JUDGMENT : In this batch of Letters Patent Appeals a common judgment dated 14.3.2014 rendered by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.7135 of 2013 and other analogous writ petitions is under challenge. The appellants are unsuccessful writ petitioners. 2. The State of Bihar issued an advertisement on 15.8.2012 inviting applications for the post of Middle/Secondary/Senior Secondary teachers in the various schools established in different districts of the State. The qualifications for the candidates are prescribed under the Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary/Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (for short the rules) and similar rules, framed in respect of Schools in urban areas. One of the qualifications is that a candidate must have passed B. Ed. Degree course from an Institution, which is recognized by the U.G.C., before the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) came into force, and from an Institution recognized by the National Council of Teachers Education, after the Act came into force. All the appellants herein have obtained B. Ed. Degree from Institutions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir after the Act came into force. The Act does not apply to that State. The candidature of the appellants was not considered by the Bihar Government on the ground that the Institution in which the appellants studied was not recognized by the N.C.T.E. 3. A batch of writ petitions was filed challenging Rule 4(ka) which stipulated the conditions referred to above. It was pleaded that the condition becomes superfluous and non-applicable for the candidates who studied in the State of Jammu and Kashmir because the Act does not apply to that State. The batch of writ petitions was dismissed by this Court and the same was upheld in the Letters Patent Appeal. It is stated that batch of S.L.Ps. are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against that order. Some of the appellants herein are also said to be parties to those proceeding. 4. In the present batch of writ petitions the appellants pleaded that even if Rule 4(ka) is treated to be legal and valid, they deserve to be declared as qualified since the Act does not apply in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the question of the Institution being recognized by the N.C.T.E. under the Act does not arise. 4. In the present batch of writ petitions the appellants pleaded that even if Rule 4(ka) is treated to be legal and valid, they deserve to be declared as qualified since the Act does not apply in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the question of the Institution being recognized by the N.C.T.E. under the Act does not arise. Reliance was placed on communications dated 31.05.2007 and 27.6.2007 addressed by the Member Secretary of the N.C.T.E. 5. The writ petitions were opposed by the respondents by raising legal and factual contentions on facts and law. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that once the Act has come into force, only such of the candidates who have obtained B. Ed. Degree from an Institution recognized by the N.C.T.E. are eligible to be appointed in the states other than Jammu and Kashmir. 6. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that whatever be the conditions provided under the Act, once it does not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir the requirement of recognition by the N.C.T.E. cannot be applied to the Institutions established in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He contends that realizing the anomaly that is resulting, on account of the view taken by the State Government, the Member Secretary of the N.C.T.E. clarified through letters dated 31.5.2007 and 27.6.2007, that the requirement as to the recognition of the Institution by the N.C.T.E. does not apply to the Institution functioning in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Emarata Ram Pooniya Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005(2) WLC 385. His arguments are supplemented by Mr. Parijat Saurav, learned counsel for the appellants in L.P.A. No. 794 of 2014. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the present batch of writ petitions is not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court which upheld the Rules. They submit that the degree obtained by the appellants may, at the most, hold good for the appointments, if made in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 8. The Act prescribed the standards to be maintained while appointing teachers, in Schools all over the Country and stringent measures were stipulated to ensure maintenance of the standards in the Institutions, imparting training for teachers. 8. The Act prescribed the standards to be maintained while appointing teachers, in Schools all over the Country and stringent measures were stipulated to ensure maintenance of the standards in the Institutions, imparting training for teachers. He submits that the appellants who are the persons similarly situated, cannot circumvent the requirement under the Act, simply by obtaining B. Ed. degree from an institution in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Alternatively he submits that non-application of the Act to the State of Jammu and Kashmir may be a factor, for that particular State, to appoint such candidates who obtained a degree from those Institutions. 9. Some of the appellants have challenged Rule 4(ka) of the Act since their candidature was not considered. However, they were not successful before this Court. In this round of litigation they proceed on the assumption that the Rule is valid but they intended to place their own interpretation on the Rules. 