JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned writ applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The writ applicants before me seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent No. 4 dated 22nd March 2004 terminating their services as the Vidhya Sahayaks. The writ applicants also seek to challenge the order dated 30th July 2005 passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing the appeals filed by the writ applicants against their respective orders of termination from service. 3. The respondent No. 1 i.e. the Administrative Officer of the Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti, Anjar-Kachchh published an advertisement dated 5th February 2000 in the local newspaper of Kachchh, namely, 'Kachchh Mitra' for filling up the twelve posts of Vidhya Sahayaks. 4. The writ applicants applied for the said post pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Administrative Officer of the Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti, Anjar-Kachchh. The advertisement specified that the candidates should possess the requisite qualifications of S.S.C. and C.P. Ed. (Certificate in Physical Education). 5. The qualifications of the writ applicant of the Special Civil Application No. 1780 of 2007 are S.S.C., B.Com and B.P. Ed. (Bachelor of Physical Education). Whereas the qualifications of the writ applicant of the Special Civil Application No. 8887 of 2007 are that of the D.P. Ed. (Diploma in Physical Education). 6. Any person, who wants to pursue the B.P. Ed. or D.P. Ed., has to complete the Graduation. The course of B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. is of one year after the Graduation. So far as the C.P. Ed. is concerned, it is a certificate course of two years immediately after standard 12th. 7. It appears that in response to the advertisement referred to above, very few candidates with the C.P. Ed. applied. Since sufficient number of candidates with C.P. Ed. were not available, the writ applicants holding the degrees of B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. respectively were offered appointments as the Vidhya Sahayaks. According to the scheme of the Vidhya Sahayaks, 5% of the total posts were kept reserved for the P.T. Teacher, and accordingly, both the writ applicants were appointed on 16th May 2000. 8. were not available, the writ applicants holding the degrees of B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. respectively were offered appointments as the Vidhya Sahayaks. According to the scheme of the Vidhya Sahayaks, 5% of the total posts were kept reserved for the P.T. Teacher, and accordingly, both the writ applicants were appointed on 16th May 2000. 8. After putting in almost three years of service, all of a sudden, the services of both the writ applicants came to be terminated by the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Administrator of the Samiti on the ground that as they were not holding the requisite qualification of the C.P. Ed., the State Government did not approve their appointments. 9. In such circumstances referred to above, the two writ applicants before me preferred the Special Civil Applications Nos. 3322 of 2002 and 3323 of 2002 respectively before this Court. The two writ applications referred to above came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge in the following terms: "Heard the learned advocates on interim relief. 2. The petitioner, in both these petitions, challenges the orders of termination of service of the respective petitioner made on 27th February, 2002 by the Administrative Officer, Nagar Primary Education Committee, Anjar. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners possess qualification in Physical Education, one a Bachelor's degree and another a diploma. It is also not in dispute that both the petitioners were appointed in Primary Schools As Vidya Sahayak in Physical Education after following the due procedure. However, it appears that the requisite qualification is that of SSC & CPEd (Certificate in Physical Education). Admittedly, neither of the petitioners possesses the said qualification of CPEd. Therefore, the petitioners being ineligible for appointment as Vidya Sahayak in Physical Education have been discharged from service under the impugned orders. 3. The question is whether the petitioners can be said to be eligible for appointment as Vidya Sahayak in Physical Education on the basis of their qualification of B.P. Ed. or D.P. Ed. In submission of the respondents, CPEd is the only qualification which makes a candidate eligible for appointment as Vidya Sahayak in Physical Education. The qualifications of BPEd and DPEd are higher than that of CPEd and therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for such appointment. Further, the CPEd course is that of 2 years while the other courses are for one year. 4. The qualifications of BPEd and DPEd are higher than that of CPEd and therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for such appointment. Further, the CPEd course is that of 2 years while the other courses are for one year. 4. Undoubtedly, both the petitioners do possess the qualification in Physical Education. The only question, therefore, should be whether the qualification possessed by the petitioners is higher then that of CPEd or lesser than that of CPEd. If the said qualifications are higher then that of CPEd, there is no bar in the relevant rules/instructions against appointing persons having higher qualification. However, if such qualification is lesser than that of CPEd, the petitioners would not be eligible for appointment as Vidya Sahayak in Physical Education. The only comparison which is brought about is the duration of the course. Without referring to the curriculum merely on the basis of the duration of the courses, it cannot be said that the qualification of CPEd is higher than that of the other qualifications of BPEd and DPEd. There is nothing on the record to even prima facie establish that the qualification of CPEd is higher than the qualification possessed by the petitioners. In absence of such materials, ordinarily, one would believe that a degree course or a diploma would render a higher qualification than a certificate course. Further, it is not established that the certificate course is specifically designed for rendering physical education to primary school students which may not be the nature of education given in a degree or a diploma course. Besides, the petitioners have not been given an opportunity to show cause why they should not be considered to be ineligible for appointment as Vidya Sahayaks in physical education. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mankad appearing for the concerned authority has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matter of H.D. Baraiya vs. State of Gujarat (2001 (3) GLH 209) and of Mahesh T. Rabari Vs. Director of Primary Education & others (2002 (1) GLH 438). Both the said judgments have taken a view that if the candidate does not possess the qualification prescribed, the opportunity of hearing or want of it would be of no consequence. Here is not the case. The eligibility of the petitioners is a disputed question of fact. Director of Primary Education & others (2002 (1) GLH 438). Both the said judgments have taken a view that if the candidate does not possess the qualification prescribed, the opportunity of hearing or want of it would be of no consequence. Here is not the case. The eligibility of the petitioners is a disputed question of fact. I am, therefore, of the prima facie view that the petitioners ought to have been given opportunity to establish that they are duly qualified for rendering physical training to primary school students. Hence, pending these petitions, there shall be interim relief in terms of paragraph 6(C). It is, however, clarified that the respondent Authorities shall be at liberty to terminate the services of the petitioners after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners if the respondent authorities are of the opinion that the petitioners are not qualified for imparting education to the Primary School Students. The Registry is directed to send the writ forthwith." 10. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court referred to above, the two writ applicants before me were given opportunity of hearing by the Administrative Officer of the Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti, Anjar-Kachchh and vide order dated 29th November 2003 declared that the writ applicants were not eligible to be appointed as the Vidhya Sahayaks. 11. Being dissatisfied with such orders passed by the Administrator, the writ applicants challenged the same by way of filing their respective appeals before the District Primary Education Officer, Kachchh under Section 24(2) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. The District Primary Education Officer, vide order dated 30th July 2005 dismissed the appeals and thereby affirming the orders of termination passed by the Administrator of the Samiti. 12. Being dissatisfied with the impugned orders, the writ applicants have come up with their respective applications before this Court. 13. Mr. B.P. Jasani and Mr. Nirzar Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the respective writ applicants vehemently submitted that the impugned orders are erroneous and not tenable in law. It is submitted that the two writ applicants had put in almost five years of service as the Vidhya Sahayaks (P.T. Teachers). After putting in five years of service, the writ applicants could not have been told to go home because they are not possessing the qualification of the C.P. Ed. It is submitted that the two writ applicants had put in almost five years of service as the Vidhya Sahayaks (P.T. Teachers). After putting in five years of service, the writ applicants could not have been told to go home because they are not possessing the qualification of the C.P. Ed. According to the learned counsel appearing for the two writ applicants, the qualifications of D.P. Ed. and B.P. Ed. are higher than the C.P. Ed. If that be so, then it is unreasonable for the authority concerned to say that as the writ applicants are not possessing the qualification of C.P. Ed., as stated in the advertisement of the year 1998, they were not entitled to be considered for the posts of Vidhya Sayahayaks. 14. It is submitted that during the interregnum period of five years, there was not a single complaint of inability to impart education in the Physical Training to the students. 15. The learned counsel also tried to invoke the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. 16. The learned counsel further submitted that the Selection Committee was conscious of the fact that the two writ applicants were not possessing the qualification of C.P. Ed., but since no other candidates were available with the C.P. Ed., the Committee thought fit to appoint the two writ applicants who are possessing the qualifications of B.P. Ed./D.P. Ed. 17. In such circumstances referred to above, it is submitted that the impugned orders be quashed and the respondent No. 1 be directed to reinstate the writ applicants with the continuity in service. 18. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Mankad, the learned advocate appearing for the Administrative Officer of the Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti and Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State-respondent. 19. Mr. Mankad, the learned counsel appearing for the Administrative Officer submitted that it is true that at the relevant point of time, his client appointed the two writ applicants on the posts of the Vidhya Sahayaks, although they were not possessing the qualification of C.P. Ed. He submitted that as the sufficient number of candidates were not available with the qualification of C.P. Ed., the two writ applicants were appointed considering that they are possessing the higher qualifications of B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. 20. Mr. He submitted that as the sufficient number of candidates were not available with the qualification of C.P. Ed., the two writ applicants were appointed considering that they are possessing the higher qualifications of B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. 20. Mr. Mankad submits that the distinction between the course of C.P. Ed., D.P. Ed. and B.P. Ed. has been finely drawn by his client and the same has been very elaborately and succinctly explained in the order dated 29th November 2003. He laid much emphasis on the fact that the syllabus of C.P. Ed. is of two years, whereas that of the B.P. Ed. is of only one year. According to him, a Teacher having a qualification of the C.P. Ed. can teach Gujarati, Mathematics and Science in addition to the Physical Education to the students of the Primary Schools, whereas a Teacher possessing the B.P. Ed./D.P. Ed. can teach only the subject of Physical Education to the students of the Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools. 21. According to Mr. Mankad and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, there being no merit in the writ applications, they deserve to be rejected. 22. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the respondents committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 23. The order passed by this Court dated 30th April 2002 in the first round of litigation is self-explanatory. Once again, at the cost of repetition, let me take note of the relevant observations made by the learned Single Judge. Those are as under: "4. Undoubtedly, both the petitioners do possess the qualification in Physical Education. The only question, therefore, should be whether the qualification possessed by the petitioners is higher then that of CPEd or lesser than that of CPEd. If the said qualifications are higher then that of CPEd, there is no bar in the relevant rules/instructions against appointing persons having higher qualification. However, if such qualification is lesser than that of CPEd, the petitioners would not be eligible for appointment as Vidya Sahayak in Physical Education. The only comparison which is brought about is the duration of the course. However, if such qualification is lesser than that of CPEd, the petitioners would not be eligible for appointment as Vidya Sahayak in Physical Education. The only comparison which is brought about is the duration of the course. Without referring to the curriculum merely on the basis of the duration of the courses, it cannot be said that the qualification of CPEd is higher than that of the other qualifications of BPEd and DPEd. There is nothing on the record to even prima facie establish that the qualification of CPEd is higher than the qualification possessed by the petitioners. In absence of such materials, ordinarily, one would believe that a degree course or a diploma would render a higher qualification than a certificate course. Further, it is not established that the certificate course is specifically designed for rendering physical education to primary school students which may not be the nature of education given in a degree or a diploma course..." 24. Thus, the authorities concerned were asked by this Court to look into the following aspects: (i) The curriculum of both the courses i.e. the C.P. Ed. as compared to the B.P. Ed./D.P. Ed. (ii) Whether the qualification of the C.P. Ed. is higher than the qualification of the B.P. Ed./D.P. Ed. (iii) Whether the certificate course of the C.P. Ed. is specifically designed for rendering the Physical Education to the Primary School Students, which may not be the nature of the education given in a degree or diploma course. 25. Let me now look into the order dated 29th November 2003 taking care of the aspects referred to above. The free English translation of the order reads as under: "In response to our advertisement dated 27/6/1998, you had applied to be appointed on the post of Vidya Sahayak and in view thereof, you were given appointment letter on 6/11/1998. You were appointed as Vidya Sahayak. But, upon the instructions contained in reference no. 3 above, by the Education Department, your appointment was cancelled by an order dated 27/2/2002. Against that order, you had preferred above mentioned Writ petition in the High Court, which was placed on Board on 30/4/2002 for Admission. On that day, Honourable Ms. Justice R.M. Doshit granted interim stay till the final disposal of the petition. In compliance thereof, you were re instated in service by an order of 10/6/2002. Against that order, you had preferred above mentioned Writ petition in the High Court, which was placed on Board on 30/4/2002 for Admission. On that day, Honourable Ms. Justice R.M. Doshit granted interim stay till the final disposal of the petition. In compliance thereof, you were re instated in service by an order of 10/6/2002. In the said order, the High Court had given us the liberty to terminate your services after affording opportunity of hearing to you. As per the order of the Honourable High Court, why you should not be terminated from the post of Vidya Sahayak ? Remain present on 9/12/2003 at 11 AM. for oral submissions and showing the reasons in this regard. REASONS:- 1. In the advertisement dated 27/6/1998, qualifications of P.T.C. and C.P. Ed were specifically mentioned. As per these required qualification, you are not possessing the qualification of C.P. Ed. 2. To be eligible for getting admission in C.P. Ed. course, the candidate must have passed Higher Secondary School Certificate (old eligibility: 10th Std. Pass) examination or equivalent examination. But, in your case, you have graduated from the University and thereafter passed B.Ed. examination. 3. The course of C.P. Ed. is of two years, as against that, the course of B.P. Ed., which you have passed, is only of one year. 4. The Objectives-Curriculum of the C.P. Ed. course are as under. (1) To inculcate interest in primary education and the students of primary school. (2) To understand that the primary education is the basic education and give Proper education to the students of primary school accordingly. (3) To develop competency as a teacher of the primary school and to develop Mental inclination suitable to it. (4) To develop proper worthiness/fitness as a teacher of the physical education. Thus, considering to the above objectives, the teacher with C.P. Ed. qualification obtains competency as a teacher of primary school and gets proper qualification as a teacher of physical education. Whereas the teacher having degree of B.P. Ed gets competency as a teacher of physical education only for the students of secondary and higher secondary schools. We had given advertisement for Vidya Sahayak for Primary school and kept 5 % reserved for the candidate having qualification of C.P. Ed. Because, the person having C.P. Ed. Whereas the teacher having degree of B.P. Ed gets competency as a teacher of physical education only for the students of secondary and higher secondary schools. We had given advertisement for Vidya Sahayak for Primary school and kept 5 % reserved for the candidate having qualification of C.P. Ed. Because, the person having C.P. Ed. is competent enough to teach the subjects of Gujarati, Maths, Environment and Science of standards 1 to 7 in addition to subject of physical education. In your case, as you have obtained the degree of B.P. Ed., as demonstrated in the purposes as above, you can teach subject of physical education only to the students of secondary and higher secondary school and not able to teach subjects of Gujarati, Maths, Environment and Science. Therefore as per our advertisement, you are not qualified to be appointed as Vidya Sahayak in our Primary Schools. 5. In the syllabus of the Course of C.P. Ed., there are 7 subjects in the first year as under; (1) Educational Psychology (2) Physiology and effects of physical exercise (3) School administration, management methods (4) Panch Karya and Rahabari (5) Subject and methods of Gujarati of Std. 1 to 4(6) Subject and methods of Maths of Std. 1 to 4(7) Subject and methods of Environment of Std. 1 to 4. In the second year, the seven subjects are as under:- (1) Educational and Sports psychology (2) Education in Healthiness and Sports Medicine (3) Principles of Physical Education and latest trends (4) Panch karya and Rahabari (5) Subject and methods of Gujarati of Std. 5 to 7 (6) Subject and methods of Maths of Std. 5 to 7(7) Subject and methods of Science of Std. 5 to 7. Thus, in the above syllabus of the two year course of the C.P. Ed., subjects of Gujarati, Maths, Environment and Science of Std. 1 to 7 are included in addition to the subject of Physical education. Whereas, the syllabus of one year course of the B.P. Ed. consists only the subjects of physical education. And B.P. Ed. degree holder is not competent enough to teach main subjects to students of std. 1 to 7 You are having degree of B.P. Ed. Therefore, as demonstrated herein above, you are not eligible to be appointed as Vidya Sahayak. 6. Thus, looking to the objectives and syllabus of C.P. Ed. and B.P. Ed. And B.P. Ed. degree holder is not competent enough to teach main subjects to students of std. 1 to 7 You are having degree of B.P. Ed. Therefore, as demonstrated herein above, you are not eligible to be appointed as Vidya Sahayak. 6. Thus, looking to the objectives and syllabus of C.P. Ed. and B.P. Ed. as shown above, prima facie it is evident that for having qualification of C.P. Ed., education of two year is compulsory, whereas for B.P. Ed. degree only one year education is necessary. More over, a teacher having C.P. Ed. is competent enough to teach Gujarati, Maths and Science subjects in addition to physical education to the students of primary schools, whereas teacher having B.P. Ed. can teach only the subject of physical education to the students of secondary and higher secondary schools. 7. Thus, looking to the above facts and circumstances, to teach the students of primary school, the qualification of C.P. Ed. is superior than B.P. Ed., because the syllabus of C.P. Ed. has been specially designed for the students of primary school. Whereas, the syllabus of B.P. Ed. is designed to give knowledge of physical education only to the students of secondary and higher secondary schools. Therefore, you are not competent to teach students of primary school as per the syllabus stated above. 8. As per reference-4, the Honourable High Court has held that teacher having B.Ed. degree is not competent to teach students of primary school compared to teacher having P.T.C. Similarly, teacher having B.P. Ed. degree is not competent to teach students of primary school compared to teacher having qualification of C.P. Ed.. The judgment of High Court referred in reference-4 is squarely applicable in your case and accordingly, you are not eligible to be appointed as Vidya Sahayak. Administrative Officer Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti Anjar-Kachchh" 26. Thus, in the impugned order, the objectives/curriculum of the C.P. Ed. course has been taken into consideration vis-a-vis the B.P. Ed./D.P. Ed. One important distinction drawn is that a Teacher holding the qualification of the C.P. Ed. is competent to teach Gujarati/Mathematics/Science subjects in addition to the Physical Education to the students of the Primary Schools. Whereas a Teacher having the qualification of the B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed. can teach only the Physical Education to the students of the Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools. is competent to teach Gujarati/Mathematics/Science subjects in addition to the Physical Education to the students of the Primary Schools. Whereas a Teacher having the qualification of the B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed. can teach only the Physical Education to the students of the Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools. In a way, according to the authority, the qualification of the C.P. Ed. is superior than the B.P. Ed./D.P. Ed. having regard to the syllabus and curriculum. 27. At this stage, let me look into the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others v. Government of NCT, Delhi and others [ 2003 (3) SCC 548 ]. In this case, the candidates with the B.P. Ed. degree sought recruitment to the posts of the Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, by its judgment in the public interest petition and the original petition filed by the B.P. Ed. candidates, dismissed the claim of the B.P. Ed. candidates for appointments to the posts of the Primary Teachers. In such circumstances, the candidates holding the B.P. Ed. degree came before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeals, observed as under: "4. The second contention advanced is that BEd qualification should be treated as higher qualification than TTC because primary teachers recruited on TTC qualification can get promotion as teachers to teach higher classes and BEd is the prescribed qualification for higher classes. 5. The division bench of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the above two arguments in great detail In our considered opinion it has rightly come to the conclusion that B.Ed. qualification, although a well recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education-being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the B.Ed. candidates who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of selection. We also find that the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that teacher training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B.Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B.Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification the High court rightly held that it is not comparable with B.Ed. degree qualification and latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former. 6. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants urged that undisputedly for the last several years for recruitment of primary teachers in Municipal Corporation Schools, with B.Ed. degree were considered and appointed. This long standing practice should be taken as aid to construe the terms of the advertisement and particularly clause B(ii) on which reliance is paced by B.Ed. candidates to consider them eligible. 7. In support of the above contention-learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan vs. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 584]. 8. This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the B.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals [CA No. 1726-28 of 2001] arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals [CA No. 1726-28 of 2001] arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the natures of training imparted for grant of certificate and degree are totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from B.Ed. category and very few from TTC category. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible. In our view, the division bench of the Delhi High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that B.Ed. candidates were rightly excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teachers. We make it clear that we are not called upon to express any opinion on any B.Ed. candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to advertisements in the past and our decision is confined only to the advertisement which was under challenge before the High Court and in this appeal." 28. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Panvar and others v. Suresh Chand and others [Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1181 of 2012 decided on 1st July 2013] had an occasion to consider almost an identical issue like the case in hand. In paragraph 14 of its judgment, the Division Bench noted the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the NCTE. In paragraph 14, the Court observed as under: "[14] Shri Santanu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the NCTE, argued that issuance of advertisement for recruitment and undertaking recruitment for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. II and PTI Gr. III, lies within the domain and sphere of respective States. The NCTE is the central statutory body, which has been established by enactment of the Parliament viz., the NCTE Act, 1993. II and PTI Gr. III, lies within the domain and sphere of respective States. The NCTE is the central statutory body, which has been established by enactment of the Parliament viz., the NCTE Act, 1993. The object and purpose for establishment of the NCTE is to ensure planned and coordinate development of teacher education system throughout the country. The NCTE lays down the norms and standards in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognized institutions. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 32(2)(d)(i) read with Section 12(d) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the NCTE has made the Regulations of 2001, which are applicable for recruitment of teachers in all formal schools established, run, aided or recognized by the Central or State Government. Second Schedule of the Regulations of 2001 provides for recruitment, qualifications of teachers of Physical Education in educational institutions wherein for teaching at elementary level a candidate is required to possess Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent and Certificate in Physical Education of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent. However, Graduation with Bachelor of Physical Education or its equivalent has been prescribed as the eligibility qualification for teaching at Secondary/High School level. Learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT Delhi [ 2003 3 SCC 548 ], argued that the Supreme Court in Para 5 thereof has clearly held that a teacher training qualification (B.Ed. therein) meant to teach higher classes, cannot be construed to mean that such a qualification is comparable to or is higher than the teacher training qualification meant to teach lower level of classes i.e. TTE therein. It was therefore argued that both the courses i.e. C.P. Ed. and B.P. Ed. are distinct and separate physical education courses and that the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity." In para 16, the Court framed seven questions that emerged for its consideration. One of those or rather the very first question is as under: "(1) Whether the appellants can be treated eligible for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. III on the analogy that the qualification of B.P. Ed./D.P. Ed. held by them, being a higher qualification, is equivalent to C.P. Ed? One of those or rather the very first question is as under: "(1) Whether the appellants can be treated eligible for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. III on the analogy that the qualification of B.P. Ed./D.P. Ed. held by them, being a higher qualification, is equivalent to C.P. Ed? The aforenoted first question was answered by the Division Bench as under: "[17] On the first question posed above, whether the appellants can be treated eligible for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. II and PTI Gr. III merely on the analogy that the qualification of B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. possessed by them is higher qualification, a Larger Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court has been cited before us in which an identical question, whether a candidate possessing higher qualification than the one prescribed and advertised for appointment to the posts, is eligible for such selection/appointment, was examined. The dispute was about the appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor, wherefore the notification required Senior Secondary. School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent and Certificate in Physical Education (C.P. Ed.) of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 24.10.2006 was issued to even allow candidates having Certificate in Physical Education courses of one year duration after Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent, however, with a rider that this may not be available after 2007 because the Educational Institutions are duty bound as per the NCTE Regulations to commence the two years course from 2005. Since divergent opinions were expressed by two Division Benches of that High Court, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench. The curriculum prescribed for C.P. Ed., B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. by various Universities in the State of Punjab and the State of Haryana, were produced before the Court, on a comparative study of which it was concluded by the Court that most of the subjects included in the curriculum of C.P. Ed. of two years duration, are also part of four years course of B.P. Ed., though with different nomenclatures, distinctively or conjunctively. But, there is no commonality of curriculum of some of the course of various Universities. The advertisement that was subsequently issued, permitted the candidates having C.P. Ed. qualification or the qualification equivalent thereto; for appointment. It was therefore held that curriculum of B.P. Ed. But, there is no commonality of curriculum of some of the course of various Universities. The advertisement that was subsequently issued, permitted the candidates having C.P. Ed. qualification or the qualification equivalent thereto; for appointment. It was therefore held that curriculum of B.P. Ed. or other higher courses, if included almost all the components of curriculum of C.P. Ed., that Degree should not be construed to be totally different and distinct qualification. The Larger Bench approved the judgment of the first Division Bench in Multan & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., [2004 (4) SCT 45], of Punjab and Haryana high Court, which found that almost all components of C.P. Ed. course of one year or two years duration are taught in B.P. Ed. Course in all the Universities in the States of Punjab and Haryana, and it was therefore held that the candidates possessing higher qualification than prescribed, cannot be denied right to consideration for selection. The Larger Bench in holding so, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Raizul Usman Gani & Ors. v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur, [ 2000 (2) SCC 606 ], wherein it was held that a candidate possessing higher qualification than 8th standard prescribed for the post of Peon, would not be thereby rendered ineligible. [18] In the present case, the Government in its letter dated 06.01.2010 have, in response to letter of the RPSC dated 13.10.2009, clarified on. the following three aspects, (1) that since C.P. Ed. certificate is awarded after 12th standard examination, the higher qualification of D.P. Ed. Should be considered eligible for PTI Gr. II and PTI Gr. III, (2) that apart from D.P. Ed., candidates possessing B.P. Ed., should also be on that analogy treated eligible for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. III; (3) Since the B.P.E. has not been approved by NCTE, those possessing this qualification should not be considered eligible for appointment either on the post of PTI Gr. II or PTI Gr. III. [19] Appellants in Special Appeal No. 1181/2012, have produced marks-sheets and Degrees as also the syllabus of Three Years B.P. Ed. Course of Nagpur University giving details of subjects taught, and training given in First Year, Second Year and Final Year thereof. II or PTI Gr. III. [19] Appellants in Special Appeal No. 1181/2012, have produced marks-sheets and Degrees as also the syllabus of Three Years B.P. Ed. Course of Nagpur University giving details of subjects taught, and training given in First Year, Second Year and Final Year thereof. In some of the writ petitions, out of the originally decided bunch, petitioners have also placed on record the mark-sheets issued by Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, indicating the same subjects covered in the aforesaid syllabus though with variation of years. The appellants have also produced number of mark-sheets issued to the candidates possessing the qualification of C.P. Ed., according to which subjects of:-1. Education Theories of Psychology & History of Physical Education, 2. Organization of Physical Education & Methods, 3. Human Anatomy/Physical Health Education, Safety Education, Balance Diet and First Aid, and 4. Guidance and Coaching, are taught therein. The syllabus of B.P. Ed. Course of Nagpur University, which is a graduation degree of the duration of three years, indicates that therein all subjects of C.P. Ed. are apparently covered, as would be evident from the following comparative table:- [20] A similar comparison of the curriculum in the syllabus of the two qualifications of the C.P. Ed. of duration of two years vis-a-vis the B.P. Ed. of duration of four years and D.P. Ed. Of duration of one year, was made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., CWP No. 451/2008, decided vide judgment dated 05.02.2010, which is reproduced hereunder:- Punjab University [21] The Larger Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on the basis of aforesaid comparison made the following observations:- "From the above, it appears that Punjab University has prescribed C.P. Ed. two years course, B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed. one year course and B.P.E. or B.P. Ed-4 years course. From the comparative study of these Courses, it is evident that disciplines like "Recreation", "Yoga", "Health Education" and "Sports Psychology" form part of curriculum of C.P. Ed. 2 years course. Most of these subjects are also part of B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed. one year course or B.P.E. or B.P. Ed. four years course, though under different nomenclature distinctively or conjunctively. For example, under B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed. one year course, instead of "Recreation" it is "Philosophy & Administration of Recreation" as also "Officiating in Games and Track & Field". 