JUDGMENT : H.C. Mishra, J. As all these appeals arise out of the common Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, they have been heard together, and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard learned counsels for the appellants and learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 18.3.2017, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 4631 of 2015 and the analogous writ applications, whereby the writ applications, filed by the appellants, claiming appointment to the posts of Assistant Teacher (Language) in Upper Primary Schools (Class-V to Class-VIII), on the basis of their qualification, being Graduate with Modern Indian Language (MIL) as a compulsory subject, were dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, finding that for the said post, the candidates were required to have qualification of Graduation in the concerned language and the Graduates in Science or other subjects with MIL as only one of the compulsory subjects, were not qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (Language), in Upper Primary Schools (Class-V to Class-VIII). 4. Undisputed facts of these cases are that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as RCFCE Act), was enacted by the Parliament of India for providing free and compulsory education to all the children in the Country of the age group of 6 to 14 years, giving them the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbouring school, till the completion of their elementary education. The schedule, appended to the RCFCE Act, giving the 'Norms and Standards for a School', further provides that for Classes VI to VIII, at least one teacher each for (i) Science and Mathematics, (ii) Social Sciences and (iii) Languages, with at least one teacher for every 35 children is required for every school. It also provides that where the number of children in the schools are more than 100, there shall be (i) a full time head teacher, and (ii) part time instructors for (A) Art Education, (B) Health and Physical Education, and (C) Work Education. The RCFCE Act also provides in Section 23, for laying down the minimum qualifications for the teachers, by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government. 5. The RCFCE Act also provides in Section 23, for laying down the minimum qualifications for the teachers, by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government. 5. Admittedly, the academic authority authorised by the Central Government for laying down the minimum qualifications for the teachers under the RCFCE Act, is the National Council for Teachers' Education (NCTE), which, by notification dated 29.7.2011, laid down the following “minimum qualifications” for appointment as a teacher for Class-IV to VIII:- (a) Graduation and 2-years Diploma in Primary Education (by whatever name known) Or Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) Or Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard. Or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Primary Education (B.L.Ed.) Or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc. Ed. Or Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) And (b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. 6. For appointment of the teachers in the primary schools, the State of Jharkhand has framed the Rules, namely Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012, (herein after referred to as the 2012 Rules'), laying down in Rule 4, the similar eligibility criteria for the candidates appearing in the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET), including for Classes VI to VIII, as prescribed by NCTE, by notification dated 29.7.2011, as quoted above. Rule 11 of the said 2012 Rules also states that the "minimum educational and training qualifications" for appointment for the teachers shall be the same in accordance with Rule 4. 7. Rule 11 of the said 2012 Rules also states that the "minimum educational and training qualifications" for appointment for the teachers shall be the same in accordance with Rule 4. 7. Thereafter, the State Government sanctioned 7962 posts of Graduate Trained Teachers by Notification No.1533 dated 31.7.2014, also prescribing the qualifications for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in the Middle Schools, of the State, which inter alia reads as follows (English translation of relevant portion):- (2) According to above para (1), the appointment on the approved posts for the direct recruitment shall be done as follows:- (a) Candidates who passed Graduation level with Science/Mathematics subjects, and who fulfill other eligibility conditions of Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012, shall be appointed to the post of Graduate Trained (Science) Teacher as per Rules. (b) Candidates who passed Graduation level with Social Science subject, and who fulfill other eligibility conditions of Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012, shall be appointed to the post of Graduate Trained (Arts) Teacher as per Rules. (c) Candidates who passed Graduation level with Language subject, and who fulfill other eligibility conditions of Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, shall be appointed to the post of Graduate Trained (Language) Teacher. But Candidates who passed in Teachers' Eligibility Test conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council for Classes 6 to 8, who have Urdu and English as Language-I, shall be appointed to the post of Graduate Trained (Language) Teacher in Urdu Middle Schools as per Rules. 