9. Some of the appellants have challenged Rule 4(ka) of the Act since their candidature was not considered. However, they were not successful before this Court. In this round of litigation they proceed on the assumption that the Rule is valid but they intended to place their own interpretation on the Rules. Rule 4(ka) of the Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary/Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, which is in Hindi, reads as follows :- ^^4- fu;qfDr gsrq& ¼d½ ftyk ifj"kn~ ek/;fed f'k{kd ds fy, vgrkZ%& ¼d½ Hkkjr ds ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksA ¼[k½ fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; ls U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk Lukrd dh fMxzh gksA vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ@fiNM+k oxZ ,oa fodykax ds fy, U;wure fu/kkZfjr vad esa 5 izfr'kr dh NwV nh tk,xhA ijUrq fcgkj enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk iznRr vkfye dh fMxzh ,oa dkes'oj flag njHkaxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; }kjk iznRr 'kkL=h ds fMxzh dks Lukrd ds lerqY; ekuk tk;sxkA ¼x½ jk”Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 vFkok vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds ckn jk”Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ch0 ,M0 dh fMxzhA** Rule 4(ka) of the Bihar Nagar Nikai Secondary/ Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 reads as under:- 4- fu;qfDr gsrq& ¼d½ uxj ek/;fed f'k{kd ds fy, vgrkZ%& ¼d½ Hkkjr ds ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksA ¼[k½ fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; ls U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk Lukrd dh fMxzh gksA vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ@fiNM+k oxZ ,oa fodykax ds fy, U;wure fu/kkZfjr vad esa 5 izfr'kr dh NwV nh tk,xhA ijUrq fcgkj enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk iznRr vkfye dh fMxzh ,oa dkes'oj flag njHkaxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; }kjk iznRr 'kkL=h ds fMxzh dks Lukrd ds lerqY; ekuk tk;sxkA ¼x½ jk”Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 vFkok vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds ckn jk”Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkk ch0 ,M0 dh fMxzhA** 10. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 4(ka) is to the effect that the candidates must acquire B. Ed. degree from a recognized training Institute, if it is prior to the enforcement of N.C.T.E. Act, and if it is after the enforcement of the N.C.T.E. Act, a B. Ed. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 4(ka) is to the effect that the candidates must acquire B. Ed. degree from a recognized training Institute, if it is prior to the enforcement of N.C.T.E. Act, and if it is after the enforcement of the N.C.T.E. Act, a B. Ed. Degree, from the training Institute recognized by the N.C.T.E. It is also important to take note of the definition of N.C.T.E. Act in the Rules. It is to the effect that “National Council for Teachers Education” means NCTE or any national level Council/Commission, specified by any other name, regulating educational institutions and training centres. 11. The stringency with which, the Parliament wanted the Institutions, imparting training for teachers, must function would be evident from a look at the provisions of the Act, as well as, the regulations made thereunder. Every minute detail as regards the maintenance of such Institutions, ranging from physical infrastructure to the manner of appointment and qualifications for teachers in such institutions, are provided. The infrastructure that is required to be maintained is mentioned in detail. Section 17(4) of the Act would indicate the actual mandate of the Act; which reads as under :- “17.(4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school/college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.” 12. This provision was put to challenge before the High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was upheld. In other words, once the Act came into force, the question of a person who obtained B.Ed. degree from an Institution which is not recognized by the N.C.T.E. being appointed as a teacher, does not arise. 13. It may be true that the Act does not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In other words, once the Act came into force, the question of a person who obtained B.Ed. degree from an Institution which is not recognized by the N.C.T.E. being appointed as a teacher, does not arise. 13. It may be true that the Act does not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This may be for several reasons which are not relevant to be considered for the purpose of disposal of these appeals. When the stringent condition itself is to be implemented throughout the country with the object of ensuring proper education in the schools, the appellants cannot be permitted to insist on appointment, without obtaining degree from the Institution recognized by the N.C.T.E. It is for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, whether or not to enact similar law. Much would depend upon the circumstances prevailing in that State. A person, who is awarded degree by an Institution functioning in Jammu & Kashmir can seek appointment in that State. However, he cannot be permitted to steal march over others, in other parts of the country. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of making law, through the Act. 14. As properly advised, the rule making authority of the State of Bihar has kept the definition of N.C.T.E. wide enough, to take in its fold, any other agency that has standardized teacher’s education on par with the N.C.T.E. That not having been done in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the degrees granted by the Institutions in that State cannot be treated standard education, in terms of the norms stipulated in the Act and rules, and the candidates holding them cannot be permitted to apply for the post of teachers, in the State of Bihar. 