically prescribe qualification of Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) as a condition precedent for appointment on the post of teachers in High and Higher Secondary Schools. In fact Rule ¼d½ (iii) can be easily divided into two parts on the basis of date of acquiring of such qualification of B.Ed., namely, prior to coming into force of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) or after the aforesaid Act came into force. It is also not in dispute that the Act came into force with effect from 1.7.1995 in view of S.O.No. 620(E) dated 1.7.1995, whereby and whereunder the Central Government had fixed the date of 1.7.1995 as a date on which the Act came into force. Thus, all that Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) lays down is that such of the candidates who had acquired B.Ed. degree prior to 1.7.1995 must have acquired them from the recognized training institutions whereas those who have acquired B.Ed. degree after 1.7.1995 must have acquired their B.Ed. degree from the recognized training institutions by National Council for Teacher Education. 15. In the backdrop of the aforementioned provisions of the Act coming into force with effect from 1.7.1995 and the Act itself defining the expression ‘Institution’ under section 2(e) of the Act as also ‘recognized Institution’ under section 2(i) of the Act, there would be no difficulty in understanding that under the Rules of appointment for the post of teacher under Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) the B.Ed. degree of a candidate after 1.7.1995 was to be acquired only from a Institution offering course or training in the teacher education which has been recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education under section 14 of the Act. 16. Lest there be any confusion, the Act also defines the expression “teacher education’ in section 2(l) and further the expression ‘teacher education qualification’ under section 2(m) of the Act. Thus, the course of B.Ed. which is a teacher education in terms of Section 2(l) of the Act, its degree becomes teacher education qualification in terms of Section 2(m) of the Act which has been defined to mean a degree, diploma or certificate in teacher education awarded by a University or examining body in accordance with the provision of the Act. which is a teacher education in terms of Section 2(l) of the Act, its degree becomes teacher education qualification in terms of Section 2(m) of the Act which has been defined to mean a degree, diploma or certificate in teacher education awarded by a University or examining body in accordance with the provision of the Act. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act there will be no difficulty for this Court in holding that the degree of B.Ed. acquired after 1.7.1995 which would qualify a candidate to be appointed as a teacher in High or Higher Secondary Schools of the State of Bihar in terms of Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) will be only from such teachers training Institutions which have been recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). 17. There being no ifs and buts in Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) as with regard to qualification of B.Ed., the petitioners, all of whom, have passed their B.Ed. examination from the different Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 2008 and onwards, therefore, cannot take any advantage of the first part of the 2006 Rules in respect of recognized Institutions/Universities prior to coming into force of the Act. At the cost of the repetition, it has to be clarified that since none of the petitioners claimed that they had acquired their qualification of B.Ed. from any of the Institutions/Universities in the State of Jammu and Kashmir prior to 01.07.1995 when the Act came into force, their cases of being qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of teacher in the State of Bihar in terms of the aforementioned 2006 Rules have to be essentially judged from the requirement that was laid down in the 2006 Rules relating to acquisition of B.Ed. qualification from the institutions after coming into force of the Act on 01.07.1995. 18. It is only on account of this reason that all the petitioners become disqualified for being appointed as teachers in terms of Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) of 2006 Rules because all of them have passed their B.Ed. examination in the year 2008 or thereafter, and none of their Institutions are recognized by the NCTE. 18. It is only on account of this reason that all the petitioners become disqualified for being appointed as teachers in terms of Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) of 2006 Rules because all of them have passed their B.Ed. examination in the year 2008 or thereafter, and none of their Institutions are recognized by the NCTE. Thus, there would be no difficulty for this Court in holding that the petitioners are not possessing the requisite qualification as prescribed in Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) and eventually are ineligible for appointment on the post of teachers in the High/Higher Secondary School. 19. Having held that the petitioners are not qualified for appointment to the post of teacher in terms of Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii), there will be also no difficulty for this Court in approving the impugned order, which in fact does not say anything more other than clarifying the object and scope of the aforementioned rules. Since the recruiting units, at the level of the District headed by the District Education Officer, were to be given specific clarification for considering the eligibility of the candidates, the clarification issued by the State Government by the impugned order, therefore, also cannot be held to be bad on any score. 