ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. Looking to the urgency and at the joint request made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. By way of this appeal, which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants-original respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondents' for the sake of convenience) seek to challenge an order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge granted interim relief in favour of the present respondents-original petitioners (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioners' for the sake of convenience). 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 3.1 It is the case of the petitioners that they were duly selected and appointed as primary teachers under the appellants-original respondents on the basis of their qualifications of SSC/HSC and PTC/ATD. Presently, they are serving as Head Teachers in their respective primary schools. It is their case that their appointment as Head Teacher has been made in accordance with their seniority as per the prevalent policy. The petitioners are discharging their duties as Head Teachers as laid down in Rule 70 of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 made under the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. 3.2 It is stated that the Schedule of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 provides for appointment of Head Teacher if there are stipulated children in Class I to VIII. However, the respondent State Authorities did not create two separate cadres of Head Teachers for Lower Primary Schools (standard I to V) and Head Teachers for Upper Primary Schools (standard VI to VIII). It is further stated that the State Government issued notification dated 18.01.2012 laying down the Recruitment Rules for the post of Head Teachers without making any distinction between the Head Teachers of Lower Primary Schools and Head Teachers of Upper Primary Schools. 3.3 The petitioner have placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014, and more particularly, the observations made in para 30 to 33 of the order dated 01.12.2014 passed in the said appeal. 3.3 The petitioner have placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014, and more particularly, the observations made in para 30 to 33 of the order dated 01.12.2014 passed in the said appeal. 3.4 The Petitioners have also placed reliance upon the orders dated 29.12.2016 and 27.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14901 of 2013 and 15647 of 2013. 3.5 The petitioners have further submitted that the State Government has made Recruitment Rules for the Head Teachers by way of Education Department's Notification dated 22.09.2016 and in the said Rules provision is made for appointment of Head Teachers by promotion from the cadre of Lower Primary Teacher and Upper Primary Teacher, Class III in the ratio of 3:2 respectively. However, the Rules for Head Teachers Aptitude Test (H-TAT) are yet to be appropriately changed. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in the meantime the respondent authorities have initiated new recruitment of Head Teachers by advertisement dated 22.01.2017 Therefore, the concerned existing Head Teachers preferred Special Civil Application No. 2345 of 2017. The said petition came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge by an order dated 10.02.2017 Petitioners have placed reliance upon the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the said order. Petitioners, therefore, on 14.03.2017, filed the captioned petition wherein the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same; (b) to restrain the respondents their agents and servants from giving any appointments as Head Teachers without first earmarking the posts of Head Teachers for Lower Primary Schools (Stds. 1 to 5) and for Upper Primary Schools (Stds. 6 to 8) and without earmarking the posts to be filled up by promotion and the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment in both the sections-Lower Primary Schools (Std. I to V) and Upper Primary Schools (Std. 1 to 5) and for Upper Primary Schools (Stds. 6 to 8) and without earmarking the posts to be filled up by promotion and the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment in both the sections-Lower Primary Schools (Std. I to V) and Upper Primary Schools (Std. VI to VIII) and without making necessary changes in the Rules of H-TAT (Head Teachers Aptitude Test) in consonance with the new Recruitment Rules for the post of Head Teacher, Class III as per Annexure-F, and without first giving opportunity to the present petitioners to be promoted as Head Teachers under the said new Recruitment Rules; (c) to quash and set aside the on-going process of recruitment of Head Teachers by Advertisement dtd. 22.1.2017 as per Annexure-G; (d) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED TO restrain the respondent authorities from making any appointments of Head Teachers in Valsad District as per the Advertisement dtd. 22.1.2017 as per Annexure-G; (e) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED TO restrain the respondents from displacing/replacing the petitioners as Head Teachers in their respective primary schools by any other candidates pursuant to the on-going process of recruitment of Head Teachers by the Advertisement dtd. 22.1.2017 as per Annexure-G; (f) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED TO restrain the respondents from altering the service conditions of the petitioners to their disadvantage in any manner” 3.6 The learned Single Judge passed an order on 18.07.2017 by which the petition is admitted and the learned Single Judge granted interim relief in terms of para 9(e) of the petition. The appellants-original respondents have, therefore, preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah for the appellants-original respondents and learned advocate Mr. K.B Pujara for the respondents-original petitioners. 5. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah mainly contended that as per the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 29.12.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 14901 of 2013, order dated 27.12.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15647 of 2013 as well as order dated 10.02.