ORAL ORDER Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th July 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 11373 of 2009, the respondent-State of Bihar has preferred this Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The respondent-writ petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 11373 of 2009 for a direction to the State Government to implement the order dated 10th June 2009 made by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Katihar made in Appeal No. 1137 of 2009. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and has directed the State Government to give weightage to the higher qualification of Graduation obtained by the petitioners and other candidates and to revise the selection panel for appointment as Panchayat Teacher. Therefore, this Appeal. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar has appeared for the appellant-State of Bihar. He has submitted that under the relevant Rules, provision has been made to prepare a merit list of the candidates on the basis of average of the marks obtained by the candidates in the Intermediate Examination and at the Teachers Training. Even though a candidate possesses qualification higher than the Intermediate, such qualification is not counted for the purposes of merit list. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the Rules. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh has appeared for the respondent-writ petitioners. He has contested the Appeal. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh has submitted that a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for execution of the order of the Tribunal is maintainable. He has relied upon Rule 9(x) of the relevant Rules and has submitted that Graduates have been given preference in the matter of appointment as teachers. The trained Graduates being better qualified, they need be given weightage for their higher qualification. 5. The appointment of Panchayat Teachers is governed by the Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rule, 2006. Rule 8 thereof provides for the eligibility. Rule 9 thereof provides for recruitment procedure. Clause (v) of the said Rule 9 expressly provides that for preparing the merit list an average of the marks obtained at Matriculate or Higher Secondary or Intermediate Examination and at two years’ training at B.L.Ed./B.Ed. examination will be considered. The said clause also provides for a weightage of 20 marks for the experience in education. Clause (v) of the said Rule 9 expressly provides that for preparing the merit list an average of the marks obtained at Matriculate or Higher Secondary or Intermediate Examination and at two years’ training at B.L.Ed./B.Ed. examination will be considered. The said clause also provides for a weightage of 20 marks for the experience in education. However, nothing in the said Rule provides for weightage for qualification higher than the Matriculate or Higher Secondary or Intermediate. Clause (x) of the said Rule 9 provides that the candidates possessing higher qualification of Graduate be given preference in respect of posting as Block Teacher. It is the aforesaid clause (x) which has weighed with the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, held that weightage requires to be given to the trained Graduate teachers for their higher qualification. In the said view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has directed the State Government to revise the merit list as aforesaid. 6. To us it appears that the Petition itself is misconceived. At the outset, we may note that extra-ordinary power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for execution of the orders made by the authorities below. Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant for downgrading the High Court as an executive authority for execution of the orders made by the authorities below. 7. We may also note that the authority below did not issue any direction to revise the panel as suggested by the respondent-writ petitioners. The only direction issued by the authority below was to include names of the writ petitioners in the selection panel if they had secured sufficiently high marks. In the Writ Petition, it was categorical case of the State Government that none of the petitioners had secured marks at the Intermediate level higher than the selected candidates. Once it was disputed that the petitioners did not have the marks high enough to be included in the select list, the matter should end there. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to rely on Rule 9(x) to hold that the Graduate teachers have a right to preference. True, the teachers possessing qualification of Graduation have a right to preference, but in the matter of posting in Block level schools. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to rely on Rule 9(x) to hold that the Graduate teachers have a right to preference. True, the teachers possessing qualification of Graduation have a right to preference, but in the matter of posting in Block level schools. For preparation of the merit list, it is only the marks obtained at the Matriculate or Intermediate or Higher Secondary examination, and marks obtained at teachers training in B.L.Ed./B.Ed. Marks obtained in Graduate examination are irrelevant. The learned Single Judge has read the provisions contained in Rule 9(x) in Rule 9(v). The approach of the learned Single Judge is manifestly erroneous. Every provision of law has to be read the way it has been enacted or framed. This Court exercising power of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not justified in reading the provision where there is none or in rewriting the legislative provisions. The learned Single Judge has essentially acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Moreover, in absence of the selected candidates, the impugned direction to revise the select list could not have been issued. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25th July 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 11373 of 2009 is set aside. CWJC No. 11373 of 2009 is dismissed. 10. Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.