ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No.6725 of 2016 1. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 382 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6725 of 2016 is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.768 of 2015 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner when his writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5476 of 2004 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a the judgment and order dated 31st October, 2014, whereby, the order of termination of the services of this appellant has been upheld and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that an advertisement was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as 'JPSC' for the sake of brevity), for the post of Primary Trained Teachers for the various districts of the State of Jharkhand. 6. In pursuance of this public advertisement, application was preferred by this appellant (original petitioner). In fact, this appellant is not qualified to be appointed as a Primary Trained Teacher. This appellant (original petitioner) was qualified to be appointed as a Physical Trained Teacher, for which there was no advertisement at all. 7. Despite the aforesaid facts, a bona fide error was committed by the JPSC and the appellant (original petitioner) was recommended for the post of Primary Trained Teacher. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 8. Immediately these facts were noticed by the respondents-State and the services of this appellant (original petitioner) was terminated vide order dated 25th August, 2004, which is at Annexure 9 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. 9. It further appears from the Jharkhand Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002 amended as on 6th March, 2003, that this appellant (original petitioner) was entitled to be appointed as a Physical Trained Teacher. 9. It further appears from the Jharkhand Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002 amended as on 6th March, 2003, that this appellant (original petitioner) was entitled to be appointed as a Physical Trained Teacher. No recommendation was made by the JPSC especially for this appellant for Physical Trained Teacher for any of the districts. Inadvertently, this appellant was appointed as a Primary Trained Teacher and, therefore, when this mistake was rectified by the respondents, especially by District Superintendent of Education, Palamau, an order of termination was passed by the respondents which is dated 25th August, 2004. 10. This Court has decided in L.P.A. No.513 of 2014 the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2013, that a person who is DPEd or CPEd, can be appointed as a Physical Trained Teacher, whereas, this appellant was wrongly recommended as a Primary Trained Teacher. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 11. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs Ashok Kumar Dangi and others reported in (2001) 13 SCC 383 in paragraphs 17, 18, 23 to 26 as under: - “17. The High Court has found that the Government of Jharkhand, till date, had not framed any policy regarding the number of posts to be filled by physical trained candidates. How many posts of primary school teachers be filled up by physical trained candidates, in our opinion, is essentially a question of policy for the State to decide. In framing of the policy, various inputs are required and it is neither desirable nor advisable for a court of law to direct or summarize the Government to adopt a particular policy which it deems fit or proper. It is well settled that the State Government must have liberty and freedom in framing policy. Further, it also cannot be denied that the courts are ill-equipped to deal with competing claims and conflicting interests. Often, the courts do not have the satisfactory and effective means to decide which alternative, out of the many competing ones, is the best in the circumstances of the case. 18. One may contend that providing primary education to the children is essential for the development of the country. Often, the courts do not have the satisfactory and effective means to decide which alternative, out of the many competing ones, is the best in the circumstances of the case. 18. One may contend that providing primary education to the children is essential for the development of the country. Whereas others argue that physical training of the children in the primary schools is must as that would make the nation healthy. As in the present case, the candidates trained in teaching claim that the posts of primary school teachers be filled by them and physical trained candidates be considered for posts of physical trained teachers only as they in the absence of any training in education are not equipped to teach in primary schools, whereas physical trained teachers contend that they should be considered for appointment against both the posts. These competing claims, in our opinion, need to be addressed by the policy-makers. Further, we do not have the statistics as regards to the number of primary schools, the resources which the Government can spend for providing physical trained teachers and their need. In such a situation, any direction in matters of policy is uncalled for. 23. The respondents contend that amendment of Rule 2(b)(iii) of the Rules by the Notification dated 6-3-2003 shall not apply to the appointment in question as the process of appointment commenced, by inviting applications prior to that date, on 24-8-2002. It has been pointed out that the rights and benefits already acquired under the Rules prior to amendment cannot be taken away by amendment of the Rules. It is emphasised that the respondents acquired vested right of being considered and their rights crystallised on the date of publication of the advertisement. 24. It has further been submitted that since the process of the appointment commenced with the advertisement which being an integral part of appointment the same would come to an end on the declaration of result and the consequential appointment, hence the candidates are required to be considered on the basis of the eligibility criteria initially provided in the Rules and the advertisement. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a large number of decisions of this Court viz. A.A. Calton v. Director of Education; N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission; Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig and Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar. 25. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a large number of decisions of this Court viz. A.A. Calton v. Director of Education; N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission; Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig and Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar. 25. We do not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the respondents. It is relevant here to state that at no point of time had the writ petitioners challenged the amendment of the Rules which provided that the physical trained candidates shall be eligible only for the appointment to the posts of physical trained teachers as also the corrigendum issued by the Commission confining their eligibility for the physical trained teachers only. It is relevant here to state that at no point of time had the writ petitioners challenged the amendment of the Rules which provided that the physical trained candidates shall be eligible only for the appointment to the posts of physical trained teachers as also the corrigendum issued by the Commission confining their eligibility for the physical trained teachers only. Their prayers in the writ petition were as follows: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this case, issue notices to the respondents and direct for the following reliefs: (I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith publish the result of these petitioners in view of the fact that in terms of Annexure I i.e. advertisement dated 24-8-2002 all the petitioners had applied for being appointed as a primary school teacher out of 9223 seats and 528 were shown vacant in the district of Jamtara but now simply because of the fact that they posses the qualification of physical trained teachers they have been kept (sic out of) it on the ground that their appointment shall only be made for the vacant posts of physical trained teachers in the districts of Giridih and Lohardaga in non-existence; (II) For an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly, Respondent 2, to consider the case of these petitioners for being appointed as primary school teachers as against the total vacancies of 9,223 seats for which advertisement was issued and for which the petitioners had applied not to consider by restricting their candidature only in the four districts in the State of Jharkhand; (III) For a further direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith appoint the petitioners to the posts of teachers of primary schools in view of the fact that the examinations had already been conducted on 27-5-2003 and both the petitioners had prepared very well in the said examination; and (IV) For any other appropriate writs/orders/directions that Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 26. It is in the present appeals that the writ petitioners, for the first time, have attempted to contend that amendment to Rule 2(b)(iii) made on 6-3-2003, which inter alia provided that candidates having CPEd or DPEd shall be eligible for the posts of physical trained teachers only cannot be applied retrospectively and their cases shall be governed by the unamended Rules. It has been pointed out that the amendment has not been made with retrospective effect. We are not inclined to go into this question in the present appeal for the reason that in the light of the amendment in the Rules, the Commission issued a corrigendum and confined the candidature of persons holding qualification of CPEd or DPEd, like the writ petitioners, to the posts of physical trained teachers only. It conducted the examination on that basis and the writ petitioners without making any challenge to the same, participated in the selection process and appeared in the examination without any murmur. It is only after the result was published and their candidature not considered against the entire vacancy of the primary school teachers that they have chosen to file the writ petition with the relief aforesaid. Any direction to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners against the entire vacancy of primary school teachers would unsettle settled matter and shall result into chain reaction, affecting the appointment of a large number of persons.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In view of the aforesaid decision, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 13. It has been held by this Court in the case L.P.A. No.513 of 2014 judgment dated 29th November, 2016 in paragraph 5 and 6 as under :- “5. In view of the aforesaid decision, direction given by the Division Bench of the Court was quashed and set aside. Direction given by the High Court was to the effect that e.g. for 100 posts of Primary Trained Teacher, if the advertisement has been given, this Court had given direction to the State to appoint 5% as a Physical Trained Teacher. Thus bifurcation was made by the Division of Bench of this Court, in view of the aforesaid illustration, as 95 posts for Primary Trained Teacher and 5 posts for Physical Trained Teacher. Thus bifurcation was not allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus bifurcation was made by the Division of Bench of this Court, in view of the aforesaid illustration, as 95 posts for Primary Trained Teacher and 5 posts for Physical Trained Teacher. Thus bifurcation was not allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If we match this fact with that facts, they are alike. Here also, public advertisement which is at annexure-1 is composite requisition or advertisement, for various district including for district Palamau. Bifurcation cannot be done by this Court. The bifurcation is a matter of policy that how many, out of advertised posts, will be for Physical Trained Teacher and the remaining may be for Primary Trained Teacher. In fact, there is not a single post mentioned in the advertisement for Physical Trained Teacher. Thus, neither this Court will bifurcate any post out of 120 vacancies for the district of Palamau, looking to the aforesaid decision, nor this court will allow this appellant (original petitioner) to continue as a trained primary teacher because this appellant is having a qualification of diploma in physical education. He is qualified for the post of physical trained teachers for which there is no advertisement at all or at the highest, even if the case of this appellant (original petitioner) is accepted, this court will have no option, but, to bifurcate the vacancies for 120 posts for the district of Palamau, then this appellant (original appellant) can only continue in the government job. This court will do neither, viz.- (a) No bifurcation of the 120 vacancies for the district of Palamau will be made by this court; (b) This court will not allow the appellant to continue in the services by quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 25th August,2004 because this appellant is not qualified for the post of Primary Trained Teacher; (c) There is no advertisement for the post of Physical Trained Teacher, for which, this appellant (original petitioner) is qualified; 6. Thus this appellant (original petitioner) is not qualified for the advertised post and for the post for which this appellant is qualified, is never advertised and hence, in either of the case, this appellant can be continued on the post of Primary Trained Teacher. Nor he can be appointed as a Physical Trained Teacher. This appellant (original petitioner) cannot be appointed as Physical Trained Teacher, which is never advertised. Nor he can be appointed as a Physical Trained Teacher. This appellant (original petitioner) cannot be appointed as Physical Trained Teacher, which is never advertised. His services have been rightly terminated by the State of Jharkhand vide order dated 25th August, 2004. No illegality has been committed by the State. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant (original petitioner). (Emphasis supplied) 14. In view of the aforesaid decisions, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.