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2345 of 2017 and allied matters, the Government has issued the amended resolution on 22.03.2017 with regard to examination of H-TAT in view of new Recruitment Rules of 2016 of I Head Teachers. Thus, when the amendment is made in the Rules, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any protection from this Court. 6. Learned Government Pleader thereafter submitted that similarly situated persons filed Special Civil Application No. 7322 of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein almost similar reliefs were prayed for which are prayed for in the captioned petition. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 05.05.2017, dismissed the said petition against which Special Leave Petition was preferred by the concerned petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP by an order dated 17.07.2017 Thus, the issue involved in the captioned petition has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted interim relief in favour of the original petitioners. 7. Learned Government Pleader thereafter submitted that because of the stay granted by the learned Single Judge, the appellants would not be in a position to place newly recruitees replacing the opponents-original petitioners which would create administrative difficulties for the appellants. Learned Government Pleader further submits that out of 22 petitioners, 7 petitioners appeared in H-TAT, however, they did not qualify. So far as other petitioners are concerned, the petitioners have not placed any details in the petition. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not appreciating the fact that petitioners were not entitled to any relief after introduction of new Rules and after conducting the examination of H-TAT. It is therefore urged that the present appeal be allowed and the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. K.B Pujara appearing for the original petitioners would submit that while disposing of the petition being Special Civil Application Nos. 14901 of 2013, 15647 of 2013 and 2345 of 2017, the learned Single Judge protected the service of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons as Head Teacher. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara thereafter has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014, and more particularly the observations made in para 30 to 33 of the said judgment. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara thereafter has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014, and more particularly the observations made in para 30 to 33 of the said judgment. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara further submits that the petitioners have chosen to prefer an appeal only in one matter, whereas similar type of order is passed by the learned Single Judge in other cases. However, no appeal is filed. Thus, the present appeal may not be entertained. In support of the said submission, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 20/21.04.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 881 of 2013, and more particularly observations made in para 14, wherein the Division Bench, on the basis of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed that the State cannot follow pick and choose policy for carrying an issue further from amongst similarly situated employees. 10. At this stage, learned Government Pleader submits that the State has preferred appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the similar type of petitions and therefore it is not correct on the part of the learned advocate for the petitioners to contend that the State has adopted pick and choose policy. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara thereafter submitted that initially the learned Single Judge granted interim relief in terms of para 9(b). However, by It he impugned order, the same is modified and interim relief in terms of para 9(e) has been granted for which the learned Single Judge has not committed any error and therefore present appeal be dismissed. 12. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that the Senior Teacher out of all the teachers in Primary School was to be given charge of Head Teacher. The original respondents-State authorities issued notification dated 18.01.2012, by which Recruitment Rules to the post of Head Teacher Class III in the subordinate service of the Directorate of Primary Education or respective District or Municipal Primary Education Committee are framed. The Education Department had also issued resolution regarding examination of H. TAT. The original respondents-State authorities issued notification dated 18.01.2012, by which Recruitment Rules to the post of Head Teacher Class III in the subordinate service of the Directorate of Primary Education or respective District or Municipal Primary Education Committee are framed. The Education Department had also issued resolution regarding examination of H. TAT. Thus, in view of the said Recruitment Rules of 2012, the Lower Primary Teachers, who do not possess the Bachelor Degree, they do not become eligible for direct recruitment or even promotion. Therefore, the said action was challenged by filing a petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of Special Civil Application No. 2615 of 2012 and allied matters against which Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014 and allied matters were preferred. The Division Bench of this Court observed in para 30 to 33 as under: “30. As per the Rules of 2012, only those teachers who hold degree qualification shall be entitled for promotion to the posts of Head Teacher, which will result into total restriction of promotion avenues for the teachers who do not possess degree qualification. They would thus stand stagnated even after acquiring long experience as Primary Teachers. Such situation could have been taken care of by providing quota or ratio between the teachers who hold and who do not hold degree qualification for promotion to the posts of Head Teacher. Such provision could well be made in the present Rules of 2012. While providing such quota or ratio, it is always open to the State Government to provide for requirement of more experience as further eligibility criteria for unqualified teacher for promotion. However, till such provision is made, the Rule prescribing minimum qualification for promotion to the post of Head Teacher in lower primary would stand unreasonable and unconstitutional as hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained. 