2 years course. Most of these subjects are also part of B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed. one year course or B.P.E. or B.P. Ed. four years course, though under different nomenclature distinctively or conjunctively. For example, under B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed. one year course, instead of "Recreation" it is "Philosophy & Administration of Recreation" as also "Officiating in Games and Track & Field". Similarly, Health Education and Sports Psychology is part of curriculum of all the courses. Yoga is not specifically mentioned in B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed. one year course, though it is also part of the B.P.E/B.P. Ed. four years course. It is noticed that "Recreation and Yoga" are common in Nagpur University, Kurukshetra University in B.P. Ed. course. It is relevant to notice that C.P. Ed. one year course and two years course prescribed by Kurukshetra University do not provide "Recreation" as one of the components of curriculum, though it is prescribed in B.P. Ed. one year course which is a post Graduation course in the same University. In Guru Nanak Dev University, B.P. Ed. includes Recreation and Yoga" so and so on. Mr. Khosla has laid much stress on "Recreation" as part of C.P. Ed. course. However, it is found that it is not uniformly adopted in the curriculum of C.P. Ed. by all the Universities in the States of Punjab and Haryana. At the same time, it appears that these courses are not only part of C.P. Ed. curriculum but of higher courses as well may be under different nomenclature or in a different form in some universities. One thing is apparent, there is no commonality of curriculum of same course in various Universities. Since the qualification prescribed under the advertisements/rules can be acquired from any of the recognized Universities/Institutions, curriculum of Universities cannot and should not be the sole basis for determining the eligibility of the candidates. It has to be on the broader spectrum of the curriculum, may be with few additions/omissions not impeding with the over all profile of the course." [22] In the concluding part, the Larger Bench, while considering the argument based on the judgment of the Supreme Court-in Yogesh Kumar, supra, on the question whether the B.Ed. is a higher qualification than the T.T.C., held as under:- "Arguing on the same line Mr. Khosla has strenuously argued that the persons possessing any qualification other than C.P. Ed. are not eligible. is a higher qualification than the T.T.C., held as under:- "Arguing on the same line Mr. Khosla has strenuously argued that the persons possessing any qualification other than C.P. Ed. are not eligible. With a view to appreciate the applicability of the aforesaid judgment, it is deemed appropriate to examine the rule position as prescribed under 1955 rules for the post of P.T.I. From the rule noticed in earlier part of this judgment, it appears that educational qualification like metric or 10+2 is not prescribed therein. Though in the advertisement, Senior Secondary Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent basic qualification is an essential component for the post. Similarly, for professional qualifications, certificate in Physical Education C.P. Ed. of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent is prescribed. However, by virtue of the corrigendum dated 24.10.2006, even a candidate with one year duration course of C.P. Ed. is made eligible for recruitment in question. Similarly, in the rule, no equivalent qualification of C.P. Ed. is referred to, though in the advertisement C.P. Ed. or its equivalent qualification is also recognized as professional qualification. It cannot be ignored that the qualification prescribed under the rule and the advertisement is always the minimum qualification. It is not for us to identify any course which can be termed as equivalent to C.P. Ed. course. At the same time, the curriculum of B.P. Ed. and other higher courses, if include almost all the components of curriculum of C.P. Ed. should not be construed to be a totally different and distinct qualification. In the case of Multan, a Division Bench of this Court has clearly observed that D.P. Ed., B.P. Ed. and M.P. Ed. are higher qualifications in the same line. From the curriculum of courses like C.P. Ed., B.P. Ed., D.P. Ed., it is found that almost all components of C.P. Ed. course of one year or two years are taught in D.P. Ed. course in almost all the Universities in the States of Punjab and Haryana. In sum and substance, the controversy revolves around the curriculum of two types of courses, one prescribed in the advertisement i.e. C.P. Ed. and higher courses acquired by the petitioners. On facts, we are of the considered opinion that the curriculum of B.P. Ed., B.P.E., D.P. Ed. includes the curriculum prescribed for C.P. Ed. in major universities in the States of Punjab and Haryana. and higher courses acquired by the petitioners. On facts, we are of the considered opinion that the curriculum of B.P. Ed., B.P.E., D.P. Ed. includes the curriculum prescribed for C.P. Ed. in major universities in the States of Punjab and Haryana. Higher qualifications being in the same subject and line cannot be ignored and candidates possessing higher qualification cannot be denied consideration for selection." [23] Adverting now to the provisions of relevant recruitment Rules in the case in hand, Entry 3 of Section B of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1971, while prescribing Senior Secondary/Secondary as the basic eligibility qualification, requires only Certificate of Physical Education, for appointment on the post of PTI at the level elementary education. Regulations of 2001 however prescribes the Certificate of Physical Education of the duration of two years and has also permitted to treat the candidates eligible, who possessed the qualification equivalent thereto. The equivalence cannot therefore be judged only from the perspective of qualification of exactly same duration and having the same syllabus and curriculum. It has to be also kept in view that the writ petitioners, who are resisting the claim of the appellants for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. III, are those, who possess the Certificate of Physical Education of the duration of only one year. Training and education in the subjects that was given/imparted to them, was also given/imparted to the appellants, who hold the Degree of B.P. Ed. However, when we compare the subjects taught in the B.P. Ed. Of three years duration, the subjects mentioned in its syllabus/curriculum on the basis of which the appellants claim eligibility and those of C.P. Ed. of two years duration from Punjab University (there being no such course in the State of Rajasthan), referred to in the Larger Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, we find that the subjects are almost same and substantially cover the syllabus/curriculum of the former. Those subjects are-(1) History of Physical Education, (2) Anatomy & Physiology, (3) Education and Sports Psychology, (4) Methods of Physical Education and Sports, (5) Officiating & Coaching, (6) Principles of Physical Education, (7) Kinesiology, Exercise Physiology & Fitness, (8) Health Education & Safety Education and (9) Recreation & Yoga. In the syllabus of B.P. Ed. Those subjects are-(1) History of Physical Education, (2) Anatomy & Physiology, (3) Education and Sports Psychology, (4) Methods of Physical Education and Sports, (5) Officiating & Coaching, (6) Principles of Physical Education, (7) Kinesiology, Exercise Physiology & Fitness, (8) Health Education & Safety Education and (9) Recreation & Yoga. In the syllabus of B.P. Ed. of three years duration, reference to which has already been made above, all these subjects are covered with almost the same names. The comparative table that has been extracted above, clearly shows that the first subject "Education Theories of Psychology & History of Physical Education" is taught in much expanded form in the first year as well as second year of the Degree Course of B.P. Ed. The subject "Organization of Physical Education & Methods" is also taught in the Degree course of B.P. Ed. in much more diversified manner in Second and Final Year of B.P. Ed. Similarly, subject of "Human Anatomy" which is taught as subject in C.P. Ed. is taught in first year of B.P. Ed. as subject known as "Anatomy and Physiology". The subject "Physical Health Education, Safety Education, Balanced Diet and First Aid" taught in C.P. Ed., is also included in B.P. Ed. as subject of "Health Education & Remedial & Corrective Physical Education" in the Final year, and then is the subject "Educational Psychology and Counselling and Guidance". Subject "Balance Diet and First Aid" in the CP. Ed. Course is also taught in the First Year of B.P. Ed. as the subject "Health, Hygiene and Sanitation". Subject "Guidance and Coaching" in the C.P. Ed. is taught as the subject "Counselling and Guidance", as also the subject of "Officiating and Coaching" in the B.P. Ed. course. Subject "Teaching & Officiating Ability, Officiating Assignment" in C.P. Ed. is taught in a much comprehensive format as the subject of "Officiating and Coaching" and then "Organization and Administration of Physical Education" and then the "Method in Physical Education". Even though B.P. Ed. is a higher qualification entitling its holder to secure appointment on