8. The State Government, in its Department of Human Resources (Directorate of Primary Education), wrote a letter dated 2.6.2015, to all the Dy. Commissioners in the State, reiterating the above qualifications for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher, and further clarifying as follows (English translation of relevant portion) :- 3. Minimum educational and training qualifications for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher shall be in accordance with Rule 11 and Notification No.1533, dated 31.07.14. 4. Candidates who passed Graduation level with Science/Mathematics subjects, and who fulfill other eligibility conditions of Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012 (as amended), shall be appointed to the post of Graduate Trained (Science) Teacher. 5. Candidates who passed Graduation level with Social Science subject, and who fulfill other eligibility conditions of Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012 (as amended), shall be appointed to the post of Graduate Trained (Art) Teacher. 6. 5. Candidates who passed Graduation level with Social Science subject, and who fulfill other eligibility conditions of Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012 (as amended), shall be appointed to the post of Graduate Trained (Art) Teacher. 6. Candidates who passed Graduation level with Language subject, and who fulfill other eligibility conditions of Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012 (as amended), shall be appointed to the post of Graduate Trained (Language) Teacher. 7. Candidates who passed in Teachers' Eligibility Test conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council for Classes 6 to 8, having Urdu and English as Language-I, shall be appointed to the post of Graduate Trained (Language) Teacher in Urdu Middle Schools. *** *** *** 16. In course of scrutiny of application forms, special attention shall be given on the following points, along with other points:- *** *** *** (iii) Only the candidates passing the Teachers' Eligibility Test conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council for classes 6 to 8 with Mathematics and Science subjects, shall be eligible for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained (Science), the candidates passing with Social Studies subject, shall be eligible for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained (Arts) and candidates passing with any one of the two subjects, Mathematics & Science or Social Studies, shall be eligible for appointment to the vacant post of Graduate Trained (Language), provided they fulfill other conditions for appointment. 9. Pursuant to the advertisement issued for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers, the petitioners-appellants appeared in the selection process, for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Languages, but they were not declared successful, for the reason that they were not having the qualification of Graduation with Language, though they were having MIL, as one of the compulsory subjects, which compelled the petitioners to approach this Court by filing writ applications for redressal of their grievances, which were dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, by the impugned Judgment, giving rise to these appeals. 10. The appellants in L.P.A. Nos. 209 of 2017, 222 of 2017 and 223 of 2017, are having the qualifications of Graduate in Science with MIL as a compulsory subject, whereas the appellant in L.P.A. No. 219 of 2017, is a Graduate in Labour and Social Welfare, with MIL as a compulsory subject. 10. The appellants in L.P.A. Nos. 209 of 2017, 222 of 2017 and 223 of 2017, are having the qualifications of Graduate in Science with MIL as a compulsory subject, whereas the appellant in L.P.A. No. 219 of 2017, is a Graduate in Labour and Social Welfare, with MIL as a compulsory subject. She is also having a degree of M.A. in Hindi, form Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prasar Sabha, Madras, even though, she was not a Graduate with Hindi (Hons.). The appellant in L.P.A. No. 227 of 2017 is a Graduate with Economics, History and Political Science subjects, with MIL as one of compulsory subjects, and all these appellants aspired for being appointed as Assistant Teachers in Languages, though they were not having the qualification of Graduation in Hindi or any other language. 11. The sole question that required consideration was whether a candidate, having Modern Indian Language (MIL) as a compulsory subject, could be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Language. It was argued before the Hon’ble Single Judge that the respondent State had no jurisdiction to change the required qualifications prescribed by the NCTE for appointment of teachers, particularly for a Language Teacher. It was contended that the appellants could not be denied the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Language, on the ground that they did not possess the qualification of Graduation in Hindi or any other language, as no such qualification was prescribed by the NCTE in its notification dated 29.7.2011, or in the 2012 Rules, and a qualification, which was not prescribed in the Rules, could not have been prescribed by issuing an executive order by the respondent State. It was also alternatively argued before the Hon’ble Single Judge, that the qualification of Graduation in Hindi was fulfilled by the petitioners, since they had MIL as one of their compulsory subjects in the Graduation level. 