31. Learned Single Judge, however, accepted the objection of the petitioners against prescription of the minimum qualification for the posts of Head Teacher for lower primary section (Std.1 to 5) in its entirety. Such would result into total interference with the domain of the State Government to prescribe minimum qualification for the higher posts. 32. 31. Learned Single Judge, however, accepted the objection of the petitioners against prescription of the minimum qualification for the posts of Head Teacher for lower primary section (Std.1 to 5) in its entirety. Such would result into total interference with the domain of the State Government to prescribe minimum qualification for the higher posts. 32. We are therefore, of the view that instead of accepting the objections of the petitioners against providing of minimum qualification for all posts of Head Teacher, either to be filled by promotion or by direct recruit, the objection of the petitioners against the Rule providing for minimum qualification for promotion in so far as it has not fixed quota for the teachers who do not hold degree qualification could have been accepted. To that extent, we find that the judgment of learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with and modified. 33. In above such view of the matter, the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge in so far as learned Single Judge has accepted the objection against the minimum qualification prescribed for all posts of Head Teachers, either by promotion or direct recruit, for the lower primary section stands set aside and is modified to the extent that sub-Rule 4(b) insofar as it provides for requirement of minimum degree qualification for promotion to the post of Head Teacher for lower primary section is not sustainable and is declared unreasonable and arbitrary and hence unconstitutional in absence of any provision either fixing quota in promotional avenues for the primary teachers who do not hold minimum qualification or fixing of ratio between the teachers who hold and who do not hold the minimum qualification for the purpose of promotion to the post of Head Teacher. However, it is clarified that if the Government decides to provide such quota or ratio for the primary teachers for their promotion to the posts of Head Teacher in lower primary section, it will be open to the Government to make provision/of requiring more experience as and by way of further eligibility from such teachers for promotion to the posts of Head Teacher.” 13. Thereafter, the respondent State in super session of old Rules framed new Rules by issuing Notification dated 22.09.2016 for regulating Recruitment to the post of Head Teacher Class III in the subordinate service of the Directorate of Primary Education or respective District or Municipal Primary Education Committee wherein ratio of promotion and direct recruitment was also prescribed. 14. It has also reflected from the record that Lower Primary Teachers who have continued as in-charge Head Teacher like the petitioners filed petition being Special Civil Application Nos. 14901 of 2013 and 15647 of 2013. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 29.12.2016 and disposed of Special Civil Application No. 14901 of 2013, wherein in para 6, the learned Single Judge observed as under: “6. This Court further notices that after the first order was passed in the matter of September, 2015 and on 22.9.2016, some progress has been made. Let the corresponding changes required in the head teachers aptitude test rule be made without further loss of time. In the meantime, the petitioners since are protected by this Court by an earlier order shall continue to enjoy the interim relief as given to the similarly situated employees. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.” 15. Thereafter, Special Civil Application No. 2345 of 2017 and allied matters came to be filed by the concerned petitioners, who are similarly situated to the present(petitioners, wherein the learned Single Judge observed in para 10 as under: “10. In wake of submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader and on noticing the earlier proceedings and orders that followed, these petitions are being disposed of continuing protection granted earlier to the petitioners. The respondent State is directed once again to complete the entire exercise at the earliest but under no circumstances beyond a period of three months. Once the rules are at place, they shall be notified over and above in the official gazette, on the official website of the State Government.” 16. The captioned petition came to be filed by the petitioner on 14.03.2017 During the pendency of the petition on 22.03.2017, the Education Department had issued the amended resolution regarding examination of H-TAT. The same is produced at page 89 of the compilation. 17. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that one Rameshbhai Bhagwandas Patel and 35 others preferred Special Civil Application No. 7322 of 2017 before this Court. The same is produced at page 89 of the compilation. 17. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that one Rameshbhai Bhagwandas Patel and 35 others preferred Special Civil Application No. 7322 of 2017 before this Court. In the said petition the concerned petitioners had prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondent authorities to fix the quota in promotional avenues and the ratio between the teachers who hold and who do not hold the minimum qualification for promotion to post of Head Teacher in lower primary section, as per judgment of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 295 of 2014 dated 01.12.2014 and further be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from giving any appointments as head teachers without first undertaking the aforesaid exercise and earmarking the post of head teachers for lower primary schools (Std.I-V) and upper primary schools (Std. Vi-VIII) and without earmarking the posts to be filled up by promotion and the post to be filled up by direct recruitment in both sides of sections of lower and upper primary schools and without first laying down the minimum qualifications required for the head teachers of lower primary schools as required by the statutory provisions of Sections 19 and 25 read with the Schedule of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and also further be pleased to directed the respondent authorities not to disturb the petitioners, who are serving as head teachers by appointing direct recruitees on their posts and to consider the petitioners in the quota of promotion for unqualified teachers on the basis of their seniority without disturbing their position and to continue the petitioners as Head Teachers and further be pleased to quash and set aside Rules 2(a)(iii) AND 3(b) of the Head Teacher, Class III, in the Directorate of Primary Education District Primary Education Committees and Municipal Primary Education committee Recruitment Rules, 2016 and the Governments Notifications dated 22.03.2017 and 27.03.2017 in so far as by virtue of the same, it is notified that for teachers who are to become Head Teacher by promotion they have to give HTAT and it is stated that it is not compulsory to mention the educational qualification in the on line application and further quash and set aside the advertisement dated 22.01.2017 issued by the respondents authority; (sic) (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the ongoing process of recruitment of head teachers by the respondent authorities without making distinction between the head teachers for lower primary schools (Std.I-V) and upper primary schools (Std.VI-VIII) as required by the statutory provisions of Sections 19 and 25 read with the Schedule of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009;” 18. The Division Bench by order dated 05.05.2017 dismissed the said petition by observing in para 8 and 9 as under: “8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the material on record and the earlier directions issued by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014. The Division Bench by order dated 05.05.2017 dismissed the said petition by observing in para 8 and 9 as under: “8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the material on record and the earlier directions issued by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014. In the earlier judgment of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014, it was observed that as per the Rules of 2012, only those teachers who hold degree qualification were eligible for promotion to the post of Head Teacher, as such, it was held that promotional avenues of the petitioners were restricted and the Rules are arbitrary. It was felt that by virtue of such restriction, they would stand stagnated even after long experience as primary teachers. In such situation, this Court observed that such situation could have been taken care of by providing quota or ratio between the teachers who hold and who do not hold degree qualification for promotion to the post of Head Teacher. It was further observed by the Division Bench of this Court that it was open to the State Government to provide for the requirement of more experience as further eligibility criteria for unqualified teachers for promotion. 9. In view of the earlier directions issued by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014, in the present Rules, clear distinction is made by fixing the ratio to fill up the post of teachers in the ratio of 3:2 for unqualified and qualified candidates. Holding of HTAT separately or to promote primary teachers straightaway on the post of Head Teacher by providing separate quota was not the subject-matter of the earlier petitions. From the perusal of the directions issued by the Division Bench in paras 30 to 33 of the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 of 2014, it is clear that this Court merely directed to provide quota for unqualified and qualified teachers, while filling up the posts of Head Teachers and that does not mean that separate quota is to be filled up without subjecting the candidates to HTAT examination. In view of the long experience claimed by the unqualified teachers, there cannot be any discrimination or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in subjecting such candidates to appear for HTAT examination. In view of the long experience claimed by the unqualified teachers, there cannot be any discrimination or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in subjecting such candidates to appear for HTAT examination. By allowing the candidates who are not qualified and those who are qualified with degree to appear in HTAT examination, cannot be held to be arbitrary, when there is separate quota prescribed in the ratio of 3:2 for unqualified and qualified candidates in terms of the directions issued by this Court.” 19. The order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7322 of 2017 was challenged by filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.07.2017 20. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in the captioned petition are almost similar to the reliefs prayed for in Special Civil Application No. 7322 of 2017 by the concerned petitioners. As observed hereinabove, the Division Bench, by an order dated 05.05.2017, dismissed Special Civil Application No. 7322 of 2017. 21. Thus, in I view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, if the interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge is continued in favour of the petitioners, the present appellants would not be in a position to place new recruitees on the post of Head Teacher which would create administrative difficulties for the appellants. Moreover, as submitted by learned Government Pleader that out of 22 petitioners, 7 petitioners appeared in H-TAT and they did not qualify as they got less than the cut off marks. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has committed an error while granting interim relief in favour of the original petitioners and therefore the impugned order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned petition is set aside. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. No order as to cost.