the higher post of PTI Gr. II, but we are not deciding the question of equivalence herein only because it is higher degree. Analytical comparison of the two clearly brings out that the subjects of-course are the same, but the curriculum of subjects in B.P. Ed. is much comprehensive, wider and diversified. II, but we are not deciding the question of equivalence herein only because it is higher degree. Analytical comparison of the two clearly brings out that the subjects of-course are the same, but the curriculum of subjects in B.P. Ed. is much comprehensive, wider and diversified. [24] We are however not inclined to concur with the view expressed by the Larger Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court treating the qualification of B.P. Ed./D.P. Ed. courses of one year duration higher than the C.P. Ed. of two years duration. Careful reading of the said judgment reveal that in fact the Larger Bench in taking that view, heavily relied on earlier Division Bench judgment of the same Court in Multan & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., [2004 (4) SCT 45]. The qualification of C.P. Ed. of two years duration does not merely consist of theory papers but also practical training is imparted to the students during that period with respect to each of the subjects taught to them. The training consists of games, athletics and other activities. Nine papers are divided into four semesters spread over a period of two years. The students are imparted extensive training in each of the subjects with particular emphasis on practical aspects. Apart from that, neither the Larger Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., CWP No. 451/2008, nor Division Bench in R, analyzed the effect of National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in School) Regulations, 2001, which has prescribed C.P. [Ed. of two years duration as eligibility qualification for appointment on the post of PTI at elementary level. While therefore we do not find any reason to hold that any specialized physical training is imparted in C.P. Ed. for students of only elementary level, which training is not imparted in B.P. Ed., we are not persuaded to hold that qualification of B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed. of one year duration is higher qualification than the qualification of C.P. Ed. of two years duration and, therefore, should be considered equivalent. [25] It therefore logically follows that those holding the qualification of B.P. Ed., recognized by NCTE, would not be holding an equivalent qualification. of one year duration is higher qualification than the qualification of C.P. Ed. of two years duration and, therefore, should be considered equivalent. [25] It therefore logically follows that those holding the qualification of B.P. Ed., recognized by NCTE, would not be holding an equivalent qualification. The degree of B.P. Ed., since its syllabus covers all the essential components of the subject of C.P. Ed., cannot be treated a totally different and distinct qualification. Another significant aspect of the matter is that R.P.S.C. has also held common written examination for both the posts, thus indicating that merit of all the candidates has been tested applying the same yardstick. Apart from recognizing C.P. Ed. as the eligibility qualification for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. III at the elementary level, recognition has also been given to the degree of B.P. Ed. for appointment on the post of P.T.I. Gr. II at the secondary/High School Level. [26] Adverting now to the qualification of D.P. Ed., it is to be noted that the Government, in its order dated 06.01.2010, has also directed the qualification of D.P. Ed. to be treated equivalent to that of C.P. Ed., but in the Regulations of 2001, the NCTE. has neither accorded any recognition to the qualification of D.P. Ed. nor prescribed it as one of the eligibility qualifications for appointment on the post of P.T.I. either at the Elementary or at Secondary/High School level. The analogy on which we are persuaded to hold the qualification of B.P. Ed. equivalent to qualification of C.P. Ed., is that besides being higher, it covers all the subjects in much expanded form. But this analogy cannot be applied to the qualification of D.P. Ed. Even though, the Rules of 1971 recognize the qualification of D.P. Ed. as eligibility qualification for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. II, but D.P. Ed. can not be treated equivalent to C.P. Ed. envisaged in the Regulations of 2001, which only recognize the C.P. Ed. of not less than two years duration, as the necessary qualification for appointment on the post of PTI at elementary level and Bachelor in Physical Education (B.P. Ed.) of the duration of three years or its equivalent at Secondary/High School level. Qualification of C.P. Ed. envisaged in the Regulations of 2001, which only recognize the C.P. Ed. of not less than two years duration, as the necessary qualification for appointment on the post of PTI at elementary level and Bachelor in Physical Education (B.P. Ed.) of the duration of three years or its equivalent at Secondary/High School level. Qualification of C.P. Ed. With which the comparison has to be made, thus has to be of duration of not less than two years and therefore, the Diploma course of the duration of one year, cannot be on similar analogy treated equivalent thereto. Moreover, such comparison cannot be made with the C.P. Ed. of one year because only those already possessing qualification of C.P. Ed. of one year or admitted to C.P. Ed. course of one year, upto 2005, have been, by virtue of the Note given below Section 2 Second Schedule to the Regulations of 2001, treated as eligible and not otherwise. Therefore, the premise on which we have held the qualification of B.P. Ed. of the duration of three years, equivalent to the qualification of C.P. Ed. of the duration of two years, cannot be applied to the qualification of D.P. Ed. of one year duration. [27] Question somewhat similar to the one involved in this matter, fell for consideration of Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Hari Ram & Ors., supra, albeit, in the context of direct recruitment to the post of PTI Gr. II. The relevant entry then prevalent in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1971, provided that those possessing the qualification of Graduation or equivalent examination, with Diploma in Physical Education or Secondary with 4 years diploma in Physical Education, would be eligible for appointment. Those possessing the Bachelor's degree in Physical Education from Indira Gandhi University, Nagpur and other Universities, recognized by University Grants Commission, were not considered eligible for direct recruitment to the post of PTI Gr. II. Such candidates approached this Court by filing writ petitions. The Single Bench of this Court allowed the petitions holding that the candidates possessing the Bachelor's Degree in Physical Education from Universities recognized by the UGC should be considered eligible along-with other candidates, who possess the Graduate Degree or equivalent to the Graduate Degree and Diploma in Physical Education. Challenge was made to the aforesaid Single Bench judgment before the Division Bench in appeal. Challenge was made to the aforesaid Single Bench judgment before the Division Bench in appeal. It was argued on behalf of the State that the Single Bench has not considered the Rules in their proper perspective and that for the purpose of appointment on the post of PTI Gr. II, special physical practical training is most essential and if untrained persons are recruited and appointed on the post of PTI, they would not be able to impart physical training to the students. Contention of writ petitioners was that while pursuing the course of degree in Physical Education, they have undergone more theoretical studies and also more practical training in comparison to those persons, who have acquired diploma in Physical Education, and some of them from the same University, from which the writ petitioners acquired the degree qualification. While deciding the Special Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court, in Para 8 of the judgment, held that, "....such construction of the rules is meaningless and it causes miscarriage of justice with regard to the rights of the persons like the petitioners who are qualified and are in possession of the degree in Physical Education. This apart, a person who undergoes a degree course in particular subject has to pursue the said course for such education, study more papers and has to undergo more practical training in comparison to those persons who acquired diploma course which is comparatively of short duration...." [28] It must therefore be held that while deciding the question of equivalence of two qualifications, comparative duration of two courses is a significant aspect, especially when the practical training is an important component of the curriculum. When the Regulations of 2001 for appointment of PTI at elementary level, requires C.P. Ed. qualification of duration of two, years, with a positive mandate to discontinue/derecognize C.P. Ed. qualification of duration of one year from 2005 onwards, C.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. qualification of one year and also, B.P. Ed. qualification of one year, cannot be treated equivalent to C.P. Ed. qualification of the duration of two years. Candidates possessing B.P. Ed. qualification of three years have to be however treated eligible for appointment on the post of PTI at elementary level for the aforestated reasons." 29. and D.P. Ed. qualification of one year and also, B.P. Ed. qualification of one year, cannot be treated equivalent to C.P. Ed. qualification of the duration of two years. Candidates possessing B.P. Ed. qualification of three years have to be however treated eligible for appointment on the post of PTI at elementary level for the aforestated reasons." 29. I may also refer to one another decision of the High Court of Rajasthan rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Madan Gir and others v. State of Rajasthan [2013 Labour Industrial Cases 724]. In Madan Gir (supra), the State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed rules called the "Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules 1971" to regulate the recruitment and other service conditions relating to the members of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service. According to the Schedule-I appended to the rules, the persons, having the qualification of the "Certificate in Physical Education" (in short, 'C.P. Ed.') eligible to be considered for appointments as the Physical Training Instructors, Grade III. The eligibility prescribed for the appointment to the post of the Physical Training Instructor, Grade III was of having the Bachelor Degree in the Physical Education (B.P. Ed.) inter alia. The petitioners therein having the qualification of the C.P. Ed. and were eligible to be considered for the appointments to the posts of the Physical Education Instructors, Grade III. Thereafter, the rules came to be amended. As a consequent to the amendment, the persons having the qualification of the B.P. Ed. were also made available to be considered for appointments of the Physical Training Instructors, Grade III along with the persons having the qualifications of the C.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. The petitioners therein having the qualification of the C.P. Ed. challenged the amended eligibility i.e. the inclusion of the B.P. Ed. holders in the eligibility criteria for the appointments to the posts of the Physical Training Instructors, Grade III. and D.P. Ed. The petitioners therein having the qualification of the C.P. Ed. challenged the amended eligibility i.e. the inclusion of the B.P. Ed. holders in the eligibility criteria for the appointments to the posts of the Physical Training Instructors, Grade III. While rejecting the writ application, the Division Bench held as under: "[4] The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that as per the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 framed National Council for Teachers Education (Department of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers) Regulations 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 2001") and as per that a Physical Training instructor for elementary level is required to have Certificate in Physical Education (CPEd.) of a duration not less than two years or equivalent. The BPEd. holders are not eligible to be considered for appointment at elementary physical education level as per the Regulations aforesaid, therefore, the amendment introduced in the Rules of 1971 is bad. [5] We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The Regulations of 2001 prescribes minimum standards for recruitment of teachers. True it is, the qualification of CPEd of duration not less than two years or its equivalent is prescribed as minimum academic and professional qualification for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor at elementary level, but the qualification of BPEd is quite higher than the qualification of CPEd. As per the Regulations of 2001 the respondents could have not prescribed any eligibility less than the eligibility prescribed under the Regulations aforesaid, but higher standards of qualification are certainly permissible to be introduced as necessary eligibility. The provisions under challenge in these petitions for writ as such are neither at all inconsistent with fundamental rights of the petitioners nor are also beyond the legislative competence. The amendment introduced is quite rational as that provides higher qualification as eligibility for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade-III. It is further relevant to note that no institution in the State of Rajasthan is providing the qualification of CPEd in the State of Rajasthan at least from last about a decade. No case, therefore, is made out to impeach the amended eligibility prescribed for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructors Grade-III. The writ petitions, for the reasons given above are dismissed." 30. No case, therefore, is made out to impeach the amended eligibility prescribed for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructors Grade-III. The writ petitions, for the reasons given above are dismissed." 30. What is important to note in the above referred decision of the Rajasthan High Court is the fact that no institution in the State of Rajasthan was providing the qualification of the C.P. Ed. in the State of Rajasthan at that time past almost a decade. Keeping that in mind the Division Bench declined to impeach the amended eligibility criteria for the appointment to the post of the Physical Education Instructor, Grade III. 31. Let me also look into the decision making process. The free English translation of the Annexure: "E" in the Special Civil Application No. 8887 of 2007 is as under: "Read:- (1) Letter No. Ch/U/Grant/Vidhya Sahayak/8524-8679/98-99 dated 15/6/98 of office of Director, Primary Education. (2) Letter No. Ch/U/Grant/Vidhya Sahayak/2000/1161-82 dated 25.1.2000 of office of Director, Primary Education. ROJKAM The Government of Gujarat has introduced a scheme of Vidhya Sahayak for the recruitment of Primary Teacher in the primary school vide Read-1. 1. As per the scheme of the Recruitment of Vidhya Sahayak, the Director of Primary Education gave approval for filling up 17 vacancies of the Primary Teacher in the Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti, Anjar. In 3rd round of recruitment vide letter at reference 2. 2. Out of the 17 posts for which approval was given for recruitment, 5 posts of the Vidhya Sahayaks were required to be filled in through the inter district transfer as per the policy of the Government and 12 posts of Vidhya Sahayak were required to be filled in by applying the roster policy applicable to the Kutchh District. 3. For the 12 posts which were sanctioned, the Administrative Officer, Anjar Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samity issued an advertisement on 05/02/2000 in the local newspaper, Kutchh Mitra for the post of Vidhya Sahayak to be filled from amongst the PTC and trainee graduates and since in the committee there were vacancies for a P.T. teacher and a Music Teacher each. For that the applications were invited from the candidates possessing the qualifications of D.P. Ed., C.P. Ed./B.P. Ed. and Sangit Visharad. For that the applications were invited from the candidates possessing the qualifications of D.P. Ed., C.P. Ed./B.P. Ed. and Sangit Visharad. The applicants were asked to submit their applications within a period of 10 days from the date of publication of the advertisement to the Administrative Officer, Anjar Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti. 4. Within the prescribed time limit (i.e. 14/02/2000 by the end of office time) in all total 90 applications were received. 5. Out of those 90 applications 30 applications were rejected for the following reasons. A. Due to overage-11 B. Due to applicant being untrained-7 C. Applications not accompanied by the original documents-12 Total rejected applications-30 6. Since 30 applications were rejected out of 90 received, the remaining 60 applications were treated to be valid. Thereafter, one applicant withdrew his application as he got appointment elsewhere. The balanced 59 applications were bifurcated category wise as under: A. General (unreserved)-22 B. O.B.C.-15 C. S.C.-14 D. S.T.-8 7. As per the roster system applicable to the Kutchh District, 12 vacancies were required to be filled up as under: 1. General (unreserved)-5 2. O.B.C.-1 3. S.C.-1 4. S.T.-1 5. C.P. Ed/B.P. Ed.-1 6. Sangit Visharad-1 Total-12 8. For the recruitment on the aforesaid 12 posts, the interview call letters were issued on 22/02/2000 to 47 candidates out of 59 candidates as the selection committee of Anjar Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti was scheduled to be held on 07/03/2000. After the issuance of the interview call letters, 3 candidates applied to get back their original documents. Out of which 1 candidate's application was already rejected due to overage. Whereas 2 candidates took the original documents back as they wanted to apply elsewhere and therefore, remaining 45 candidates were called for interview. Out of which 3 candidates remained absent at the time of interview and therefore, a merit list was prepared from amongst 42 candidates. 9. Out of the 2 candidates who were called for the interview with the qualification of Sangit Visharad, one candidate requested for time to clarify his position in respect of his mark sheet and therefore, by accepting his request it was decided by the selection committee to prepare a select list and waiting list of the candidates for the subject of music after 10/03/2000. 10. 