JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri M. Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri K. Jagat, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Shri L. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/applicant and Shri A. Modhuchandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5/applicant. 2. The above Misc. Applications have been filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively praying for modification of the order dated 17-08-2015 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 646 of 2015 on the inter alia grounds that the petitioner has approached this court, without clean hands, claiming himself to be the senior most unapproved Graduate Teacher and that the petitioner has concealed the material fact that since he has already been appointed as approved Under-Graduate Teacher vide order dated 16-07-2012, he is not entitled to be considered for appointment as approved Graduate Teacher. 3. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the proceedings of the DPC held on 03-03-2015 for appointment of the respondent No. 5 as approved Graduate Teacher in respect of Khekman Wangmataba High School (Aided), Thoubal on the recommendation of the School Management Committee. The grounds on which the said writ petition has been filed are, inter-alia, that Shri W. Kumar Singh, the respondent No. 5 was nominated by the School Management Committee, newly formed stealthily and illegally, in gross violation of the Education Code, 1982 and other relevant rules and that the petitioner being the senior most unapproved Graduate Teacher in the school and also in-charge headmaster of the said school, was not considered for being nominated for appointment as approved Graduate Teacher. On the prima facie case being made out by the petitioner and being found in the matter, this court has passed the said interim order dated 17-08-2015 directing that no appointment order shall be issued, pursuant to the outcome of the DPC, in respect of the Khekman Wangmataba High School (Aided), Thoubal without the leave of this court. 4. Without going into the merits of the case and even assuming that the petitioner has been appointed as approved Under- Graduate Teacher, the question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the petitioner can be denied an opportunity for being considered for appointment as approved Graduate Teacher or not. 4. Without going into the merits of the case and even assuming that the petitioner has been appointed as approved Under- Graduate Teacher, the question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the petitioner can be denied an opportunity for being considered for appointment as approved Graduate Teacher or not. It may be noted that similar issues have already been dealt with by this court on 12-06-2015 in a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 148 of 2015 wherein the learned Single Judge has held as under:– 11. In the present case, this court is concerned with the third stage as stated above at para 9(c). The grievance of the petitioner is that while proposing the name of the respondent No. 6 by the School Managing Committee, her name was not considered at all though she was eligible for consideration being the senior most teacher and only the name of the respondent No. 6 was proposed because, at that time, his sister was the Secretary of the School Managing Committee. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since there is no criteria to be used by the authorities at various levels including the School Managing Committee, the School Managing Committee ought to have followed the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. The fact that no uniform criteria being laid down/prescribed by the State Government is evident from instances, one of which being that in which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 16-10-1986 issued by the Inspector of Schools, ID, Zone - I whereby the appointment of an assistant graduate teacher as graduate teacher was approved and the other is the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 208 of 2015 in which, listed along with the present case at one time, a resolution was passed by the School Managing Committee recommending that an undergraduate approved teacher be promoted to the vacant post of graduate teacher. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.P Royappa (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14 and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16.” From the said instances it is thus seen that no specific criteria has been prescribed by the State Government and the issue involved herein will have to be considered keeping in mind the fact that mere approval of a teacher by the State Government under the Manipur Education Code, 1982 does not amount to appointment as Government employee and the approved teacher continues to be the employee of the Aided School. There is no master and servant relationship between the approved teacher and the State Government and the State Government’s relation is only with the School through its Managing Committee. The only thing is that an approved teacher gets the same pay and allowances as is given to the corresponding government teacher. “12. The learned Government Advocate has vehemently submitted that in the present case, the State Level Selection Committee is the one which has to select teachers from the “senior most unapproved eligible teachers” which is the basis for selection. Reliance has been placed by him in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsi Ram Patel Case (supra) to contend that the maxim “expressum facit cessare tacitum”(when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) will apply to the facts of the present case. As regards the instances mentioned above, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the same might have been done by mistake which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and to support his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP Vs. As regards the instances mentioned above, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the same might have been done by mistake which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and to support his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP Vs. Rajkumar Sharma (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person and Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if State committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. There can be no doubt about the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said cases but the same will not apply to the facts of the present case. These words “senior most unapproved eligible teachers” seem to have laid down the criteria or the basis but they do not provide a clear-cut criteria/basis at all and one question may arise as to whether an unapproved undergraduate with qualification of a graduate teacher, can be considered for approval of a graduate teacher or whether an unapproved graduate teacher can be considered for approval of a undergraduate teacher because the salary given to an approved undergraduate teacher by the State Government will be higher than the salary given to a graduate teacher by the School Managing Committee. In such situation, there is no reason as to why equal opportunity as guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution shall be not given to all qualified teachers. In such situation, there is no reason as to why equal opportunity as guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution shall be not given to all qualified teachers. Therefore, in the absence of a detailed rules/guidelines in this regard and till such time when the State Government will lay down a detailed guidelines and considering the various provisions in the Manipur Education Code, 1982, this court is of the considered view that all unapproved teachers of the school concerned shall be considered irrespective of whether they are unapproved undergraduate teachers or unapproved graduate teachers provided they fulfil the requisite qualifications prescribed in the corresponding Recruitment Rules of the State Government and are the senior most from amongst them.” During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this court that an appeal preferred against the said judgment and order dated 12-06-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge is pending for adjudication by the Division Bench of this court. In view of the fact that the said writ appeal is still pending for adjudication and no stay has been granted by the Division Bench, this court is bound by its earlier judgment and order dated 12-06-2015 passed in W.P. (C) No. 148 of 2015. Moreover, in the event of the said interim order dated 17-08-2015 being modified/vacated and the respondent No.5 being appointed as approved Graduate Teacher, the petitioner will lose the opportunity for being considered for appointment as approved Graduate Teacher, although he is eligible for it and there is a likelihood of rendering the present writ petition infructuous for the reason that it is not known when it will be disposed of finally. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and considering the rival contentions as regards the prima facie case, this court is of the view that the above Misc. Applications have no merit and are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed.