JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.9.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 43558 of 2001. Facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are as under: 2. The writ petitioner Inder Mohan Oberoi feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2001 passed by the Committee of Management, Gopal Balak Junior High School, Kankar Khera, Shobhapur, Meerut filed writ petition No. 43558 of 2001. 3. It was contended that the order of dismissal as approved by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut was bad inasmuch as it was the case of the writ petitioner that he had passed his Shiksha Shastri Examination equivalent to B.Ed. in the year 1986 from Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Varanasi with Roll Number 60 and the degree in that regard was issued on 21.5.1997. The respondents have wrongly got the verification of the said degree done by mentioning a wrong Roll Number i.e. 425 which was allotted to Shiva Ram Bahadur Singh. 4. It was, therefore, submitted that the entire order of dismissal proceed on wrongful appreciation of facts. The learned Single Judge has accepted the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner with specific reference to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Varanasi, which in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit stated that the documents enclosed by the writ petitioner were genuine and had been issued by the University. 5. It is against this order that the Committee of Management has approached this Court by means of this Intra-Court Appeal. 6. It is the case of the Committee of Management that the stand taken by Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vidyalaya in the counter-affidavit was false and that the petitioner had not passed his Shiksha Shastri Examaination from Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, in the year 1986. It is lastly contended that even if the entire case as set up by the writ petitioner was accepted then to the petitioner is not possessed of required statutory qualification for the post. B.Ed. is not one of the qualification prescribed under the U.P. Basic School (Junior High School Teachers Service Rules), 1981. It is specifically pointed out that Rule 4 of 1981 Rules lays down the requirement of teaching qualification as that of B.T.C., J.T.C., H.T.C. or equivalent thereto. The issue with regard to the B.Ed. degree being not equivalent to that of B.T.C.J.T.C., H.T.C. etc. It is specifically pointed out that Rule 4 of 1981 Rules lays down the requirement of teaching qualification as that of B.T.C., J.T.C., H.T.C. or equivalent thereto. The issue with regard to the B.Ed. degree being not equivalent to that of B.T.C.J.T.C., H.T.C. etc. with reference to Rule 4 of 1981 Rules has been examined by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P., 2006 (II) ACC 315 and it has been held that B.Ed. is not equivalent to the minimum teaching qualification prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules 1981 of U.P. Basic Teachers Services Rule, 1981 which are para material to 1978 Rule. 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is sated that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in granting the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 8. Counsel for the University Sri B.D.Mishra submits that the University has verified the record again after constituting a Five Members Committee. From the report of Five Members Committee it is now established that the B.Ed. Certificate/degree is not genuine. In support of this an affidavit has also been filed in this appeal. 9. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner-respondent to controvert the allegations so made in the supplementary-affidavit filed by the University and therefore, this uncontroverted statement of facts has to be accepted by the Court as correct. 10. Even otherwise in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. (Supra) the petitioner-respondent cannot be said to be possessed of the minimum prescribed qualification as provided in Rule 4 of 1981 Rules. The Apex Court has held that essential qualification are to be judged on the date of appointment and any appointment made contrary to the minimum prescribed qualification would be void-ab-initio. Reference in that regard may be had in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secretary (Special Cell) Selection Board, 2008 (4) ALJ 207. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed, the order of learned Single Judge is set aside.