JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Heard. Leave granted. The Application for Leave to Appeal is disposed of. 2. This is an appeal filed by a person, who was not a party to the writ petition. The writ petitioners, eight in number, are persons, who have obtained B.Ed. Degree through regular course. They approached this Court by filing the writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the advertisement dated 14.02.2015 issued by Principal District Institute of Education and Training, Roorkee, Haridwar and be pleased to set aside the entire subsequent counseling and other exercise done by the respondent. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to fill the vacant 62 seats from amongst the regular B.Ed. degree holders of the year 1996 onwards who have applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 09.07.2006.” 3. Very, very briefly put, the case of the writ petitioners is as follows: (i) By Advertisement dated 09.07.2006, respondent No. 2 invited candidates for counselling for being sent for Special B.T.C. Training. The Advertisement, apparently, limited the eligibility to those candidates, who had secured B.Ed. Degree after attending the regular course. 1110 vacancies were to be filled-up, of which, 555 vacancies were for the Science category and 555 vacancies were for the non-Science category. 1110 seats were limited to the district Haridwar. The writ petitioners are the candidates, who had secured B.Ed. Degree after undergoing the regular course. According to them, they had applied pursuant to the said Advertisement. According to the writ petitioners, 423 candidates belonging to other than Science category of general and reserved category were called for counselling. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that 332 candidates out of the Science category, belonging to general and reserved category, were called for counselling. 341 candidates were sent for training from other than Science category leaving 82 seats vacant. According to the writ petitioners, 214 seats, in total, are available for other than Science category. (ii) Thereafter, it appears that a number of writ petitions were filed by the candidates having B.Ed. Degree through correspondence mode. They also claimed right to be considered. Interim orders were passed in the writ petitions as also in the special appeals. Suffice it to say that, on 12.12.2007, Government came out with an order. (ii) Thereafter, it appears that a number of writ petitions were filed by the candidates having B.Ed. Degree through correspondence mode. They also claimed right to be considered. Interim orders were passed in the writ petitions as also in the special appeals. Suffice it to say that, on 12.12.2007, Government came out with an order. Para 12 of that Government Order, alone, would appear to be relevant for resolution of dispute in this case. English translation of the same is as follows: “12. Therefore, in the light of the judgment dated 20.11.2007 of the Hon’ble High Court on your said proposal after proper consideration the Government has taken this decision that for the Special B.T.C. in the year 2007-08 with respect to the allotted seats district wise action may be ascertained to select only for this year 2007-08 for training of the Special B.T.C. after making additional arrangement for the candidates, B.Ed. trained through correspondence receiving places for selection in the merit list without effecting the institutional candidates for the selection in the merit list.” (iii) This was followed by another communication, which is a decision on the representation made, which was ordered to be taken by this Court, dated 30.08.2008. English version of the same is reproduced as under: “Disposal of the Representation in pursuance of Order dated 18th June, 2008 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 463 (S/S)/2008 Ramesh Chander & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. The petitioners Sh. Ramesh Chand, S/o Sh. Kabul Singh, R/o Village Karnodi, Post Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, Sh. Videsh Kumar, S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar, R/o Vill. Dada Patti, Post Bhagwanpur / District Haridwar, Sh. Manoj Kumar, S/o Ram Kumar, R/o Village Nagla, Post Milap, Nagar, District Haridwar, Sh. Ramesh Giri, S/o Sh. Shukh Chain Giri, R/o Village and Post Torakalangauri, District Haridwar are candidates B.Ed. Correspondence course, they had applied for selection in Special B.T.C. 2006-07. Due to their non-section, they had filed Writ Petition No. 463 (S/S) / 2008 in the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital seeking a direction from the Hon’ble Court to the respondents to treat B.Ed. Correspondence course as B.Ed. Regular course and include them by granting preference for Special B.T.C. counselling of 2006-07 which is scheduled to begin on 10.06.2008 at Narender Nagar. Correspondence course as B.Ed. Regular course and include them by granting preference for Special B.T.C. counselling of 2006-07 which is scheduled to begin on 10.06.2008 at Narender Nagar. Hon’ble Court may pass any other order as may be deemed fit in favour of the petitioners claimed cost of the petitions. At the time of entertaining the said petition, the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court had granted three weeks time to the respondents to file their counter affidavit and passed following interim order: ‘List in the week commencing 07.07.2008. Also heard on stay application. Conditions mentioned in the advertisement, issued for the year 2006-07 for Special B.T.C. Course did not permit correspondence course for B.Ed. degree holders. The Government order relied on behalf of the petitioners applies for the batch of year 2007-08. Therefore this Court is not inclined to grant interim order. However, petitioners may make their representation to the authority concerned for redressal of their grievances and the admissions, if any, made for the year 2006-07 shall be subject to the decision of this Writ Petition (Stay Application No. 3581 of 2008 stands disposed of). 