ORDER: 1. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Smt. N.Uma Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents. 3. It has been contended by the petitioners that they have pursued their B.Tech. course, thereafter they have also completed B.Ed. course and hence they are fully qualified and eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of TGT. The petitioners have completed B.Ed course in terms of the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education on 12.11.2014, wherein the minimum academic qualification prescribed for Teachers is graduation from a recognized University with alteast 50% of marks either in the graduation or post graduation coupled with bachelors’ degree in Education. 4. Since the petitioners have acquired B.Tech. graduation qualification and they have pursued their B.Ed course also, the cases of the petitioners should be considered for appointment to the post of TGT in terms of the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the Notification issued by the respondents, the respondents have omitted the expression of Graduation, which is contrary to the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. The said Notification states that only such of those candidates, who have passed B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. are eligible to apply for the post of TGT. The respondents ought to have included Graduation in any field instead of confining to only B.A., B.SC and B.Com. Therefore, the Notification issued by the respondents is contrary to the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petitions directing the respondents to treat the candidates, who passed B.Tech. graduation, also as eligible, strictly in terms of Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education and consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of TGT. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were permitted to appear for the selection process, however, the respondents have not declared their results, even though they have secured merit in the selection process and they were short-listed in the ratio of 1:2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were permitted to appear for the selection process, however, the respondents have not declared their results, even though they have secured merit in the selection process and they were short-listed in the ratio of 1:2. Because of the pendency of these writ petitions, the cases of the petitioners are not being considered for appointment to the post of TGT. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petitions directing the respondents to strictly follow the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education and that the petitioners are entitled for appointment to the post of TGT by taking their B.Tech. qualification as a graduation qualification in terms of the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education and consider the cases of petitioners for appointment to the post of TGT, if they come within the zone of selection. 7. The learned Government Pleaders appearing for respondents submits that the respondents have issued recruitment Notification based on the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education in 2010 and the respondents have not followed the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education in 2014 and hence they have not considered the cases of the petitioners as they are not possessing graduation in B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. Since the Notification is issued as per the Regulations of 2010, the petitioners are not eligible in terms of the said Notification and therefore, the cases of the petitioners have not been considered. Since the petitioners are not fulfilling the qualifications as set out in the Notification, the cases of the petitioners cannot be considered for appointment to the post of TGT. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that as per the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teacher Education in 2014, the petitioners are fully eligible and qualified to be appointed to the post of TGT and the Notification was issued after issuance of new Regulations in 2014 and as per the said Regulations, every appointment of a Teacher in the State has to be in compliance with the said Regulations framed by the National Council for Teacher Education. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of petitioners as eligible for appointment to the post of TGT, if the petitioners come within the zone of consideration, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. 10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.