JUDGMENT 1. . - The instant cluster writ applications, projects a challenge to the common order dated 8th November, 2013, passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), disposing off the cluster appeals. 2. Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the respondent-Teachers Grade-III (Sanskrit), aggrieved of non-consideration of their candidature for promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II (Sanskrit), instituted appeals before the Tribunal, raising grievance that while according promotion to the junior persons, they have been illegally denied promotion on the pretext that they do not possess the required essential educational qualifications as contemplated under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1978', for short). The Tribunal, holding the respondent-teachers in possession of the essential educational qualification, directed the State-petitioners to consider therein cases and extend the benefits from the date the juniors have been promoted. 3. Learned counsel for the State-petitioners, Mr. B.K. Sharma, Addl. G.C., reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ applications, asserted that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, while declaring the respondent-teacher(s), as eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit), under the Rules of 1978 as well as the direction to accord consequential benefits; is illegal, arbitrary, against the materials available on record and contrary to the Rules of 1978. According to the learned counsel, the declaration made by the Tribunal holding the respondent-teachers as eligible under the Rules of 1978; is also contrary to the findings arrived at and clarification made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, as would be evident from the order dated 23rd May, 2013, in the batch of writ applications, lead case being SBCWP No.3787/2013 (State of Raj. & Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Verma & Anr.) . 4. According to the learned counsel, while remanding the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration vide order dated 23rd May, 2013, the Coordinate Bench of this Court specifically held that the essential educational qualifications with reference to direct recruitment had no application to the facts of the case at hand. Further, for the purpose of promotion, the qualifications as detailed out under column No.6 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1978, are relevant. Further, for the purpose of promotion, the qualifications as detailed out under column No.6 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1978, are relevant. The Coordinate Bench also observed that the Tribunal erroneously equated educational qualifications to be similar for direct recruitment and for promotion. 5. It is further pointed out that the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal, with the specific clarification in no uncertain terms holding that to be eligible for consideration for promotion from the post of Teacher Gr.III to the post of Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit); though, the word "Sanskrit" is not mentioned and similar was the position with reference to diploma or degree in education; but to have a harmonious construction of the rule, a candidate seeking consideration for promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II(Sanskrit), ought to be a graduate "in Sanskrit" and similar is the position for B.Ed. 6. Referring to the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while remanding the matter vide order dated 23rd May, 2013, it is contended that if a candidate, graduate in other subject(s) than "Sanskrit" or with "Sanskrit", is held to be eligible, it would have serious consequence in so much so that if a Science graduate is allowed promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit), he would not be in a position to teach the subject of Sanskrit for which promotion is accorded. 7. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-teachers have filed their counter affidavit, reiterating their stand in the appeals before the Tribunal and supporting the impugned order dated 8th November, 2013. Learned counsel for the respondent-teachers, vehemently argued that the very initial appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit), was accorded to them under the same set of Rules of 1978 for they were found in possession of required essential educational qualifications. 8. It is contended that the respondent-teachers are in possession of required qualification of Bachelor of Arts (Sanskrit) and Shiksha Shastri, which is equivalent to B.Ed. It is further asserted that the respondent-teachers have been denied their due on the pretext of amendment of the Rules of 1978, in the year 2008. The amendment of 2008 could not have been given retrospective effect so as to deprive them of their vested right. It is further asserted that the respondent-teachers have been denied their due on the pretext of amendment of the Rules of 1978, in the year 2008. The amendment of 2008 could not have been given retrospective effect so as to deprive them of their vested right. Furthermore, the consideration of the respondent-teachers for promotion involved herein, is against the vacancies of the year 2002-2005, prior to the amendment, and therefore, the same cannot be denied. 9. Mr. M.I. Beg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-teachers, vehemently argued that the issue raised herein, is no more res-integral in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in the case of State of Raj. v. Jeta Ram Khawa & Ors.: DBSAW No.426/2006, decided on 17th April, 2006 , holding that the recruitment to the service is governed by the Statutory Rules; the personal view of the authorities issuing advertisement about eligibility cretrion that ought to have been more suited is of little relevance. 10. Learned counsel further asserted that the alleged rectification of mistake resorted to by the petitioner-State by reverting Shri Lal Chand Khairwa and Shri Nathu Lal Dariya, in view of a review DPC convened on 10th August, 2015; is of no consequence. Moreover, Lal Chand Khairwa has already instituted a writ application No.3737/2015, and by an interim order dated 15th April, 2015, the order of reversion, has been stayed. 11. According to the learned counsel, the candidates, including the respondent-teachers Gr.III, who were in possession of the qualifications, as stipulated in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1978, cannot be denied their due. The contention is sought to be fortified by the opinion of the Division bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, lead case being DBCWP No.17321/2011 (Prithviraj Meena & Ors. v. The State of Raj. & Ors.) . Reliance has also been placed on the opinion in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others: 1983 (3)SCC 284 , Garima Mani Sharma & 69 Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors.:2012 (1) WLC (Raj.) 103 and Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India and Others: AIR 1990 SC 311 . 12. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others: 1983 (3)SCC 284 , Garima Mani Sharma & 69 Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors.:2012 (1) WLC (Raj.) 103 and Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India and Others: AIR 1990 SC 311 . 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 13. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be gainful to consider the relevant text of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1978, which provides for academic and Technical Qualification as well as experience, Rule 12 reads thus: "12. Academic and Technical Qualification and Experience:-A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts enumerated in the Schedule shall in addition to such experience as is required, possess; (i) the qualifications given in Column 4 of the Schedule; and (ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and any one of the Rajasthani dialects." 14. The schedule appended to the Rules of 1978 providing for academic and Technical Qualification and experience for direct recruitment by way of promotion contemplates thus: S.No. Name of the post Method of recruitment with percentage Minimum academic qualification and experience for direct recruitment Post or post from which promotion is to be made Minimum qualification and experience for promotion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Sub Dy. Inspector/II-nd Grade Teacher 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment Trained graduate or trained shastri or equivalent qualification IIIrd grade Teacher Graduate or Shastri or equivalent examination with degree or diploma in Education or shiksha Shastri However, the schedule has been amended for the purpose of clarification as to the qualification and the amended rules reads thus: S.N. Name of post Method of recruitment with % Minimum academic qualification and experience for the direct recruitment Post or posts from which promotion is to be made Minimum qualification and experience for promotion Maximum age limit for direct recruitment 1 Teacher Gr-II in subject concerned/ Sub Deputy Inspector 50% by direct recruitment through RPSC & 50% by promotion For Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit) Shastri or an equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium from a University established by law in india and Shiksha Shastri/Degree in Education recognised by the Government. Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) As laid down in column No.4 with 5 years teaching experience on the post of Teacher Gr.III.(Sanskrit) 35 years. For Teacher Gr.II (other than Sanskrit Subject): Graduate or an equivalent degree in concerned subject from a University established by law in India and Shiksha Shastri/Degree in Education recognised by the Government. Teacher Gr.III As laid down in column No.4 with 5 years teaching experience on the post of Teacher Gr.III 15. Keeping in view the fact that the promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II in the subject concerned, obviously must be from amongst the candidates who have essential educational qualifications in the same subject, the Rules have now been amended. Thus, what was implicit has been made explicit, and therefore, as such the amendment is of no consequence. 16. Be that as it may, the instructions issued by the petitioner-State, vide order dated 18th July, 1992, specifically clarified that the vacancies of Teacher Gr.II, would be determined subject-wise having reference to the curriculum as determined by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Further, the post of Head Masters in the Government Middle Schools was to be manned by the Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit). The order dated 18th July, 1992 reads thus: jktLFkku ljdkj funs'kky;] laLd`r f'k{kk] jktLFkku] t;iqjA dzekad% fulf'k@laLFkk&3@fu;qfDr@3593&948 fnukad 18-07-1992 vkns'k jktLFkku laLd`r f'k{kk v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1978 ds Hkkx&4 esa fn;s x;s lh/kh HkrhZ ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr fofHkUu inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq foHkkxh; iwokZns'k la[;k fu0la0f'k@laLFkk&3@fu;qfDr@27435&86 fnukad 09-08-1991 ds vf/kya?ku (Supercede) esa l= 1992&93] ls fu;qfDr gsrq p;u djus ds ekun.M@funsZ'k fuEu fyf[krkuqlkj izlkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA ftu fcUnqvksa ij dksbZ funsZ'k Li"V ugha gksxk] ogka jktLFkku laLd`r f'k{kk v/khuLFk lsok fu;e] 1978 gh ekU; gksaxs% 1- fjDr inksa dk fu/kkZj.k % d& izfro"kZ 1 vizSy dks fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh vkxkeh o"kZ vFkkZr vkus okys o"kZ dh 1 vizSy ls 31 ekpZ rd dh vof/k ds fy;s Li"V ,oa laHkkfor fjfDr;ksa dk laHkkxokj fu/kkZj.k djsaxsA [k& f}rh; Js.kh f'k{kd inksa dk fo"kokj fu/kkZj.k ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku }kjk fu/kkZfjr ikB~;dze ,oa dk;ZHkkj ds vuqlkj la'kksf/kr fd;k tkosxk rFkk mPp izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa f}rh; Js.kh ds iz/kkuk/;kidksa dk in laLd`r f'k{kd dks gksxkA 17. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Garima Mani Sharma & 69 Ors. (supra), while considering the issue of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. II, in the subject concerned/Sub Dy. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Garima Mani Sharma & 69 Ors. (supra), while considering the issue of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. II, in the subject concerned/Sub Dy. Inspector (SDI), in the backdrop of the somewhat similar controversy, relying upon the opinion of the Division Bench, held thus: 15. Perusal of the quoted paras shows that the candidate possessing the qualification of B.A. & M.A. in Sanskrit has not been treated as qualified even for the lower post of Teacher Grade-III, then such a candidate cannot be held to be eligible for the higher post of Teacher Grade-II in Sanskrit subject. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that rigour of the amended Rule cannot be relaxed so as to read in the Rules, which is otherwise not provided. It has further been considered that even certain equivalence indicated on the website of the Department cannot nullify the Rules. Para 18 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- 18. Merely because the Sanskrit Education Department has on its website indicated the qualification of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya' of the level of the Senior Secondary, does not mean that every candidate having Senior Secondary Examination certificate would be treated having equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium for the purpose of Rules of 1978. Howsoever high qualification the appellants may possess, whether BA in Sanskrit or MA in Sanskrit or Shiksha Shastri, they do not have the basic foundational qualification of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya' or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium. They cannot be therefore treated as eligible. We may in this connection usefully refer to the judgment in P.M. Latha and another v. State of Kerala and others: (2003) 3 SCC 541 . In that case too, B.Ed. candidates were allowed to compete in seeking for appointment and were selected contrary to the terms of advertisement for imparting education in Primary and Upper Primary Government schools. The candidates, who possessed Teachers Training Certificate (TTC) qualification, questioned their non-selection due to inclusion of B.Ed. candidates in the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission of the State of Kerala. The Single Bench of the High Court of Kerala allowed all the writ petitions holding that B.Ed. The candidates, who possessed Teachers Training Certificate (TTC) qualification, questioned their non-selection due to inclusion of B.Ed. candidates in the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission of the State of Kerala. The Single Bench of the High Court of Kerala allowed all the writ petitions holding that B.Ed. candidates, who did not have TTC qualification and were yet included in the rank list should be deleted therefrom and their appointments be cancelled and the merit list should be prepared afresh. The judgment was challenged before the Division Bench, which reversed the same and the matter travelled to the Supreme Court. While reversing the judgment of the Division Bench and restoring that of the Single Bench, the Supreme Court in para 13 of the report of the judgment observed, as under:- 13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law. The Division Bench forgot that in extending relief on equity to B.Ed. candidates who were unqualified and yet allowed to compete and seek appointments contrary to the terms of the advertisement, it is not redressing the injustice caused to the appellants who were TTC candidates and would have secured a better position in the rank list to get appointment against the available vacancies, had B.Ed. candidates been excluded from the selection. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The TTC candidates before us as appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench, therefore, deserves to be set aside and of the learned Single Judge restored. "16. Perusal of the para quoted above shows that equivalent Traditional Sanskrit Examination with Sanskrit Medium has to be given true meaning i.e. equivalent qualification should be with basic foundational course in Sanskrit with same medium. The B.A. in Sanskrit or M.A. in Sanskrit are held not to possess basic foundational qualification of equivalent Traditional Sanskrit Examination. In view of the para quoted above, the petitioners' claim for equivalence cannot be accepted as B.A. in Sanskrit or M.A. in Sanskrit with Shiksha Shastri are not considered as equivalent Traditional Sanskrit Examination with Sanskrit Medium for the post of Teacher Grade-III, then in the present matter, required qualification of Shastri is still higher qualification than the Varishtha Upadhyaya. In view of the para quoted above, the petitioners' claim for equivalence cannot be accepted as B.A. in Sanskrit or M.A. in Sanskrit with Shiksha Shastri are not considered as equivalent Traditional Sanskrit Examination with Sanskrit Medium for the post of Teacher Grade-III, then in the present matter, required qualification of Shastri is still higher qualification than the Varishtha Upadhyaya. Thus, the equivalence as claimed by the petitioners cannot be given contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench. It may, however, be clarified that the judgment in the case of P.M. Latha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in: (2003) 3 SCC 541 is regarding the basic training course for teaching and is not for basic qualification of the post. To make a difference between the two, it is clarified that Shastri of equivalent Traditional Sanskrit Examination with Sanskrit Medium are the basic qualification of the post whereas Shiksha Shastri/Degree are Teacher Training Course. Teacher Training Course of B.Ed. or B.S.T.C. provides training in teaching at different level of class i.e. higher class of teaching i.e. at the level of secondary or senior secondary and teaching at primary level respectively. The controversy in the present matter is not of the equivalence of Teacher Training Course. The issue is regarding the basic educational qualification for the post in question, thus reference of the judgment in