18.06.2008 P.C. Pant, J.’ In compliance of the aforesaid interim order, following the principles of natural justice, the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners appeared and submitted their case. The petitioners were heard and the entire record and evidence available was carefully examined. After careful perusal of the comments received from the Principal, District Education and Training Centre, Roorkee, it will be appropriate to consider two issues only for the purpose of disposal of the present Representation. For the disposal of the Representation, following two issues are framed:- 1. Whether inclusion of the petitioners is justified for State Level counselling? 2. Whether the petitioners are eligible for selection after receiving State level counselling of Special B.T.C.? Issue No. 1 With regard to this issue, the applicants have contended that they should also be invited for State level counselling like other candidates and be selected. In this regard, I have examined and carefully perused the report of Principal, District Education and Training Centre, Roorkee and Minutes of Meeting dated 17.05.2008. He has categorically mentioned that not a single post is available for State level counselling for counselling of the candidates and as per Government Order dated 12.12.2007, he has decided to issue list of 25% candidates by 20.05.2008. He has categorically mentioned that not a single post is available for State level counselling for counselling of the candidates and as per Government Order dated 12.12.2007, he has decided to issue list of 25% candidates by 20.05.2008. 17 candidates from general category and 37 candidates from OBC who are ranked in multiplication of 424/40.21 and 222/40.34 respectively in the waiting list. Simultaneously, 161 candidates upto 44.25 from correspondence were selected and 15 posts have been kept in waiting list. The petitioners could not participate in the District level counselling as they were not mentioned in the merit list. Another fact in this regard has come into notice that in Writ Petition No. 402/SS of 2008 Sandeep Grover and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & ors. Hon’ble High Court had passed order dated 05.06.2008 which was brought to the notice of the Principal, District Education and Training Centre, Roorkee. After this it is found inappropriate to include B.Ed. correspondence degree holders in counselling. The issue No. 1 is accordingly decided against the applicants. Issue No. 2 In support of this, the applicants had contended that after selection in State Level counselling, they should be sent for training. According to the Principal, District Education & Training Institute, Haridwar, only 15 posts are remaining and therefore the benefit of the order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 402/SS/2008 Sandeep Grover & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., cannot be extended to the applicants. The operative portion of the order is as under: ‘Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as an interim measure, it is directed that the Seats advertised through the aforesaid Advertisement dated 09.07.2006 but not filled so far shall not be filled from the candidates who applied with B.Ed. degree under correspondence courses in violation of the terms of the advertisement, leaving it open to the respondents to re-advertise vacancies for them the year 2007-08. List this petition after four weeks. 05.06.2008’ During the course of hearing, this fact also came to the notice that the list dated 21st and 22nd May, 2008 in pursuance of the minutes dated 17.05.2008 by the Principal and thereafter a list of 107 candidates for counselling has been published without any authority contrary to the Government Order dated liable to be cancelled. 05.06.2008’ During the course of hearing, this fact also came to the notice that the list dated 21st and 22nd May, 2008 in pursuance of the minutes dated 17.05.2008 by the Principal and thereafter a list of 107 candidates for counselling has been published without any authority contrary to the Government Order dated liable to be cancelled. The said list is in violation of the order dated 05.06.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court. It is also relevant to mention that 1110 posts of Special B.T.C. notified were only for regular B.Ed. trained candidates total 161 posts were created on 12.12.2007. Hence for the action taken by the Principal, District Education & Training Institute, Haridwar, by ignoring the rules, he is prima facie held guilty and hence he is given adverse entry for his appraisal year 2008-09. Further, the Joint Director, Education (Head Quarter) is directed to make an enquiry of the role of Selection Committee in the matter and submit inquiry report to the Directorate within a period of 15 days. In the aforesaid discussion, it has been clarified that it will not be justifiable to give admission to candidates having B.Ed. degree through correspondence course in compliance of order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 402/SS/2008. Hence, after canceling the list dated 21.05.2008 and 22.05.2008, candidates having regular B.Ed. degree should be given admission as per merit in accordance with the Government Order. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly. Decision In view of aforesaid discussion, the Representation of the applicant is rejected being without any force. Sd./- Smt. Pushpa Manas, Director, School Education, Uttarakhand.” (iv) In short, the case of the writ petitioners was that, to cater to the needs of the B.Ed. Degree holders through correspondence mode, 161 places were to be filled-up by B.Ed. Degree holders through correspondence mode. This was obtained on the basis of the marks obtained (49.25) by the last candidate admitted from B.Ed. regular course. That is to say, all those candidates, who were having 49.25 marks, added upto 161. Thereafter, there was another development in the form of Notification issued on 17.11.2008. By the same, applications were invited for selecting persons for being sent for training; but, limiting them to the B.Ed. Degree holders having undergone the course through regular mode. That came to be challenged before this Court. Thereafter, there was another development in the form of Notification issued on 17.11.2008. By the same, applications were invited for selecting persons for being sent for training; but, limiting them to the B.Ed. Degree holders having undergone the course through regular mode. That came to be challenged before this Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition taking the view that the said Notification was against Government Order dated 12.12.2007. Instead of setting aside the same, the learned Single Judge, taking the view that there are 60 vacancies, which should be filled-up by B.Ed. Degree holders through correspondence mode, disposed of the writ petition directing that those 60 vacancies will be filled-up by the B.Ed. Degree holders through correspondence mode. Accordingly, a special appeal being Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010 was carried. The said Special Appeal was heard by the Division Bench and it, inter alia, held as follows: “2. In 2006, an advertisement was published inviting applications from Bachelor of Education Degree holders, obtaining such degrees after pursuing regular course of Bachelor of Education, for admission in Special B.T.C. Course. The advertisement was responded also by those who obtained Bachelor of Education Degree upon pursuing correspondence course. Apprehending that their applications may not be accepted, they also filed writ petitions. On those writ petitions, various interim orders were passed, directing consideration of their applications in response to the said advertisement. In the backdrop of the said interim orders, the Government on 14th October, 2006 decided to invite applications also from those who obtained Bachelor of Education Degree by pursuing correspondence course. In terms thereof, a further advertisement was published. Ultimately, those writ petitions were dismissed whereupon special appeals were filed which were disposed of by requesting the Government to take a decision in the matter. The Government thereupon considered the matter in all respect and decided that as and by way of one time solution, those B.Ed. Degree holders, obtaining the same by pursuing correspondence course, shall also be admitted to B.T.C. Course and for that matter seats available in B.T.C. Course in different districts shall be appropriately increased. This decision was translated into a Government Order dated 12th December, 2007. Subsequent, thereto, on 30th August, 2008, 161 seats were created for those B.Ed. Degree holders who obtained the same after pursuing correspondence course in Haridwar district. This decision was translated into a Government Order dated 12th December, 2007. Subsequent, thereto, on 30th August, 2008, 161 seats were created for those B.Ed. Degree holders who obtained the same after pursuing correspondence course in Haridwar district. Thereafter, on 17th November, 2008 an advertisement was published inviting those persons who became successful, upon their response to the advertisements published in the year 2006, for being allocated to different institutions for pursuing B.T.C. Course. In the said advertisement, however, only those persons, who obtained Bachelor of Education Degree by pursuing regular course, were invited for counselling; those who obtained the said degree by pursuing correspondence course were not invited for counselling. No separate advertisement for counselling was also published in respect of those Bachelor of Education Degree holders who obtained the same by pursuing correspondence course and for whom those 161 seats were created in Haridwar district. Appellants who obtained Bachelor of Education Degree by pursuing correspondence course and who had responded to the advertisements published in 2006, thus approached this Court by filing a writ petition and thereby, challenged the said advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 inviting only regular Bachelor of Education Degree holders for counselling. 