12. On the behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 4631 of 2015, it was also argued that since this petitioner was having the qualification of M.A. in Hindi, from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prasar Sabha, Madras, she was fulfilling the qualification for being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi language, and in support of this contention, reliance was placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry Vs. State of J&K & Ors., reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 1145. 13. State of J&K & Ors., reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 1145. 13. Considering the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners, the Hon’ble Single Judge held that the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE, or the 2012 Rules, were the “minimum qualifications” for appointment as a Teacher for Class-IV to VIII, which did not specify subject-specific educational qualifications for appointment of teachers in different subjects, and the State Government was well within its jurisdiction under Rule 28 of the 2012 Rules to issue the clarifications, and as the 2012 Rules did not provide any specific qualification for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher, that difficulty was removed by issuing the notification dated 31.07.2014, and by providing subject-specific qualifications for appointment of Teachers in Mathematics and Science, Social Science and Languages. The notification dated 31.07.2014 did not deviate from the qualifications fixed by the 2012 Rules, or the 'minimum qualification', prescribed by the N.C.T.E. The Hon’ble Single Judge held that where the Rules did not prescribe any particular qualification, the said qualification could be prescribed by the appointing Authority and for this, the Hon’ble Single Judge placed reliance upon two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 , and Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1968 (1) SCR 111 . The Hon’ble Single Judge while dismissing all the writ applications, has concluded as follows:- "19. To conclude, appointment on the post of Language teacher in the Upper Primary Schools requires a subject-specific qualification similar to the qualifications for appointment as Mathematics/Science teacher or Social Science teacher. By subject-specific qualification, I mean qualification in the “subject”. Language teacher is a distinct class of teachers, different from a Science or a Social Science teacher and for appointment on the post of Language teacher a qualification in Graduation with MIL or any other language as a compulsory subject is not a sufficient qualification. The RTE Act, 2009 (read as RCFCE Act) and Rule 9 of the Appointment Rules, 2012 when examined in the context of the object for which three distinct category of teachers viz. The RTE Act, 2009 (read as RCFCE Act) and Rule 9 of the Appointment Rules, 2012 when examined in the context of the object for which three distinct category of teachers viz. Mathematics/Science, Social Sciences and Languages must be appointed in Upper Primary Schools, it becomes clear that the educational qualifications for appointment on the post of Mathematics/Science or Social Science teacher are not sufficient for appointment as a Language teacher; the educational qualification being subject-centric. If contention of the petitioners is accepted there would remain only two category of teachers; Mathematics/Science and Social Science, which, effectively, would obliterate the object behind the RTE Act, 2009 for compulsory appointment of Language teachers. An interpretation which reduces statute to futility has to be avoided even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used [“Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr.” (2010) 8 SCC 701 ]." 14. Learned counsels for the appellants made the same arguments before us also, as made before the Hon’ble Single Judge, giving stress that once the appellants were having the Modern Indian Language (MIL) as a compulsory subject in their Graduation Level, it shall be deemed that they are the Graduates in concerned Language as well, and they could not be denied the appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Language. It is again submitted by learned counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No.219 of 2017, that though, this appellant is having the qualification of B.A. in Labour & Social Science, but she has also done M.A. in Hindi, and she could not be denied the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi. Learned counsel again placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry’s case (supra). Learned counsels, accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, denying the benefit of appointment to the appellants, even though, they were having the qualification of language at their Graduation level, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and it is a fit case, in which, the respondents be directed forthwith, to appoint the appellants on the post of Assistant Teachers in Language. 15. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State in all these appeals, has opposed the prayer, submitting that for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Languages, the minimum qualification prescribed is to have Graduation in the concerned Language and the candidates, having Graduation with other subjects, cannot be appointed as Assistant Teachers in Languages, in spite of the fact that they are having Modern Indian Language (MIL) as one of the compulsory subjects. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General, that irrespective of his main subject in the Graduation level, a student is required to have a compulsory subject of MIL, which only gives the working knowledge to the student in the Language, but it does not give the in depth knowledge of the said Language. Learned Additional Advocate General pointed out from the discussions made in the impugned Judgment, giving the example of the Ranchi University, where a student doing B.A. in Hindi (Hons.), is required to study eight papers in Hindi, with two subsidiary papers, besides MIL as a compulsory paper. Similarly the students, doing Graduation in Science and other Arts subject are also required to have MIL as a compulsory paper and this compulsory paper is intended only to give the working knowledge of the Language. A candidate, having the MIL as a compulsory paper, cannot be allowed to do M.A. in Hindi, or English, if he is not Graduate with Hindi or English Language, for which, they have to study several papers in the concerned Language, if they intend to do the Graduation in that Language. Learned Additional Advocate General, accordingly, submitted that as a candidate having Graduation with Arts cannot be appointed as a Science Teacher and the candidate having the Graduation with Science, cannot be appointed as an Arts Teacher, on the same corollary, the candidates not having the qualification of Graduation in any language, cannot be appointed as a Language Teacher. Learned Additional Advocate General accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. 16. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we are in complete agreement with the findings given by the Hon’ble Single Judge, that a candidate, having MIL as a compulsory subject in Graduation level, cannot be appointed as a teacher in Languages. 16. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we are in complete agreement with the findings given by the Hon’ble Single Judge, that a candidate, having MIL as a compulsory subject in Graduation level, cannot be appointed as a teacher in Languages. It is not denied that even the students doing Graduation in a particular Language, i.e., in Hindi, or in English, is also required to take MIL as one compulsory subject in the Graduation level, apart from several papers in the concerned language. Curriculum for Hindi, or English in Graduation level, shall have a different course contents compared to MIL as a compulsory paper. Thus, if a teacher, is appointed in the subject of Languages, only having MIL as a compulsory paper, the children would be deprived of quality education in the concerned Language, inasmuch as, MIL as a compulsory subject, is included in the course of Graduation in all subjects, only to ensure that the students are going to have a minimum level of working language and proficiency in that language, but once a teacher is to be appointed for a particular subject, as for example, if he is to be appointed as a Science teacher, he must have the Graduation in Science, if he is being appointed as a teacher in Social Science, he must be a Graduate in Social Science, and if he is appointed as a Language teacher, he must be a Graduate exclusively in that Language. Any deviation in this practice shall result in deprivation of the children of proper education in Language, and shall frustrate the very aim and object of RCFCE Act, enacted by the Parliament of India. 17. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 219 of 2017, that this appellant has done M.A. in Hindi and she cannot be deprived of her appointment as an Assistant Teacher in Language, cannot be acceded to. In Parvaiz Ahmad Parry’s case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said applicant had applied for the post of Range officer Grade-I, (Forest), for which, required qualification was B.Sc. in Forestry or its equivalent from any University, recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The appellant was having the qualification of B.Sc., with Forestry as one of the major subjects, and M.Sc. in Forestry or its equivalent from any University, recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The appellant was having the qualification of B.Sc., with Forestry as one of the major subjects, and M.Sc. (Forestry), and in that backdrop, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant was fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the post of Range officer Grade-I, (Forest). Whereas in the present case, the appellant in L.P.A. No. 219 of 2017, was not having the degree of B.A. (Hons.) in Hindi, she was having the qualification of B.A. with Labour and Social Welfare, though, she was having MIL Hindi as one of the subjects. There is nothing on the record to show as to how she was allowed to do M.A. in Hindi by Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prasar Sabha, Madras, even though she was not having the B.A. (Hons.) in Hindi, and she could not be allowed to do M.A. in Hindi by any recognized University. As such, even the said appellant was not satisfying the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Teacher in Languages and has been rightly denied the post. 18. To conclude, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 18.3.2017, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 4631 of 2015, and its analogous cases, worth any interference in the exercise of LPA jurisdiction. There is no merit in all these appeals, which are accordingly, dismissed.