P.M. Latha's case and other judgment referred by the Hon'ble Division Bench in reference to the qualification of B.Ed. are not relevant. The issue as raised herein was otherwise considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in para 21 of the judgment (supra), which is quoted thus for ready reference:- 21. We in the present case are conscious of the fact that qualification of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya' is not an educational training qualification but nevertheless this is the basic foundational qualification for which an emphasis has been laid by the rule making authority in the rules by additionally providing for equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium only with the object of ensuring that only such candidates who have had their early education in Sanskrit medium are appointed to impart education to the students at the Primary and Upper Primary level in Sanskrit medium. That expertise possibly cannot be achieved if a candidate acquires Senior Secondary Certificate with Sanskrit only as one of the optional subjects or receives Sanskrit education at a very late stage of academic career, at the Graduation or Post Graduation level. We are therefore in agreement with the interpretation placed by the learned Single Bench on the rule in question. 17. The position of the facts of this case is similar as has been mentioned in the para quoted above. Therein the senior secondary certificate was obtained by the candidates with Sanskrit as one of the optional subject. The same is the position herein because even one is taught Sanskrit subject apart from other subjects without Sanskrit as medium in B.A. Course. 18. In the light of the aforesaid, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain (supra) applies to this case also. 18. So far as the equivalence given by the NCTE, University and Board of Secondary Education is concerned, same has already been clarified in the earlier part of the judgment and this is not otherwise relevant for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-II in Sanskrit subject. This is more so when the Hon'ble Division Bench even did not agree to the equivalence given by the respondent Department on its website itself. In fact, Rules have to give interpretation after taking note of the object behind the amendment. If the plea of the respondents for equivalence in reference to the Regulations of the NCTE, University or Board of Secondary Education is accepted, then there remains no effect of the amended Rules because prior to the amendment, the position of the Rules as taken by the Department was the same as stated by the petitioners. If the equivalence is to be considered with the same parameter as was given by the Department earlier, than the amended Rules are virtually made redundant or keep no effect despite the fact that amendments in the Rules have been made for achieving the purpose indicated by this Court in the earlier judgment. In the light of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners rather matter is largely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain (supra). In the light of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners rather matter is largely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain (supra). All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." 18. This is the second round of litigation, while considering the same issue as to whether the respondent-teachers herein, are in possession of the required essential educational qualifications or not under the Rules of 1978; a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ applications, preferred on behalf of the State-petitioners, vide order dated 23rd May, 2013, in the backdrop of opinion of the Division Bench, which confirmed the opinion of the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.1304/2004 (Jeta Ram Khawa v. State of Rajasthan & Ors) , held thus: "The issue involved in those appeals was regarding denial of promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit). The Tribunal framed issue as to whether a graduate with Sanskrit is eligible for promotion or not or it should be only when he is in possession of qualification of Shiksha Shastri rather than degree or diploma in education. Learned Tribunal even considered the amendment in the rules vide Notification dated 10.06.2008 holding it to be prospective and as claim for promotion is in the year 1998 thus rules as amended were not applicable. For the aforesaid purpose, reference of judgment of this court in the case of Jeta Ramn Khawa v. State of Rajasthan & ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1304/2004, decided on 26.04.2005 is given wherein it was held that graduate in Sanskrit would be eligible for appointment. I find that learned Tribunal committed a grave illegality by equating qualification of direct recruitment with that of promotion. The unamended rule then existing in the year 1998 is quoted for ready reference: Name of the post Method of recruitment with percentage Minimum academic qualification and experience for direct recruitment Post or post from which promotion is to be made Minimum qualification and experience for promotion 2 3 4 5 6 Sub. Dy. The unamended rule then existing in the year 1998 is quoted for ready reference: Name of the post Method of recruitment with percentage Minimum academic qualification and experience for direct recruitment Post or post from which promotion is to be made Minimum qualification and experience for promotion 2 3 4 5 6 Sub. Dy. Inspector/IInd Grade Teacher 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment Trained Graduate or Trained Shastri or equivalent qualification IIIrd Grade Teacher Graduate or Shastri or equivalent Examination with Degree or Diploma in Education or Shiksha Shastri Perusal of qualification then existing shows that for direct recruitment, one is not required to possess degree or diploma in education or Shiksha Shastri, whereas column 6 of Schedule for promotion requires qualification not only of graduate or Shastri but degree or diploma in education or Shiksha Shastri. Learned Tribunal thus erroneously equated educational