3. The learned Judge who dealt with writ petition found that the said advertisement was contrary to and in breach of the Government decision dated 12th December, 2007. However, the learned Judge did not quash the said advertisement, as was sought for, only on the ground that in pursuance therewith selected candidates have been sent for training. It is surprising, that at the time when the writ petition was being considered, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that only 60 seats are available for candidates having B.Ed. Degree through correspondence course. The fact remains that admittedly, atleast 161 seats were created for B.Ed. Degree holders who obtained the same through correspondence course. The fact remains that the 17th November, 2008 advertisement did not call for counselling of B.Ed. Degree holders who obtained the same through correspondence course and, accordingly, pursuant to the said advertisement no B.Ed. Degree holder obtaining the same through correspondence course could be counselled for being sent for training. No attempt was made how then the said 161 seats stood reduced to 60 seats. The statement thus made from the bar is improper, unjust and should not have been relied. Degree holder obtaining the same through correspondence course could be counselled for being sent for training. No attempt was made how then the said 161 seats stood reduced to 60 seats. The statement thus made from the bar is improper, unjust and should not have been relied. Inasmuch as, the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 called for only regular B.Ed. Degree holders and not correspondence course B.Ed. Degree holders and there being no separate advertisement for correspondence course B.Ed. Degree holder, the action contemplated by the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008, according to us should have been clarified by deleting the words “regular degree holders” from the said advertisement entitling all B.Ed. Degree holders who responded to the advertisements of 2006 to participate in counselling provided they had obtained their B.E.d. Degree before 1996. To the extant as above, we modify the order under appeal and quash that part of the judgment and order under appeal where it has been mentioned that 60 seats are available for correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders. Inasmuch as, time for counselling pursuant to the said advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 has expired, we extend the same by six weeks from today directing counselling to take place of all those candidates eligible in terms of this order at the same venue. The date of the counselling, however, shall be informed to the persons entitled to be counselled either by personal correspondence or by a public notification to be published in a newspaper.” (v) Thereafter, appeals were also carried by regular B.Ed. Degree holders against certain directions against them, which took the form of Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010. That was also decided by the very same Bench. The same was disposed of as follows: “This special appeal seeks to raise same issues decided by us in Special Appeal No.125 of 2010 (Manoj Kumar and others versus State of Uttarakhand and others), on 8th December 2010. In that back ground, application has been filed to dispose of the present special appeal too in the light of the judgment rendered in the said Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010. 2. Taking into account, the facts and circumstances of the present case, we also dispose of the present special appeal in the light of the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No.125 of 2010. 2. Taking into account, the facts and circumstances of the present case, we also dispose of the present special appeal in the light of the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No.125 of 2010. We, however, make it clear that there should not be any confusion of creation of 161 seats in the District of Haridwar available for B.Ed. degree holders who obtained the same through correspondence course. We make it further clear that the seats available for regular B.Ed. degree holders are required to be supplied in accordance with the law governing the field and if the same have not been supplied, steps in relation thereto should also be taken simultaneously.” (vi) According to the writ petitioners, it is thereafter that the present impugned Notification was issued. 4. According to the writ petitioners, by virtue of the aforesaid Notification, applications are invited from both, the B.Ed. Degree holders through correspondence mode as well as B.Ed. Degree holders through regular course, without any classification limiting the rights of those candidates, who had obtained 42.88 points in the year 1994. In short, the case of the writ petitioners was that the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders have the right only in respect of 161 vacancies. It is, accordingly, that they sought the prayers as already noted above. 5. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition recording the submission of the learned Government pleader that the B.Ed. Degree holders, who had obtained the Degree through correspondence mode, will have their rights limited to 161 vacancies in all and, over and above that, it will be given to regular B.Ed. Degree holders. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that the appellants are before us. 6. According to the appellants, who are B.Ed. Degree holders through correspondence mode, the writ petition was filed without placing the correct facts before the learned Single Judge. Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would refer us to the history of the litigation and would submit that, after the judgment in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010, there can be no doubt that there cannot be any discrimination between regular B.Ed. Degree holders and correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders. He would submit that, after deletion of the word “regular” from the Notification dated 17.11.2008 as was done in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010, the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders and correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders. He would submit that, after deletion of the word “regular” from the Notification dated 17.11.2008 as was done in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010, the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders are entitled as much as regular B.Ed. Degree holders to compete for appointment or selection. He would submit that, initially, when the Advertisement was issued on 09.07.2006, it was to fill-up vacancies in Haridwar in respect of 1110 seats. According to his statistics, 1003 candidates were appointed having regular B.Ed. Degree. Thereafter, another batch of 40 candidates also was appointed in pursuance of the 2008 counselling Notification. Therefore, 1043 out of 1110 seats were alone filled leaving 67 vacancies. It is submitted that, if they had already been filled-up by selecting candidates with regular B.Ed. Degree, it may have been a different matter; but, after the order dated 12.12.2007, throwing open the gates to the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders also, it does not lie in the mouth of the writ petitioners to contend that the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders cannot compete with regular B.Ed. Degree holders in regard to the entire vacancies, which are available. He points out that a perusal of clause 12 of the Government Order dated 12.12.2007 would show that the gates were thrown open to the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders from the year 2007-2008. There is selection done every year. Therefore, in respect of all the vacancies, which remained unfilled, without limiting it to 161 vacancies, the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders are entitled to selection. It is submitted that the disposal of the case by the learned Single Judge by recording the submission of the Government pleader will defeat the rights of correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders, as per the decision of this Court. He would also submit that, though there is challenge to the Advertisement, that prayer was not granted. 7. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners would seek to justify the order. He would submit that they had approached the Court challenging the Advertisement. The terms of the Advertisement have already been noted. He would submit that the learned Government pleader has only clarified the position and it is in consonance with the legal position following the judgments of this Court. 8. Going by the Advertisement dated 09.07.2006, it appears that it was intended only to allow the regular B.Ed. The terms of the Advertisement have already been noted. He would submit that the learned Government pleader has only clarified the position and it is in consonance with the legal position following the judgments of this Court. 8. Going by the Advertisement dated 09.07.2006, it appears that it was intended only to allow the regular B.Ed. Degree holders to undergo selection for Special B.T.C., which would have qualified them for appointment as Teachers; but, there was litigation by the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders. Therein, interim orders were passed, both in the writ petitions and in the appeals. The order dated 12.12.2007 followed. The Government took the decision, as is clear from what is stated in paragraph 12 (extracted above). It would appear to us, that is one way of reading the said order is that it allowed the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders to participate in the selection from the year 2007-2008. The selection process is an annual exercise. It would also appear that, in regard to 1110 vacancies, all the vacancies were not filled-up by selecting the regular B.Ed. Degree holders. There were some vacancies, which remained to be filled. There is also no controversy that 161 vacancies were to be filled-up by appointing correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders. This position is clear from a perusal of the judgment in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010. No doubt, if we were to go by the judgment in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010, it would mean that the Court has altered the terms of the Notification dated 17.11.2008 and has ordered that it will not be limited to regular B.Ed. Degree holders. But, we cannot read that judgment in isolation, nor can we, at this point of time, after there has been much litigation and the disputes have received resolution at the hands of the Court, particularly in the form of the Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010 and Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010, the matter must be resolved with reference to the same. In Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010, the same Bench has clarified and has proceeded to hold that 161 vacancies must be made available to the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders. Thereafter, the