JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. Respondent no. 1 issued advertisement calling for applications for the post of Assistant Teacher and other courses in various disciplines. Considering herself to be qualified, as she had cleared the Uttarakhand Teachers Eligibility Test (for short “U.T.E.T.”) in 2013, she applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Music). There was a written test, in which appellant participated. Result was declared. Appellant scored 115 marks. The cut-off marks were declared as 120 marks. Certain candidates, according to the appellant, were disqualified, as they had not qualified the U.T.E.T. Examination. Appellant relied on the detailed list of 11 candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher (Music), who had obtained marks above the cut-off marks, but were disqualified on verification of documents and only one candidate, namely, Deeksha Joshi, who had duly given U.T.E.T., was selected. The writ petition came to be filed when the 11 candidates were selected on the basis of relaxation from essential qualification provided by the N.C.T.E. under Rule 27 of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). It is, accordingly, that the appellant sought the following reliefs in the writ petition: “(a) Issue, writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Government Order dated 20th May, 2016 issued by Respondent No. 1 and the list of the recommended candidates issued in consequence of the same on 20th May, 2016 by the Respondent No. 3. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to publish a fresh list/ waiting list of candidates fulfilling the basic eligibility criteria.” 2. The learned Single Judge considered the writ petition alongwith batch of other writ petitions, where other questions relating to the selection arose, and dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge took the view that a mandatory condition cannot be relaxed, as that would be in complete violation of Right to Education Act as well as in violation of notification of N.C.T.E. dated 23.08.2010, as amended from time to time; but, the following reasoning was, thereafter, adopted: “41. The learned Single Judge took the view that a mandatory condition cannot be relaxed, as that would be in complete violation of Right to Education Act as well as in violation of notification of N.C.T.E. dated 23.08.2010, as amended from time to time; but, the following reasoning was, thereafter, adopted: “41. In the considered view of this Court that a mandatory condition cannot be relaxed as that would be in complete violation of Right to Education Act as well as in violation of notification of NCTE dated 23.08.2010 as amended from time to time. All the same, the said Government Order has been issued in the light of the guidelines of the NCTE that for such teachers, who are imparting education in Art Education, which would also include Music, the minimum educational qualification as existing will continue to be in force till a minimum eligibility criteria for them as well is laid down by the NCTE. In other words, TET was never a mandatory qualification in their case. It is, however, only a clarification and not a change in the Rules, as it is being alleged by the petitioner. In the 2014 Rules, which were enforced on 19.02.2014 apart from laying down the qualifications for Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade, a further qualification was added in Rule 8(2) by which it has been provided that a candidate for appointment/selection to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade must have qualified an examination known as TET-II and this shall be mandatory. All the same, such teachers, who are imparting education in “Physical Education”, Arts and Home Science, the minimum education as existing earlier would continue to be in force till a minimum eligibility criteria for them as well is laid down by the NCTE. 42. In order to clear the ambiguity whether TET-II is mandatory for teachers of Physical Education, Arts and Home Science as well, we will have to revert to the notification issued by NCTE on 23.08.2010 and its clarification dated 29.07.2011. Notification dated 29.07.2011, is a clarification of that principal notification dated 23.08.2010, and it says as follows:- “(IV) For para 5 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted, namely:- 5. Notification dated 29.07.2011, is a clarification of that principal notification dated 23.08.2010, and it says as follows:- “(IV) For para 5 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted, namely:- 5. (a) Teacher appointed after the date of this Notification in certain cases:-Where an appropriate Government, or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time). (b) The minimum qualification norms referred to in this Notification apply to teachers of Languages, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, etc. In respect of teachers for Physical Education, the minimum qualification norms for Physical Education teachers referred to in NCTE Regulation dated 3rd November, 2001 (as amended from time to time) shall be applicable. For teachers of Art Education, Craft Education, Home Science, Work Education, etc. the existing eligibility norms prescribed by the State Governments and other school managements shall be applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum qualification in respect of such teachers.” 43. Our answer to above question is in Clause 5(b) which has been substituted for clause 5. The above provision clarifies that the qualifications laid down for elementary and senior elementary teachers is only applicable in cases of teachers for the subjects such as Languages, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, etc. In respect of teachers for imparting Physical Education, Art Education, Home Science, etc, the minimum qualification norms referred to in the earlier NCTE Regulations of 03.11.2001 shall be applicable. In the year 2001, there was admittedly no requirement of TET. Hence, the logical implication would be that for a teacher imparting education in Physical Education, Art Education, etc the qualification of TET, whether I or II, is not at all a mandatory qualification, till it is made so by the NCTE. There is as of now no such directions by the NCTE in this regard which makes TET-I or TET-II mandatory for a teacher imparting education in the subjects such as Physical Education, Craft Education, Home Science & Art Education.” 3. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge also proceeded to hold as follows: “44. There is as of now no such directions by the NCTE in this regard which makes TET-I or TET-II mandatory for a teacher imparting education in the subjects such as Physical Education, Craft Education, Home Science & Art Education.” 3. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge also proceeded to hold as follows: “44. At this juncture, we may also clarify that though the subject Music has not been specifically dealt with but in the clarification issued by the NCTE earlier, the term “Art Education” would also include teacher imparting education in Music. In other words, a teacher who is imparting education in Music at senior elementary level is not required to qualify TET. 45. All this clearly makes sense. It is a common knowledge that teacher in Music for example is to be judged primarily by his skill, therefore TET, which is a test laying down minimum standards and benchmark for a teacher in general education alone not for specialized subjects. Nevertheless as and when some kind of a specialized TET is still required in their case, that may still be done by the duly authorized education authority such as NCTE, but until that comes up, the earlier provision will occupy the field.” 4. We heard Mr. Mr. Ayush Negi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and also Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though power of relaxation is there, the power was exercised in this case after the issuance of the advertisement. The advertisement was issued on 23.02.2014. The impugned clarification was issued on 20.05.2016 and it appears that on the same day, result was also declared. This is changing the Rules of the game after the game was started, which is impermissible in law. We asked the learned counsel for the appellant to make available the translated version of the advertisement, as he had a case that, in the advertisement, it is not made clear. We perused the translated version of the advertisement, as made available to us. We notice the following portion: “The candidate must have passed UTET-II/CTET-II examination for the appointment/Selection of Assistant Teacher L.T. But the minimum qualification will be applicable for Physical Education teachers. We perused the translated version of the advertisement, as made available to us. We notice the following portion: “The candidate must have passed UTET-II/CTET-II examination for the appointment/Selection of Assistant Teacher L.T. But the minimum qualification will be applicable for Physical Education teachers. Prescribed Eligibility criteria for Art, Education & Home Science teacher will be applicable until the NCTE fixes the minimum qualification.” 6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant would develop his case as follows: Firstly, he would submit that the matter is vague. Thereafter, the clarification, if needed, should have been issued much earlier than it was issued. Next, he would submit that he is still not clear as to whether the Art Education would encompass Music. Therefore, it was necessary that the clarification should have been issued, if at all, much earlier and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition. 7. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would support the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. We have noticed the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The post in question is Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Music). Under the Right to Education Act, the competent authority to fix a qualification is the N.C.T.E. Originally, the N.C.T.E. issued notification dated 25.08.2010. In the same, pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the N.C.T.E. was made a necessary qualification. Thereafter, a clarification was issued by way of notification dated 29.07.2011, which amounts to an amendment of the notification dated 25.08.2010, and, therein, Clause 5 (a) was added, which we have already extracted. 9. We may now next see the statutory rules made by the State of Uttarakhand. In the statutory rules framed by the State of Uttarakhand, Rule 8 (2) is the reproduction of Clause 5 (a) of the notification issued dated 29.07.2011 by the N.C.T.E. Therefore, both the N.C.T.E. and State Government have proceeded to classify teachers in Art Education differently from the other teachers. In other words, T.E.T. was not considered necessary or mandatory qualification as far as teachers engaged in Art Education is concerned. 10. No doubt, in the Rules, there is a post of Assistant Teacher L.T. (Art) and Assistant Teacher L.T. (Music). Therefore, a question may arise whether T.E.T. is required or not for Assistant Teacher L.T. (Music). In other words, T.E.T. was not considered necessary or mandatory qualification as far as teachers engaged in Art Education is concerned. 10. No doubt, in the Rules, there is a post of Assistant Teacher L.T. (Art) and Assistant Teacher L.T. (Music). Therefore, a question may arise whether T.E.T. is required or not for Assistant Teacher L.T. (Music). In the clarification, no doubt, in exercise of power under Rule 27 of the Rules, requirement of T.E.T. is relaxed in respect of Art Education. In the impugned clarification, a reference is made to the executive summary of National Curriculum Framework (N.C.F.), wherein it is mentioned that “Art as subject at all stages is recommended, covering all four major spheres, i.e. music, dance, visual arts and theatre.” 11. In this case, we have to consider the impact of the clarification. Undoubtedly, there is power to issue clarification. We have noted the date of the advertisement. We have also noticed the contents of the advertisement. In keeping with the mandate of the N.C.T.E. in its notification dated 29.07.2011 and the statutory Rules, the advertisement also has reproduced the terms thereon, as already noticed. In other words, the advertisement, in so many words, clearly provided that prescribed eligibility criteria for Art, Education and Home Science Teachers will be applicable, until the N.C.T.E. fixes the minimum qualification. As held by the learned Single Judge, as far as Art is concerned, N.C.T.E. has not insisted on the candidates possessing qualification of U.T.E.T., unlike the case of other teachers. By the clarification, apparently, what has been done is an elucidation of the boundaries of the subject Art and Music was expressly encompassed within the subject Art. 12. In this case, the most salient feature to be borne in mind is at whose instance the clarification is sought to be quashed and relief sought. The appellant is a person, who has passed the T.E.T. We have perused the notification of the N.C.T.E., statutory rules framed by the State of Uttarakhand and also the advertisement issued by the third respondent. They all proclaimed, in one voice, that as far as teachers for Art Education are concerned, in substance, they would not be required to be U.T.E.T. qualified. They all proclaimed, in one voice, that as far as teachers for Art Education are concerned, in substance, they would not be required to be U.T.E.T. qualified. So, this is not a case where the petitioner is put to any prejudice as such, in that, if the law is that for being appointed as Assistant Teacher (Music), no T.E.T. is required. The 11 candidates, who have been selected and who do not have T.E.T, were not disqualified under the law. The matter may probably have been different had the persons, who complained, were persons, who did not have T.E.T. and the complaint was that they were under the impression that T.E.T. is required, and they did not apply and the issuance of the clarification amounted to changing the rules of the game and constitutes a fraud on the public by not setting out the terms clearly. But, in this case, as already noted, appellant is a person, who has obtained T.E.T. and the question is whether T.E.T. is required or not. Even if the clarification was not issued, as found by the learned Single Judge, it was always the law that for a Teacher in Art Education, T.E.T. was not a mandatory qualification. No doubt, the clarification, as already noted, made the matter more clear. We also may notice incidentally that appellant has not impleaded anyone of the selected candidates before the learned Single Judge, nor are they impleaded in the Appeal. 14. In the totality of the facts, we do not think that the appellant has made out any case. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.