qualification to be similar for direct recruitment and promotion. In fact for promotion, one needs to be graduate and obviously it has to be in Sanskrit or equivalent examination with Shiksha Shastri or degree or diploma in education. The degree in 5 education is known as B.Ed. Again B.Ed. is imparted with certain subjects thus one needs to have Sanskrit as one subject in B.Ed. to qualify for promotion if he is not otherwise Shiksha Shastri. It is necessary to clarify that even for graduation, the word "Sanskrit" is not mentioned and similar is the position regarding diploma or degree in education but to have a harmonious construction of rule, one needs to be graduate in Sanskrit and similar is the position of B.Ed. If a candidate is graduate in other subject than Sanskrit, is held to be eligible, it would have serious consequence inasmuch as if Science graduate is allowed promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit), he would not be in a position to teach the classes of Sanskrit for which promotion is given. Learned counsel for respondents agree that graduation should be in Sanskrit subject. It is also stated that all the respondents are B.Ed. however aforesaid has not been referred by the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that Shiksha Shastri qualification is not essential without further clarifying that degree or diploma in education should be with Sanskrit subject to become eligible for promotion thus impugned order needs to be set aside. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside. however aforesaid has not been referred by the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that Shiksha Shastri qualification is not essential without further clarifying that degree or diploma in education should be with Sanskrit subject to become eligible for promotion thus impugned order needs to be set aside. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to look into it again and consider the fact of each case to determine as to whether the 6 appellants non-petitioners are in possession of required qualification of graduate in Sanskrit or Shastri with Shiksha Shastri or degree or diploma in education. If any of the appellant is in possession of required qualification, appropriate relief may be granted by the Tribunal. The aforesaid may be assessed by taking each case separately in the light of the observation made by this court. Since the matters are old, the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeals within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the aforesaid, writ petitions stand disposed of. This disposes of stay applications also." 19. The Tribunal on a re-consideration of the matter in compliance of the order dated 23rd May, 2013, passed by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier round of litigation; allowing the appeals of the respondent-teachers, directed the State-petitioners to consider their cases for promotion from the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) to the post of Teacher Gr. II (Sanskrit) and further declared that they were in possession of the required essential educational qualifications under the Rules of 1978. The Tribunal further directed to accord the benefits of promotion to the respondent-teachers from the date any junior person was accorded such promotion with all consequential benefits. 20. The issue raised in the instant batch of writ applications may not detain this Court for long for what has been observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing off the earlier writ applications between the parties herein on the same issue vide order dated 23rd May, 2013, wherein a specific observations was made to the effect that "for direct recruitment, one is not required to possess degree or diploma in education or Shiksha Shastri, whereas column 6 of Schedule for promotion requires qualification not only of graduate or Shastri but degree or diploma in education or Shiksha Shastri". The Coordinate Bench further observed that in fact for promotion, one needs to be graduate and obviously it has to be in Sanskrit or equivalent examination with Shiksha Shastri or degree or diploma in education. What has been observed by the Coordinate Bench in the order dated 23rd May, 2013, is in consonance with the underlying object that a teacher, who teaches Sanskrit, must have acquired the degree of graduation in Sanskrit. 21. The Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, specifically provided the curriculum for Sanskrit institutions for a Senior Teacher/Grade-II. The minimum eligibility criteria provided, reads thus: 2- ofj"B v/;kid izosf'kdk Lrj dh d{kkvksa ds fy, 1 laLd`r v O;kdj.k 'kkL= fo"k; lfgr izf'kf{kr 'kkL=hA vk lkfgR; 'kkL= izf'kf{kr 'kkL=h Lukrd laLd`rA 22. In the case of Pawan Kumar Jain & 13 Anr (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the interpretation of word "and" and "or" used in a rule, observed that the meaning has to be understood in their material sense. The Division Bench specifically held that the word "or" is normally disjunctive and word "and" is normally conjunctive. They can be read otherwise only if the context of particular case so demands, where not doing so is likely to result in absurd consequences. Para No.16 to 18 are relevant in this reference, which reads thus: "16. Merely because appellants have higher qualification such as B.A. in Sanskrit or M.A. in Sanskrit or Shiksha Shastri, does not mean that rigour of the rule in their cases should be relaxed so as to read in the rules what is not provided by the rule making authority and/or rather ignore what has been specifically provided. We are not inclined to countenance the argument that sub-clause (iii) in clause (ii) of column 4 of entry 6(a), in the schedule appended to the Rules of 1978, which provides "Graduate with Shiksha Shastri or its equivalent" should be read independent of the first two sub-clauses. In our view, it would amount to doing violence to the language of the rule in clause (i) whereof Varishtha Upadhyaya has been treated to be a basic foundational eligibility qualification together with any one of the three educational training qualifications in clause (ii) to make a candidate eligible for appointment. In our view, it would amount to doing violence to the language of the rule in clause (i) whereof Varishtha Upadhyaya has been treated to be a basic foundational eligibility qualification together with any one of the three educational training qualifications in clause (ii) to make a candidate eligible for appointment. The word "and" has been used between sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) and this "and", as is evident from the context, has to be always understood in conjuctive sense that both the conditions have to be satisfied by a candidate so as to claim eligibility for appointment. But in clause (ii), three different sub-clauses relating to educational training qualifications are divided by the word "or", which is a disjunctive expression making it open for a candidate to claim eligibility on the basis of qualification of Varishtha Upadhyaya or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium in clause (i) with any one of those three educational training qualifications. 17. It is trite that word "or" is normally disjunctive and word "and" is normally conjunctive. They can be read otherwise only if the context of particular case so demands, where not doing so is likely to result in absurd consequences. In the present case, intention of the rule making authority is loud and clear. On the contrary, if one were to read the word "and" between clauses (i) and (ii) of column 4 against entry 6(a) of Schedule-A supra, as "or", it would result in an unintelligible and absurd result. When intention of the rule making authority is clearly evident from plain language used in the rule, nothing can justify to take any other interpretation because an interpretation, which results in rejection of a word in the language of the rule as meaningless is always to be avoided. As per the basic rule of literal interpretation, words of a statute have to be understood in their natural sense unless it leads to some unintelligible or absurd result or there is something in the context of the matter, suggesting to the contrary. 18. Merely because the Sanskrit Education Department has on its website indicated the qualification of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya' of the level of the Senior Secondary, does not mean that every candidate having Senior Secondary Examination certificate would be treated having equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium for the purpose of Rules of 1978. 18. Merely because the Sanskrit Education Department has on its website indicated the qualification of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya' of the level of the Senior Secondary, does not mean that every candidate having Senior Secondary Examination certificate would be treated having equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium for the purpose of Rules of 1978. Howsoever high qualification the appellants may possess, whether BA in Sanskrit or MA in Sanskrit or Shiksha Shastri, they do not have the basic foundational qualification of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya' or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium. They cannot be therefore treated as eligible. We may in "this connection usefully refer to the judgment in P.M. Latha and another v. State of Kerala and others : (2003) 3 SCC 541 . In that case too B.Ed. candidates were allowed to compete in seeking for appointment and were selected contrary to the terms of advertisement for imparting education in Primary and Upper Primary Government schools. The candidates, who possessed Teachers Training Certificate (TTC) qualification, questioned their non-selection due to inclusion of B.Ed. candidates in the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission of the State of Kerala. The Single Bench of the High Court of Kerala allowed all the writ petitions holding that B.Ed. candidates, who did not have TTC qualification and were yet included in the rank list should be deleted therefrom and their appointments be cancelled and the merit list should be prepared afresh. The judgment was challenged before the Division Bench, which reversed the same and the matter travelled to the Supreme Court. While reversing the judgment of the Division Bench and restoring that of the Single Bench, the Supreme Court in para 13 of the report of the judgment observed, as under:- 13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law. The Division Bench forgot that in extending relief on equity to BEd candidates who were unqualified and yet allowed to compete and seek appointments contrary to the terms of the advertisement, it is not redressing the injustice caused to the appellants who were TTC candidates and would have secured a better position in the rank list to get appointment against the available vacancies, had BEd candidates been excluded from the selection. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The TTC candidates before us as appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench, therefore, deserves to be set aside and of the learned Single Judge restored." 23. It will not be out of place to mention that the Division Bench of this Court while confirming the opinion in the case of Jeta Ram Khawa (supra), specifically took note of the fact that there was no assertion in the reply that the rule has been amended for the purpose of recruitment. The judgment referred to and relied is with reference to the Rules of 1978, i.e. prior to amendment. Further, there is a comparative assertion and statement of the amendment in the year 2008, which is not disputed. Moreover, the fact that the State Government has issued order dated 18th July, 1992, was also not brought to the notice of the Court in the proceeding in the case referred to and relied upon. 24. In the case of Prithviraj Meena & Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, examined the applicability of the Rules of Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (the Rules), and the issue was adjudicated upon in the backdrop of singular facts of that case wherein the result was declared subsequent to amendment. The amendment made in the Rules of 1963 vide notification dated 5th July, 2011, was not to be made operative retrospectively, was the adjudication made. In the instant case at hand, the State-petitioners have already issued the office order dated 18th July, 1992, specifically indicating the curriculum for a senior Teacher/Grade-II. Moreover, the issue has already been considered and clarified by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while adjudicated upon on this very controversy in the earlier round of litigation between the parties vide order dated 23rd May, 2013 and I see no reason to take a view contrary. 