JUDGMENT : 1. The respondent writ petitioner had invoked the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court to enforce his selection as a Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Baledih, Bagodar, District – Giridih. The Village Education Committee, Baledih had selected the writ petitioner as a suitable candidate for such post but there was no consideration of his candidature by the Block Education Committee. Complaint of the writ petitioner before the learned First Court was that no reason was cited by the Block Education Committee for not considering his candidature though he fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The learned First Court found the writ petitioner eligible for appointment as a Para Teacher and directed the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the aforesaid post in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 2. Though the directive of the learned First Court is in substance for consideration, the State has preferred this appeal primarily on the ground that upon enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the petitioner was required to have Teachers Training qualification or passing the Teachers Eligibility Test and without such qualification he could not be appointed. Thus, the State’s stand is that such consideration would be an exercise in futility. This point was raised before the learned First Court also but the learned First Court repelled this argument advanced on behalf of State, inter-alia, holding :- “8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on consideration of the documents available on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case on the following facts and reasons: Undisputedly, the petitioner was having requisite qualification pursuant to the advertisement for selection by the Aam Sabha under the supervision of Village Education Committee as Para Teacher. But ultimately, one of the candidates, namely, Santosh Kumar Das was selected and the Block Education Committee decided for re-selection of the petitioner as Para Teacher. But at the relevant point of time, there was no occasion not to select the petitioner and non-selection of the petitioner without any reason amounts to violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. But at the relevant point of time, there was no occasion not to select the petitioner and non-selection of the petitioner without any reason amounts to violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Notwithstanding the vacancies, the action of the Block Education Committee in not selecting the petitioner to the post in question cannot be countenanced in the eye of law. In the instant case, if there is vacancy and if the petitioner has fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for selection, there is no reason not to select the petitioner. In absence of any cogent reason, the petitioner has a right to be considered for selection to the post in question. So far as Right to Education Act is concerned, that came into effect on 01.04.2010 as evident from Annexure-3 Series to the writ petition. So, the qualification of TET would have no application retrospectively to the selection prior to Right to Education Act came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2010.” 3. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the State has taken us through Section 23 of the 2009 Act and has highlighted that the requirement of such qualification is at the stage of appointment of a teacher. The said Section stipulates :- “23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. – (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under subsection (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.” 4. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.” 4. His submission is that though the selection process had commenced before coming into operation of 2009 Act, as there is bar on appointment itself under Section 23 of the Act, the aforesaid provision cannot be ignored so far as eligibility of the writ petitioner is concerned. The proviso to Sub- Section 2 of Section 23 of the said Act however prescribes transitional period for a teacher to acquire minimum qualification within a period of five years of appointment. 5. In such circumstances, we modify the order of the learned First Court with a direction, in addition to what has already been given by the learned First Court, that while considering the writ petitioner’s case, the appropriate authority shall also consider the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 23 of 2009 Act for determining the writ petitioner’s eligibility and in the event he is selected, the said proviso shall be considered by the said authority so that the writ petitioner can acquire the teachers’ training qualification within the time frame prescribed under the 2009 Act. Time to complete this exercise directed by the learned First Court is extended by a further period of twelve weeks. 6. The present appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 7. As we have disposed of the appeal itself, the two connected applications being I.A. Nos. 2544 of 2018 and 9061 of 2018 shall stand disposed of.