15. It is true that the High Court of Rajasthan in Emarata Ram Pooniya (Supra) has taken the view that the degree of B. Ed. issued by the Institution in the State of Jammu & Kashmir are valid, the candidates holding such a degree are eligible for appointment as a teacher in other States. On perusal of the same, we find that the attention of their Lordships was drawn to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rajnibala Agrawal vs. Lalit Narain Mithila University, AIR 1999 SC 2118 . In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act. In Union of India Vs. On perusal of the same, we find that the attention of their Lordships was drawn to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rajnibala Agrawal vs. Lalit Narain Mithila University, AIR 1999 SC 2118 . In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act. In Union of India Vs. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College, JT 2002 (8) SC 269 the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of section 17(4) of the Act and thereby took the view that, under no circumstances, a candidate who holds a degree of B. Ed. from an Institution which is not recognized by the Council in 1993, can be appointed. The High Court however opined that the said judgment has no direct bearing on the question put to this case. We find it difficult to agree with that observation. 16. In paragraph 30 of the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed as under :- “Before parting with, this Court must clarify that as none of these cases relating to any of the petitioners acquiring qualification from Tribhuvan University, this Court would not like to make any comment on the judgment dated 06.08.2010 in CWJC No.6936 of 2009 (Puroshottam Pandey v. State of Bihar & Ors.) in context of the Rule 4(ka)(iii) which is the subject matter of these writ applications. As a matter of fact, the following observation made in the case of Purushottem Pandey (supra) will itself go against the petitioners wherein it was held as follows:- “Thus, having considered the matter, to me it appears the situation is clear. Where the B. Ed. degree is obtained from Tribhuwan University as a Post Graduate Course, it is accepted as equivalent to Indian B. Ed. degree from any University. The Circular issued by the State Government, to the contrary, is based on misapprehension of fact and is not correct to that extent. In case State Government still has some confusion in its mind, it can always consult the Association of Indian Universities which is the Apex Body in this regard. Before parting, I may notice one more aspect that in the advertisements that are issued by the State of Bihar, it is mentioned that the B. Ed. Course must have sanction of NCTE. Before parting, I may notice one more aspect that in the advertisements that are issued by the State of Bihar, it is mentioned that the B. Ed. Course must have sanction of NCTE. So far that is concerned, it is a valid requirement so far as Universities or Institution in India are concerned but NCTE does not control foreign Universities. That will not apply to foreign University like Tribhuwan University.” 17. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Sadhana Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, ILR 2011(1) Allahabad Series 283 dealt with the question as to whether the B. Ed. degree obtained from Jammu & Kashmir can be treated as valid for appointment as teachers in other States. Reference was made to the Full Bench judgment in State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & others, (2010) 13 SCC 203 . The question that arose before the Full Bench was as to whether the B.Ed. degree obtained from the Institution, before the Act came into force, can be treated as valid, after the Act came into force. The exclusion of the candidates from selection who had obtained B. Ed. degree prior to enforcement of the Act or after the enforcement of the Act but during the period when the applications for recognition were pending; was held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and invalid. The Full Bench held that the insistence of recognition by the N.C.T.E. at a time when the Act was not in force, or during the transition period, cannot be said to be lawful. One of the reasons which weighed with the Division Bench to hold that the degree of B. Ed. obtained from an Institution of Jammu & Kashmir before the Act came into force was the judgment of the Full Bench rendered in Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (Supra). 18. The facts of the case before us are totally different from those in Bhupendra Nath’s case. The appellants of L.P.A. No. 794 of 2014 placed reliance upon a judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in Sham Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No. 15959 of 2006. With great respect to the Hon’ble Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court, who delivered that judgment, we find it difficult to follow the same. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No. 15959 of 2006. With great respect to the Hon’ble Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court, who delivered that judgment, we find it difficult to follow the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in unequivocal terms held that Section 17(4) of the Act is valid and there is no question of any inroads being made, to the said provision. One cannot be permitted indirectly flout the scheme under the Act, by appointing the candidates who have obtained degrees from an Institution, which is not recognized by the N.C.T.E. If the State of Jammu & Kashmir did not adopt the Act or did not make any law with regard to the same, it is for them. 19. Having not fallen in line, to ensure the proper standard of the teacher training, at the most, the State may choose to appoint the candidates who studied in the Institutions functioning in that State. However, the candidates who received education from such an Institution cannot be appointed in other states, in the teeth of Section 17(4) of the Act, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals. All these appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 21. It is needless to mention that the interim order passed earlier stands dissolved. 22. Interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed.