JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J. Both the Letters Patent Appeal arise out of the judgment passed on 24.07.2012 in CWJC No. 12436 of 2012, whereby the writ court after hearing the parties and on consideration of various aspects of the matter, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Joint Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna dated 9.5.2012 whereby the qualification of Moallim-E-Urdu (Urdu Teachers Training) obtained in 1998 from Jamia Urdu Aligarh (U.P.) was held not a valid qualification as the institution does not have the NCTE approval. 2. 197 petitioners have filed CWJC No. 12436 of 2012 assailing the order dated 9.5.2012 on the ground that the said qualification of Moallim-E-Urdu is recognized for employment in the Central Government vide letter dated 28.6.1978 and letter dated 28.1.1995 and as such their qualification is deemed to be recognised and valid in terms of the Special Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2010. 3. The writ court after noticing the contention of the parties and the fact that the qualification of Moallim-E-Urdu obtained from Jamia Urdu Aligarh (U.P.) is not recognised by NCTE, held out that the writ petitioners were not qualified for appointment as Urdu Teachers. The relevant part of the discussion of the writ court reads as follows:- “The petitioners do not deny the fact that the Institution from where they have obtained their training qualification equivalent to B. Ed. is post 1995 and the institution is not recognised by the NCTE. The advertisement in no uncertain terms stated that a candidate, if possessed of a post 1995 training qualification must have it in respect of two years course from an Institution recognised by the NCTE. The advertisement also makes it apparent that while for Urdu Teachers qualification equivalent to Maulvi (Intermediate level) as that of the Bihar Madarsa Shiksha Board was also acceptable as basic qualification, but it did not detract from the requirement of a two years training qualification which has to be correlated to Clause 5(ii) of the advertisement having been obtained from an NCTE recognised Institution post 1995. The submission on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents in that event should not have scrutinized the application of the petitioners and that their names found place in the list approved by the Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya Committee amounting to tacit acceptance does not meet the approval of the Court. The submission on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents in that event should not have scrutinized the application of the petitioners and that their names found place in the list approved by the Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya Committee amounting to tacit acceptance does not meet the approval of the Court. If on the face of the advertisement, the undisputed facts reveal that NCTE recognized qualification post 1995 was mandatory, any error committed by the respondents in selecting and appointing the petitioners cannot vest a right in them to claim continuity of appointment made contrary to the advertisement. Counsel for the State has aptly referred to letter dated 18.1.2008 that the appointments were being made subject to verification of their certificate. Even that cannot be stretched to the extent of examining acceptability of the qualification as distinct from the genuineness of the certificates. It can bring no relief to the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in 2010 (4) PLJR 318 (State of Bihar v. Mamta Kumari) had the occasion to consider a similar challenge with regard to appointment of Primary Teacher based on qualification acquired from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad, stated by the respondents not to be recognised as a qualification equivalent to Intermediate leading to termination. It was held at paragraph 28 that an appointment based on a qualification not recognised leading to termination could not be faulted with. The submission on behalf of the petitioners that they were not at fault in any manner and had been mislead by the respondents, cannot lead to grant of relief on basis of sympathy on a qualification acquired from an unrecognised institution as observed by the Supreme Court in (1991) 3 SCC 87 (State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute) in paragraph 6 as follows : “6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. this Court observed that if permission was granted to the students of an unrecognised institution to appear at the examination, it would amount to encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. this Court observed that if permission was granted to the students of an unrecognised institution to appear at the examination, it would amount to encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. The court declared that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be frittered away for such a purpose. In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P. a similar request made on behalf of the institution and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted, was rejected by this Court. The court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions we re legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.” The writ court on the basis of the above discussion dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the writ court the present two appeals have been preferred by the writ petitioners-appellants herein. 4. Mr. Y.V. Giri, senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge referring to Annexure-17 of supplementary Affidavit. Mr. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the writ court the present two appeals have been preferred by the writ petitioners-appellants herein. 4. Mr. Y.V. Giri, senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge referring to Annexure-17 of supplementary Affidavit. Mr. Giri placed reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in the order dated 18th July, 2013 which reads as follows : “We make it clear that none of the persons appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies should not be disturbed in any way, but the question of filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into consideration, while disposing of the applications in question.” Referring to the above observation of the Apex Court in Annexure-17, Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel contended that respondents were inhibited from questioning the validity of their degree and terminating the petitioners’ services on the ground that the qualification is not recognized by the NCTE. 5. Mr. Giri referring to Annexure-13, submitted that the Apex Court has made it clear vide order dated 13.10.2011 that the roster as well as seniority list has been prepared in terms of the order of this Court and no court shall entertain any other objections or applications with regard to the same. 6. Mr. Giri next contended that under Rule 3 of the Special Rules, 2010 the qualification recognised by Central Government or the State Government was duly recognised for appointment. 6. Mr. Giri next contended that under Rule 3 of the Special Rules, 2010 the qualification recognised by Central Government or the State Government was duly recognised for appointment. The relevant part of the Rule 3 reads as follows:- 3- fu;qfDr gsrq ;ksX;rk %& ¼1½ Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; dk fuoklh gksA ¼2½ dsUnz ;k fdlh jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky;@egkfo|ky; ls bUVjehfM,V ijh{kk ¼mifu;e 5 dks NksM+½ mrh.kZ gksA blds v/khu fdlh laLFkku }kjk iznRk rduhdh fMxzh ;k Hkk"kk fo'ks"k dh fMxzh@mikf/k ftldh lerqY;rk dh ekU;rk fcgkj ljdkj ds dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx vFkok ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx }kjk f'k{kd in ij fu;qDr gsrq ugha nh xbZ gS] lfEefyr ugha gSA ¼3½ o"kZ 1995 ds iwoZ dsUnz vFkok fdlh jkT; ds }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o"khZ; izf'k{k.k ijh{kk vFkok chŒ,MŒ dh ijh{kk mrh.kZ gksA o"kZ 1995 ds ckn ,uŒlhŒVhŒbZŒ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o"khZ; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k fMIyksek ;k chŒ,MŒ vFkok chŒ,yŒ,MŒ dh ijh{kk mrh.kZ gksA ¼4½ mnwZ f'k{kd ds inksa ds fy, fcgkj enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ ls ekSyoh ¼bUVjehfM,V Lrj½ rFkk lerqY; ijh{kk ikl vFkok bUVjehfM,V ijh{kk esa 200 vadksa ds mnwZ fo"k; dh ijh{kk ds lkFk nks o"khZ; izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mrh.kZ gksA ¼5½ 'kkjhfjd f'k{kd ds inksa ds fy, bUVjehfM,V mrh.kZ rFkk lhŒihŒ,MŒ@MhŒihŒ,MŒ dh fMxzh gksA ¼6½ ,sls vH;FkhZ] tks fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gSa rFkk o"kZ 1995 ds iwoZ fcgkj jkT; ¼vfoHkkftr½ ds fdlh izf'k{k.k egkfo/kky; ls nks o"khZ; izf'k{k.k mrh.kZ gS vFkok lhŒihŒ,MŒ mrh.kZ gS fdUrq bUVjehfM,V ugha gS os Hkh fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu ns ldsaxsA fdUrq fu;qfDr ds 4 o"kksZ ds vUnj mUgsa bUVjehfM,V dh ;ksX;rk gkfly dj ysuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 7. Referring to Annexures 2 and 3 of the memo of appeal, Mr. Giri submitted that the degree of Moallim-E-Urdu obtained from Jamia Urdu Aligarh (U.P.) was duly recognised by the Central Government as well as the Government of State of U.P. and as such in terms of Rule 3, their degree shall be deemed to be valid and the subsequent order dated 9.5.2012 is inapplicable in the case of the petitioners. 8. Mr. Giri contended that during the pendency of the appeals the respondents have reinstated many similarly circumstanced persons provisionally subject to the final decision in the present Letters Patent Appeals. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. Giri contended that during the pendency of the appeals the respondents have reinstated many similarly circumstanced persons provisionally subject to the final decision in the present Letters Patent Appeals. 9. Mr. Giri has not disputed the fact the institution from where the appellants have obtained the degree of Moallim-E-Urdu is not recognised by the NCTE. However, he submitted that under the Scheme of NCTE Act which is applicable with effect from 1st July, 1995, the institution of the appellants stands protected under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), Act, 1993. Section 14 of the Act reads as follows : “14. Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher education.—(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations: Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under subsection (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall— (a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing : Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. (5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under subsection (4),— (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused. 10. Lastly, Mr. Giri submitted with reference to Annexure-19 series that the issue with regard to validity of the appointment of 34,540 elementary teachers pursuant to the direction of this Court was considered in different writ applications where the writ court held out that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the writ petition was allowed and they were reinstated as the writ court held out that after their appointment, they cannot be disturbed in any manner and as such he submitted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application has failed to consider the observation of the Apex Court that none of the persons appointed out of 34,540 should be disturbed in any way. 11. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the observation of the Apex Court has to be read not in isolation but in the totality of the order passed by the Apex Court. The Apex Court itself has indicated in the order dated 13.10.2011 that the appointment is subject to scrutiny of the certificate and documents and if it is found that any of the document do not conform to the requirement the concerned authority will be at liberty to take appropriate step regarding such candidate. 12. The Apex Court itself has indicated in the order dated 13.10.2011 that the appointment is subject to scrutiny of the certificate and documents and if it is found that any of the document do not conform to the requirement the concerned authority will be at liberty to take appropriate step regarding such candidate. 12. We have gone through the order passed by the writ court which has been quoted extensively hereinabove, the writ court has considered the claim of the petitioners as to the validity of their appointment and rejected the claim on the basis of Annexures 2 and 3, the letter of the Central Government dated 28th June, 1978 and letter of the State of U.P. dated 13th September, 1994. Admittedly, those documents are of no help to the appellants as after framing of the NCTE Act, 1993, the institution is required to be recognized by the NCTE after first July, 1995, the appointed date of which Act came into force. The degree obtained by the appellants are subsequent to coming into force the NCTE Act, 1993 and as such the said degree cannot be treated as recognized even in terms of Rules, 2010. Rule 2010 clearly distinguishes the case of pre 1995 and post 1995 degrees. The post 1995 degrees, if not recognized by NCTE, cannot be considered as valid for appointment on the post of teacher. 13. The next submission of Mr. Giri with reference to Section 14 of the NCTE Act is not applicable in the instant case. The proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 is applicable to those institutions if the institution has made application for recognization within a period of six months then until disposal of the application, the institution is permitted to offer teachers training course. In the entire pleadings there is no such averments nor there is any material to indicate that the institution in question has applied in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 and as such the institution was not entitled to offer teachers training course. Thus, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Giri with reference to the provisions of Section 14(1) proviso. 14. The next submission of Mr. Thus, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Giri with reference to the provisions of Section 14(1) proviso. 14. The next submission of Mr. Giri that other writ applications were allowed on the ground that the Apex Court has precluded any kind of enquiry so far as 34540 appointees are concerned, we are unable to subscribe that view. The Apex Court while passing the order dated 13.10.2011 has already indicated that the appointment is subject to scrutiny of certificate, etc. and on scrutiny of the certificate the degree of the appellants was found not recognized by NCTE and as such the action of the respondents cannot be faulted and we cannot accept the submission that the Apex Court has precluded the State authorities even if the certificate of the candidate on scrutiny does not conform to the standard prescribed under the rules and the advertisement. 15. So far as the contention of Mr. Giri that many similarly circumstances have been reinstated does not merit any consideration as they were taken back subject to the final outcome of the present appeals and as such they cannot derive any right nor on the basis of those instances the present appellants can claim any relief. 16. Reference of Annexure-19 series is of no help to the appellants as in CWJC No. 4506 of 2016 the writ court noted the fact that the institution in question, namely, Primary Teachers Training College, Balughat in the district of Muzaffarpur was a recognized institution for the relevant academic sessions and thus a qualification obtained therefrom is a valid qualification and as such the decision in that case rendered by the learned Single Judge is of no help to the appellants. The decision of the learned Single Judge was in total ignorance and disregard to the earlier decision of the Writ Court and in any view of the matter it does not bind the Division Bench. 17. On deeper scrutiny of entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the writ court has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. The Special Rule for recruitment 2010, if it is read properly, it would indicate that the rule has drawn a distinction between the degree obtained before 1995 and after 1995. 17. On deeper scrutiny of entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the writ court has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. The Special Rule for recruitment 2010, if it is read properly, it would indicate that the rule has drawn a distinction between the degree obtained before 1995 and after 1995. The distinction was based on sound reasoning as after 1.7.1995 NCTE Act came into force and the domain to grant recognization is exclusively vested in the NCTE. Therefore, no degree of teachers training can be considered as valid if obtained after 1.7.1995 without the recognization of the NCTE. The pre 1995 degree is only recognized if it is from a recognized institution and that too of two years training or B.Ed. The degree of the appellants from their own showing is post 1995 as Annexure-1 indicates that their degree was of 1998 and the examination was held in 1999. Rule does not recognize any equivalent degree. It prescribes two years teacher training or B.Ed. Neither the training of the appellants is of B.Ed. nor of two years duration and as such, it cannot be regarded as recognized even if it is pre 1995 although Annexure-1 indicates that it is for academic sessions 1998, but even assuming that it is pre 1995, which is factually not, does not help the appellants as their degree is neither training of 2 years duration nor their degree is B.Ed. 18. In the totality of the fact situation discussed hereinabove, we find no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.