Bench, however, proceeded to specifically order that the vacancies, which are to be given to the regular B.Ed. Degree holders, must be made available to them. In Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010, the same Bench has clarified and has proceeded to hold that 161 vacancies must be made available to the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders. Thereafter, the Bench, however, proceeded to specifically order that the vacancies, which are to be given to the regular B.Ed. Degree holders, must be made available to them. This understanding of the law and the factual position will strike at the root of the case of the appellants that, with the issuance of the order dated 12.12.2007 and in the light of the vacancies originally meant for B.Ed. Degree holders remaining unfilled, it became open to correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders to compete for selection at par with regular B.Ed. Degree holders for all the vacancies without any demarcation. If we are to give meaning to the judgment in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010, then we would think that the only way we can do so is the way it is already done in the writ proceeding; that is to say, the vacancies, which remained unfilled from out of the 161 vacancies created for the correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders, must be earmarked for them and, over and above the same, they will be made available to the regular candidates. This interpretation would be in consonance with the decision in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010, which, we must note, is a later decision in comparison to decision in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010 and, incidentally, rendered by the same Bench. 9. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Parikshit Saini, brought to our attention the judgment passed in the Review filed against both the judgments in Special Appeal Nos. 125 of 2010 and 162 of 2010. We need notice that, ultimately, the Review Petitions came to be dismissed. Resultantly, the inevitable result would be that the original judgment in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010 will survive. Here also, it is necessary to notice a further development, namely, that Special Leave Petitions were carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court, however, took note of two developments. Resultantly, the inevitable result would be that the original judgment in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010 will survive. Here also, it is necessary to notice a further development, namely, that Special Leave Petitions were carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court, however, took note of two developments. Writ Petition No. 1888 of 2011 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court taking note of the change in qualification brought about at the hands of the National Council for Teachers’ Education, by which, qualification of passing of Special B.T.C. examination faded into irrelevance and it is substituted by qualification of Diploma in Elementary Education with Teachers’ Eligibility Test. The Apex Court found that the said judgment was not challenged. Leaving open the right to challenge the same and also without expressing any view on the judgments, which were challenged before it, including the judgment in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010; the Special Leave Petitions were disposed of. The resultant position is that the judgments in the special appeals hold good, subject to the observations of the Apex Court. There is a case for the writ petitioners that B.T.C. Training continues to assume relevance as process of recruitment was commenced in the year 2006. We are not pronouncing on that issue at all and we must not be treated as having expressed any view in regard to the effect of the qualification or the weight to be attached to the same. We only proceed on the basis of the judgments, as they stand, and the prayers sought in the writ petition. We are of the view that the view, which has been taken by the learned Single Judge, appears to be not flawed in the totality of circumstances. However, though it is true that the Advertisement has not been quashed and there is no appeal as such by the writ petitioners, we notice that the complaint of the writ petitioners arose from the lack of clarity in the Notification about whether the entire vacancies are to be filled-up by candidates having correspondence B.Ed. Degree. It is, in this area, that the writ court has clarified the matter. In the circumstances of the case, we would think that we need not interfere with the same. 10. Degree. It is, in this area, that the writ court has clarified the matter. In the circumstances of the case, we would think that we need not interfere with the same. 10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants also drew our attention to the practice in other districts, where all are being treated equally. We are not persuaded to take a different view from that we have already taken on the basis of the alleged practice, which is followed, as we are here to resolve the disputes, which have been projected before us with reference to the decisions, which have already been rendered and the understanding of the orders, which the Court has already given by virtue of the judgments. 11. The resultant position is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.