25. In the case of Dr. Ms. Moreover, the issue has already been considered and clarified by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while adjudicated upon on this very controversy in the earlier round of litigation between the parties vide order dated 23rd May, 2013 and I see no reason to take a view contrary. 25. In the case of Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court made a declaration in the backdrop of the singular facts of the case wherein there was a discrimination/disparity in pay scales of medical and non-medical wing of Directorate of Health Services and there were no promotional avenues in the category 'A' group Scientists in the non-medical wing of the establishment of Director General of Health Services, whereas in the instant case at hand, the facts of the case are altogether different, distinct and distinguishable. 26. The fact that the respondent-teachers are also in receipt of selection scale after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, is also not in dispute. Thus, the facts of the case at hand are not one of those categories wherein the respondent-teachers are without any promotional avenue(s) in the face of selection scale(s) in lieu thereof. 27. The case put forth on behalf of the respondent-teachers Gr.III is that when they joined the services in the capacity of Teacher Gr.III(Sanskrit), the petitioner-State did not insist for such a requirement, which is now insisted upon i.e. graduation in Sanskrit. Therefore, depriving them of their promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II (Sanskrit), would be taking away of their vested right to which they are entitled to after having put in a service of 20-25 years. 28. By now, it is well settled law that there is no vested right to claim for promotion to a higher grade, to which the qualification could be prescribed and so also there is no guarantee that those rules framed by the Government in that behalf, would always be favourable to them. An employee who is appointed, has no vested right for promotion in terms of service but acquires a status, and therefore, the rights and obligations thereto, are no longer to be determined by consent of the parties, but by statute or statutory rules, which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. 29. In the case of Dhole Govind Sahebrao and Ors. 29. In the case of Dhole Govind Sahebrao and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.; 2015(6) SCC 727 , the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land held that chances of promotion do not constitute condition of service. Therefore, mere alteration of chances of promotion, does not call for judicial interference unless chances of promotion are altered arbitrarily, or on the basis of considerations which are shown to be perverse or mala fide. 30. Learned counsel for the State-petitioners made a specific statement that none, including the Teachers Gr.III (Sanskrit), has been accorded promotion to the post of Teacher Gr. II (Sanskrit), who is not in possession of essential educational qualifications of graduation in Sanskrit. The illustrations of two employees referred to and relied upon, who were accorded promotion by mistake, have already been reverted by convening a review DPC. This fact could not be converted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-teachers Gr.III. 31. The issue, raised in the instant cluster writ applications, has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties, as would be evident from the order dated 23rd May, 2013, holding in no uncertain terms that the Tribunal erroneously equated the educational qualifications to be similar for direct recruitment and promotion. It was further clarified that even though the word "Sanskrit" is not mentioned and similar was the position regarding diploma or degree in education, but to have a harmonious construction of the rule, the in-combent needs to be a graduate "in Sanskrit" and similar would be condition for B.Ed. The fact that the respondent(s)-teachers are not graduates in Sanskrit, is not in dispute. 32. In the case of Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Raj. & Ors.; AIR 1967 SC 1910 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State Government has executive power in relation to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power, to make laws and it is not obligatory under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to make rules of recruitment, etc., before a service can be constituted or a post created or filled. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under Paragraph 7 & 8, are relevant, which reads thus: 7. We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under Paragraph 7 & 8, are relevant, which reads thus: 7. We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot issue administrative instructions and such administrative instructions cannot impose any restrictions not found in the Rules already framed. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that there is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. 8. In B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, (1967) I LLJ 698 SC , it was pointed out by this Court that it is not obligatory under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to make rules of recruitment, etc., before a service can be constituted or a post created or filled, and, secondly, the State Government has executive power, in relation to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power, to make laws. It follows from this that the State Government will have executive power in respect of Sch. 7. List II, Entry 41, State Public Service, and there is nothing in the terms of Article 309 of the Constitution which abridges the power of the executive to act under Article 162 of the Constitution without a law. A similar view was taken by this Court in T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem: (1961)ILLJ652SC , where Wanchoo, J., as he then was, who delivered judgment on behalf of the majority, observed as follows at pp. A similar view was taken by this Court in T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem: (1961)ILLJ652SC , where Wanchoo, J., as he then was, who delivered judgment on behalf of the majority, observed as follows at pp. 762 - 764 of the Report : "The High Court has taken the view that the appointment and succession of a Siem was not an administrative function of the District Council and that the District Council could only act by making a law with the assent of the Governor so far as the appointment and removal of a Si-em was concerned. In this connection, the High Court relied on para. 3 (1)(g) of the Schedule, which lays down that the District Council shall have the power to make laws with respect to the appointment and succession of Chiefs and Headmen. The High Court seems to be of the view that until such a law is made there could be no power of appointment of a Chief or Si-em like the respondent and in consequence there would be no power of removal either. With respect, it seems to us that the High Court has read far more into para. 3(1)(g) than is justified by its language. Paragraph 3(1) is in fact something like a legislative list and enumerates the subjects on which the District Council is competent to make laws. Under para. 3(1)(g) it has power to make laws with respect to the appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headmen and this would naturally include the power to remove them. But it does not follow from this that the appointment or removal of a Chief is a legislative act or that no appointment or removal can be made without there being first a law to that effect. .............. Further once the power of appointment falls within the power of administration of the district the power of removal of officers and others so appointed would necessarily follow as a corollary. The Constitution could not have intended that all administration in the autonomous districts should come to a stop till the Governor made regulations under para. 19(1)(b) or till the District Council passed laws under para. 3(1)(g). The Constitution could not have intended that all administration in the autonomous districts should come to a stop till the Governor made regulations under para. 19(1)(b) or till the District Council passed laws under para. 3(1)(g). The Governor in the first instance and the District Councils thereafter were vested with the power to carry on the administration and that in our opinion included the power to appoint and remove the personal for carrying on the administration. Doubtless when regulations are made under para. 19(1)(b) or laws are passed under para. 3(1) with respect to the appointment or removal of the personal of the administration, the administrative authorities would be bound to follow the regulations so made or the laws so passed. But from this it does not follow that till the regulations were made or the laws were passed, there could be no appointment or dismissal of the personnel of the administration. In our opinion, the authorities concerned would at all relevant times have the power to appoint or remove administrative personal under the general power of administration vested in them by the Sixth Schedule. The view therefore taken by the High Court that these could be no appointment or removal by the District Council without a law having been first passed in that behalf under para. 3(1)(g) cannot be sustained." 33. In the case of Maharashtra and another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and ors.: 1981(4) SCC 130 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there can be no dispute with the proposition that a rule framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be modified by an executive order. But the question is whether that principle is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case is a determinative factor. In the instant case at hand, the State Government by the instructions of 1992, in fact did not bring any change of condition of service by an executive order. Further, the State-petitioners have rectified the mistake that was committed. There is no illegality in adhering to the condition while according promotion, only to those candidates, who were graduate in "Sanskrit", which is a logic and spirit inherrent under the Rule for a candidate who is graduate "in Sanskrit" can only impart education in Sanskrit. Further, the State-petitioners have rectified the mistake that was committed. There is no illegality in adhering to the condition while according promotion, only to those candidates, who were graduate in "Sanskrit", which is a logic and spirit inherrent under the Rule for a candidate who is graduate "in Sanskrit" can only impart education in Sanskrit. Therefore, a candidate, who is a graduate with one of the subject as Sanskrit, has rightly been declined promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit). Moreover, chances of promotion do not constitute condition of service. Therefore, mere alteration of chances of promotion does not call for any judicial interference has been declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in a recent pronouncement in the case of Dhole Govind Sahebrao and Ors. (supra). 34. For the reasons and discussions herein-above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 8th November, 2013, cannot be sustained. 35. In the result, the writ applications succeed and are hereby allowed. 36. The impugned order dated 8th November, 2013, passed by the Tribunal, is hereby quashed and set aside. 37. A copy of this order be placed in each of the files. 38. In view of the final adjudication on the writ applications, the stay applications stand closed. 39. No costs.Writ Petitions Allowed. *******