20. This Court will not go into the question as to whether the Institutions or the Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir have been recognized by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UGC') and, their degree, being also found to be equivalent by the UGC, will have its value either for appointment or for admission in higher course, in such places where there is no restriction of the Institution being recognized by the NCTE. In other words, no one is questioning the competence of the petitioners on the basis of their B.Ed. qualification acquired from the Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and, in fact, all that is being said by the impugned order is that in terms of Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) that they did not possess the requisite qualification of B.Ed. for appointment on the post of teachers in the rural and urban area High and Higher Secondary Schools of the State of Bihar. 21. for appointment on the post of teachers in the rural and urban area High and Higher Secondary Schools of the State of Bihar. 21. Thus, whatever clarification may have been issued by the NCTE, as has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in all their writ applications, can also be of no avail so far it relates to appointment on the post of teachers in the State of Bihar pursuant to the advertisement wherein the provisions of Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) were also reproduced in verbatim. 22. Once, this aspect becomes clear that the Institutions/Universities in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are not to be governed by the Act in view of the specific provision made in the Act itself, there would be hardly any occasion for this Court to go into any other aspect as to whether the degrees of B.Ed. from those Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are of equivalent to the B.Ed. degree acquired from the Institutions/Universities having the recognition of NCTE inasmuch as in the statutory rules the qualification laid down is only as with regard to acquisition of B.Ed. degree from the Institutions having recognition of NCTE. 23. The issue of equivalence of a qualification or degree being a jinxed question of fact can never be safely decided within the limited parameters of Writ Jurisdiction as was held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satyendra Singh & ors. v. Sanjay Kumar & ors., reported in 2001(1) PLJR 104 , relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “12. Prescribing qualification for a particular post by the competent authority is a policy decision. The Government frames a policy after taking into consideration the number of facts and circumstances, expert opinion and other relevant considerations. The power of judicial review in such matters is limited. The Court can interfere only when the authorities have acted arbitrarily or in violation of the statutory or constitutional provisions. The Court does not sit as an appellate forum in disguise over the policy matter. It has no power to re-frame the policy matter and in case the policy matter is found suffering from any legal infirmities as indicted above, then the same is to be struck down and the matter is sent to the authority to consider the policy matter in accordance with law laid down. It has no power to re-frame the policy matter and in case the policy matter is found suffering from any legal infirmities as indicted above, then the same is to be struck down and the matter is sent to the authority to consider the policy matter in accordance with law laid down. If the rules have been framed prescribing the qualification for a particular post, the Court has no power to re-frame the rules or supplement the rule by adding additional qualification for the simple reason that this is a function of the appointing and in the case of any legal lacuna the Court can only direct the appointing authority to consider the matter on the basis of the expert opinion and other relevant consideration. The Court cannot on the basis of the documents appended with the affidavit determine the equivalence or addition of qualification in the recruitment rules. 15. Thus, the law is settled that when the recruitment rules provide for a requisite qualification and the question arises as to whether any other qualification is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules or not, then that question has to be decided by the competent authority and the Court cannot amend the rule or reframe it and the Court can only direct the concerned authority to re-examine the matter specially in a technical matter, like this, after obtaining the expert’s opinion. The Court cannot take a final decision on the basis of affidavit and the opinion of the expert and decide such matter. The power of judicial review in such a matter is very limited and in case if the State Government decides the matter and the same is found to be arbitrary, mala fide then the Court will consider the same keeping in view the scope of judicial review in such matter. 18. The question involved in the case relates to filing up technical posts and as such it cannot be decided on the basis of certain documents appended with the affidavit by the Court in view of the settled law regarding the power of judicial review by the Apex Court in such matter. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was not justified in deciding the question that qualification possessed by respondent no. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was not justified in deciding the question that qualification possessed by respondent no. 1 was equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules inasmuch as that amounts to amending the rules and re-framing the rules which is not permissible in law…” 24. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sadhana Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. in Special Appeal No. 1323D of 2009 is also wholly misplaced inasmuch as the fact in issue in the said judgment was entirely different. The said judgment on the face of record will go to show that Smt. Sadhana Singh, the petitioner, before the Allahabad High Court, having obtained the degree of B.Ed. from the State of Jammu & Kashmir, was denied admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 which was specially designed for those who had completed B.Ed. degree. Thus, that was a case of admission for higher degree in which the candidates were required to possess at least B.Ed. degree. 25. Moreover, from the reading of the Division Bench Judgment of the Allahabad, it does not transpire that there was any statutory rule alike the present Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) of the 2006 Rules also applicable in the case of Smt. Sadhana Singh (supra), which required admission in B.T.C. course from amongst only such B.Ed. candidates, who had acquired their qualification of B.Ed. from the Institutions/Universities recognized by the NCTE. Thus, the absence of statutory rules in the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sadhana Singh (Supra) will make all the difference and, therefore, the said judgment of Smt. Sadhana Singh (supra) will be of no avail for deciding the case of the petitioners in hand. Moreover, from reading of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Sadhana Singh (supra), it becomes absolutely clear that there was, in fact, already direction given by the Allahabad High Court in an earlier case of one Surendra Kumar Gupta for considering the degree of B.Ed. conferred by the duly constituted Universities in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to be also made applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 26. conferred by the duly constituted Universities in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to be also made applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 26. Thus, whatever view was recorded by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sadhana Singh (supra) was in relation to not only to the facts of that case but also with regard to an earlier decision of the State Government to recognize the degree of B.Ed. from that Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the State of Uttar Prasad. This, however, is not position in the present case because the State of Bihar at no point of time has issued any circular much less incorporated them in the statutory rules. 27. The next decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra) also will not apply to the facts of the case of the petitioners for the simple reason that the Apex Court again therein was dealing with regard to admission to basic teachers training certificate course from amongst the candidates who had acquired B.Ed. degree. As a matter of fact, Paragraph No. 21 of the judgment of the Apex Court reading as follows: "Before we proceed further, one important factor that is required to be borne in mind in the present case is that on the date of notification all the colleges from which the writ petitioners obtained their degrees were recognised by NCTE. We make it clear that the candidates securing the degrees from those institutions whose applications were ultimately rejected by NCTE stand entirely on different footing. The real question that falls for our consideration is whether only B.Ed candidates who have obtained this degree after grant of recognition by NCTE or those candidates who have obtained their degree when the application of the institution for recognition was pending or such of those candidates who have obtained B.Ed degree prior to commencement of the Act on 1-7-1995 are also eligible to join the BTC course". (underlining for emphasis) by itself would be sufficient to indicate that all the petitioners in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra), who wanted to be admitted in BTC course had passed their B.Ed. course from such institutions whose degrees were recognised by the NCTE. (underlining for emphasis) by itself would be sufficient to indicate that all the petitioners in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra), who wanted to be admitted in BTC course had passed their B.Ed. course from such institutions whose degrees were recognised by the NCTE. Thus, whatever was said by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra) while affirming the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has to be confined to the facts of that case, as would be also apparent from the concluding paragraph no. 35 of the aforementioned judgment which reads as follows: "There is no quarrel with the proposition that the State in its discretion is entitled to prescribe such qualifications as it may consider appropriate for candidates seeking admission into BTC course so long as the qualifications so prescribed are not lower than those prescribed by or under the NCTE Act. The State can always prescribe higher qualification, but the argument proceeds on the assumption that B.Ed qualification obtained from only such of those institutions established and recognised by NCTE after the Act coming into force is higher or superior than the B.Ed qualification obtained from the universities or affiliated colleges duly recognised by the University Grants Commission prior to the Act coming into force. What is the rational basis for such a presumption? None. This fact assumes significance particularly in the light of the fact that all the institutions from where the candidates obtained their B.Ed qualification have themselves received recognition from the Regional Council after the NCTE Act came into force". (underlining for emphasis) 28. The plea of discrimination and the earlier past practice of appointing of teachers in the State of Bihar, from amongst the degree holders of B.Ed. acquired from the Institutions/Universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, will also have no relevance inasmuch not a single case has been cited before this Court wherein any appointment on the post of teacher in the High/Higher Secondary Schools after enforcement of the 2006 Rules on the basis of degree of B.Ed. obtained from the universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been made. Thus, whatever may have happened prior to enforcement of 2006 Rules which alone laid down the requirement of B.Ed. obtained from the universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been made. Thus, whatever may have happened prior to enforcement of 2006 Rules which alone laid down the requirement of B.Ed. degree from an Institution/University recognized by the NCTE, the same cannot be made applicable in view of the specific provision contained in Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) of the 2006 Rules. 29. As a matter of fact, this Court was not even required to come into the question at such length inasmuch as this very issue in relation to the same impugned order dated 01.03.2013 was already decided by an order of this Court dated 10.04.2013 in CWJC No. 6251 of 2013 (Chanchla Kumari & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) which was dismissed and has become final. 30. Before parting with, this Court must clarify that as none of these cases relating to any of the petitioners acquiring qualification from Tribhuvan University, this Court would not like to make any comment on the judgment dated 06.08.2010 in CWJC No. 6936 of 2009 (Purushottam Pandey v. State of Bihar & Ors.) in context of the Rule 4 ¼d½ (iii) which is the subject matter of these writ applications. As a matter of fact, the following observation made in the case of Purushottam Pandey (supra) will itself go against the petitioners wherein it was held as follows: “Thus, having considered the matter, to me it appears the situation is clear. Where the B.Ed degree is obtained from Tribhuwan University as a Post Graduate Course, it is accepted as equivalent to Indian B.Ed degree from any University. The Circular issued by the State Government, to the contrary, is based on misapprehension of fact and is not correct to that extent. In case State Government still has some confusion in its mind, it can always consult the Association of Indian Universities which is the Apex Body in this regard. Before parting, I may notice one more aspect that in the advertisements that are issued by the State of Bihar, it is mentioned that the B.Ed Course must have sanction of NCTE. So far that is concerned, it is a valid requirement so far as Universities or Institutions in India are concerned but NCTE does not control foreign Universities. That will not apply to foreign University like Tribhuwan University”. (underlining for emphasis) 31. So far that is concerned, it is a valid requirement so far as Universities or Institutions in India are concerned but NCTE does not control foreign Universities. That will not apply to foreign University like Tribhuwan University”. (underlining for emphasis) 31. As noted above, the judgment of this Court in the case of Purushottam Pandey (supra) first of all it deals with some circular and does not take into account the statutory rules laying down the qualification for appointment to the post of teachers in the High/Higher Secondary Schools and secondly, even in the case of Purushottam Pandey (supra) it has been held that the requirement of B.Ed. course, having been sanctioned by the NCTE, is a valid requirement so far as Institutions/Universities in India are concerned. This Court, however, must hasten to add and clarify that whatever has been stated in the case of Purushottam Pandey (supra) even in respect of Tribhuvan University may not be the last word because that judgment was rendered without taking into consideration the statutory rules and would automatically be rendered per incuriam in case any candidate of Tribhuvan University would come out to challenge the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 issued by the Joint Secretary of the Government of Bihar as with regard to clarification of qualification for the post of teachers in the High/Higher Secondary Schools. 32. As a matter of fact, this Court in a judgment dated 13.12.2013 in CWJC No. 19784 of 2013 (Rabindra Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) has dismissed the writ application wherein the same impugned order dated 01.03.2013 was assailed by one Rabindra Kumar Sinha who was claiming eligibility for appointment to the post of teacher in Higher/Higher Secondary Schools on the basis of his qualification of B.Ed. degree obtained from the Tribhuvan University. 33. Be that as it may, so far these writ applications are concerned, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that all the petitioners having passed their B.Ed. course from different universities of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 2008 onwards are not eligible for being appointed on the post of teachers in the High and Higher Secondary Schools governed by the 2006 Rules. 34. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court does not find any merit in these writ applications and they are accordingly dismissed.