10. Out of total 17 sanctioned posts the select list and waiting list for filling up 12 posts of Vidhya Sahayak by undertaking the aforesaid procedure category wise select list and merit list were prepared. 5 posts were required to be filled in by inter district transfer. But in that category only 3 applications are received hence they are accommodated whereas for remaining 2 vacancies since there is no application till date as per the circular at reference no. 2, remaining vacancies which were otherwise required to be filled up by inter district transfer were required to be filled up by Vidhya Sahayak and hence in the meeting of the selection committee which is held today it was decided that out of those 2 vacancies one may be filled up from general category and one from OBC and necessary rojkam is done. 11. Accordingly one post each is decided to be filled up from the General category and OBC. The select list and waiting list are prepared as under: Unreserved Select list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Thakkar Rity Premjitbhai ‘81.025 2. Parmar Sapna Mahendrakumar ‘79.092 3. Sorathia Varshaben Manubhai ‘70.015 4. Jadeja Kundanba Ravubhai ‘75.974 5. Sorathia Hiral Krushnakant ‘74.960 6. Mogharia Arunaben Laxmanbhai ‘74.960 Unreserved waiting list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Jadeja Vipulaba Abhesinh ‘72.051 OBC select list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Parekh Jayshir Kiritkumar ‘72.533 2. Dacha Jalpa Rameshchandra ‘68.874 3. Chavda Vijeta Vasudev ‘68.378 4. Roz Kiritbhai Govindbhai ‘65.257 OBC waiting list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Tank Radha Popatlal ‘63.033 SC select list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Chavada Jasmin Bhogilal 70.407 SC waiting list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Agarcha Kiritkumar Nandlal ‘64.595 ST select list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Mahlta Kamlaben Ramanbhai ‘62.944 ST waiting list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Rathod Pallaviben Madukantbhai ‘62.235 C.P.Ed. /D.P. Ed. select list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Gohil Hitendra Mulubha ‘64.800 C.P.Ed. /D.P. Ed. Waiting list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Lilan Dineshraj Pannaram 62.935 (D.P.Ed.) Accordingly as stated herein above, in the Anjar Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti out of 17 sanctioned posts 14 are filled up by Vidhya Sahayak whereas 3 posts are filled up through inter district transfer. Date: 07/03/2000. Gohil Hitendra Mulubha ‘64.800 C.P.Ed. /D.P. Ed. Waiting list Sr.No. Name of Candidate Merit 1. Lilan Dineshraj Pannaram 62.935 (D.P.Ed.) Accordingly as stated herein above, in the Anjar Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti out of 17 sanctioned posts 14 are filled up by Vidhya Sahayak whereas 3 posts are filled up through inter district transfer. Date: 07/03/2000. Sd/- District Education Officer Office of District Education Officer Bhuj- Kutchh Sd/- Chairman Anjar Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti Anjar- Kutchh Sd/- Administrative Officer Anjar Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti Anjar- Kutchh” 32. I am of the view that as the writ applicants were not possessing the requisite qualification of the C.P. Ed., they could not have been appointed on the posts in question, and more particularly, when the advertisement in this regard was very clear. In fact the applications should have been rejected at the threshold. It is very sad to note that the two writ applicants although worked for a period of almost five years, yet had to go home. The learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants submitted that even considering the equity, they should be reinstated in service with the continuity. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the back wages may not be granted. It must never be forgotten that one of the maxims of equity is that "Equity follows the law". If the law is clear, no notions of equity can substitute the same. 33. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, which is sought to be invoked would also not save the situation for the writ applicants. 34. A person who puts forward his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, most satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has the locus standi to make such a claim. In considering the same several factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be present. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. If it is a question of policy, even by way of change of the policy, the Court may refuse to interfere with such decision. In a given case whether there are such facts and circumstances, giving rise to the legitimate expectation, would be primarily a question of fact. If it is a question of policy, even by way of change of the policy, the Court may refuse to interfere with such decision. In a given case whether there are such facts and circumstances, giving rise to the legitimate expectation, would be primarily a question of fact. If these tests are satisfied and if the Court is satisfied that a case of legitimate expectation is made out then the next question would be whether the failure to give an opportunity of hearing before the decision of affecting such legitimate expectation is taken, has resulted in failure of justice and whether on that ground the decision should be quashed. If that be so then what should be the relief is again a matter which would be dependent on the several factors. 35. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation [ AIR 1994 SC 988 ] has quoted from Schmidts case (1969(2) Ch 149):- ... a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of rights guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse or violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It can be one of the grounds to consider but of the Court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. It depends very much on the facts and the recognized general principles of administrative law applicable to such facts and the concept of legitimate expectation which is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the Courts for the review of administrative action, must be restricted to the general legal limitations applicable and binding the manner of the future exercise of administrative power in a particular case. If follows that the concept of legitimate expectation is not the key which unlocks the treasury of natural justice and it ought not to unlock the gates which shuts the Court out of review on the merits, particularly when the element of speculation and uncertainty is inherent in that very concept. As cautioned in Attorney General for New South Wales case the Courts should restrain themselves and restrict such claims duly to the legal limitations. As cautioned in Attorney General for New South Wales case the Courts should restrain themselves and restrict such claims duly to the legal limitations. It is a well-meant caution. Otherwise a resourceful litigant having vested interests in contracts, licences etc., can successfully indulge in getting welfare activities mandated by a directive principles thwarted to further his own interest. The caution, particularly in the changing scenario, becomes all the more important. 36. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ 2006 (4) SCC 1 ] referred to the circumstances in which the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked thus: "The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn." 37. Another Constitution Bench, referring to the doctrine, observed thus in the Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations v. Union of India [ 2006 (8) JT 547 ]: "No doubt, the doctrine has an important place in the development of Administrative Law and particularly law relating to judicial review'. Under the said doctrine, a person may have reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no right in law to receive the benefit. In such situation, if a decision is taken by an administrative authority adversely affecting his interests, he may have justifiable grievance in the light of the fact of continuous receipt of the benefit, legitimate expectation to receive the benefit or privilege which he has enjoyed all throughout. Such expectation may arise either from the express promise or from consistent practice which the applicant may reasonably expect to continue." "In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist an administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it to act fairly. Such expectation may arise either from the express promise or from consistent practice which the applicant may reasonably expect to continue." "In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist an administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it to act fairly. The doctrine is based on the principle that good administration demands observance of reasonableness and where it has adopted a particular practice for a long time even in absence of a provision of law, it should adhere to such practice without depriving its citizens of the benefit enjoyed or privilege exercised." 38. Thus, from the above at least one thing is clear that no relief should be granted solely on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be brought in aid with the other circumstances emerging from the record of the case including some right if not a indefeasible right. 39. For the foregoing reasons, both the writ applications fail and are hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.