JUDGMENT : Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate General for the respondents-appellants assisted by Smt. Archana Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi. 2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the interim order dated 25.9.2014 whereby the learned Single Judge had directed the respondents-appellants to declare the result of the petitioners respondents in case their aggregate is above the cut off merit and issue appointment letters to them. 3. The present controversy hovers around the eligibility of the petitioners-respondents in regard to the appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. 4. The petitioners had filed a writ petition seeking direction to respondents-appellants to issue appointment letters and appoint them on the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools established and run by the Board of Basic Education, U.P. in pursuance of the counseling held on 10.7.2014 and 11.7.2014. 5. The learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 25.9.2014 had granted four weeks' further time to file counter affidavit and directed that the petitioners' result be declared and appointment letters be issued to them. 6. The Advocate General, appearing for appellants-respondents submitted that the order impugned amounts to granting of final relief and the learned Single Judge had committed error by passing the said order. He placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Kumari Renu Tiwari and 29 others, (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1325 whereby final relief was given by an interim order. 7. In the case of Hind Lamps Limited vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra and another, 2002 (3) AWC 1908 , this Court held that passing of the interlocutory order which decides matters of moment or affects vital and valuable rights of the parties and which works serious injustice to the party concerned, is a judgment. 8. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Smt. Meera Sankhwar and others, 2004 (4)AWC 3162 , in which this Court held that final relief cannot be given at the interim stage. 8. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Smt. Meera Sankhwar and others, 2004 (4)AWC 3162 , in which this Court held that final relief cannot be given at the interim stage. Further, in the case of Ashok Kumar Bajpai vs. Dr.(Smt.) Ranjana Bajpai, 2004(1)AWC 88, this Court held as under:- “In view of the above, it is evident that the Court should not grant interim relief which amounts to final relief and in exceptional circumstances where the Court is satisfied that ultimately the petitioner is bound to succeed and fact-situation warrants granting such a relief, the Court may grant the relief but it must record reasons for passing such an order and make it clear as what are the special circumstances for which such a relief is being granted to a party.” 9. He further submitted that, on merits, the petitioners are not eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teachers as they have passed Teacher's Certificate Examination, 2013, which was conducted by the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. and the said certificate does not fall under eligibility criteria as laid down in the advertisement for appointment of Assistant Teachers. According to the submission of the Advocate General, qualification prescribed for appointment of Assistant Teachers required two years diploma in B.T.C. and the petitioners appellants were holding diploma of Teachers Certificate (Shishu Shikha) and the same is not equivalent to B.T.C., hence they cannot be considered for appointment of Assistant Teachers. 10. He further relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.915 of 2015, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad vs. Shakshi Shukla and 7 others, decided on 7.4.2016. In the said case, the Division Bench had the opportunity to consider whether the diploma granted for Nursery Teachers Training (NTT) was within the domain of the qualification recognized by the National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE) in the (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002 and 2009 and whether the diploma in NTT would stand covered under the notifications of the NCTE dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011. The Division Bench while holding that Nursery Training Course is designed for children in the age group of to 6 followed by first two years in the Primary Schools i.e. children upto the age of 6 to 8 years and thus are not covered under the notification prescribing minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment to be a teacher in view of the notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011. The Division Bench while deciding the said case also took note of the Special Appeal Defective No.130 of 2014, Harsh Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. and others as well as Special Appeal Defective No.278 of 2014. Uma Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and others. 11. The learned Advocate General had further relied upon the notification dated 28.11.2014 superseding the earlier notification of the National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2009. He invited the attention of the Court to the preamble 1.1 of Apendix-1 of the said notification which states that preschool education aims at total child development in learning environment that is joyful, child-centered, play and activity based. The present programme of DPSE, earlier known as Diploma in Early Childhood Education (D.E.C.Ed.) aims at preparing teachers for preschool programme which are offered under different nomenclature such as nursery schools, kindergarten schools and preparation schools. The programme shall cover children in the age group 3 to 6. On the basis of the said notification he had tried to distinguish that the certificate obtained by the petitioners-respondents, which are teachers certificate (Shishu Shikha) are equivalent to NTT as well as DPSE as laid down in the new Recognition Norms and Regulations of 2014 and as such are not equivalent to the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as a teacher in view of notification dated 23.8.2010 and amended notification dated 29.7.2011 of the NCTE. 12. Learned Advocate General had further relied upon Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which prescribes therein qualification of candidates for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. The said Rules have been amended on 4.12.2012 by 16th Amendment, and minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in Junior Basic Schools (i.e. for Class 1 to 5) have been amended and it includes basic teachers certificate (BTC) two years BTC Urdu, Vishist BTC and passing of the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State. 13. The said Rules have been amended on 4.12.2012 by 16th Amendment, and minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in Junior Basic Schools (i.e. for Class 1 to 5) have been amended and it includes basic teachers certificate (BTC) two years BTC Urdu, Vishist BTC and passing of the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State. 13. Refuting the arguments of the State, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners-respondents states that the petitioners have acquired minimum qualification for being appointed as Assistant Teacher and the Teachers Certificate (Shishu Shikha) which is a two years diploma course had been acquired by them after passing the examination conducted by the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. and the said certificate is in conformity with the minimum qualification as prescribed by the NCTE in its notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended by notification dated 29.7.2011. 14. Sri Khare further invited the attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 7.4.2013 in which the minimum qualification for appearing in the Teachers Eligibility Test Primary Level Class 1 to 5, which approves for course from NCTE approved Government institution imparting CT (Nursery/NTT 2 years). Sri Khare further placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Harsh Kumar (supra) whereby the Court by judgment dated 5.2.2014 had permitted the candidates possessing required minimum qualification, as stipulated in notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended by notification dated 29.7.2011. His contention was that the candidate in the case of Harsh Kumar (supra) were having two years diploma in Education (Special Education ) and once this qualification is prescribed by NCTE. It was not open to the State Government to exclude (from the Zone of Eligibility) the persons, who are otherwise qualified in terms of the notification of NCTE. 16. Having heard the rival submission and before proceeding to decide the issue in hand it would be appropriate to place few facts which are necessary for adjudication of the dispute. 17. The national Counsel for the Teachers Education was earlier an advisory body for the Central and the State Government in the matter pertaining to the teachers education. It was for the first time on 17th August, 1995 that National Counsel for Teachers Education Act 1993 (Act No.73 of 1993) was enacted. 17. The national Counsel for the Teachers Education was earlier an advisory body for the Central and the State Government in the matter pertaining to the teachers education. It was for the first time on 17th August, 1995 that National Counsel for Teachers Education Act 1993 (Act No.73 of 1993) was enacted. The Parliament enacted the National Counsel for Teachers Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 to provide that the Act shall apply, inter alia, to schools imparting pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary or senior secondary education and to colleges providing the school, secondary or intermediate education and to teachers of such school and colleges. 18. By way of 8th Amendment, 2002 made by the Parliament to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years had been made as a fundamental right under Article 21 (A) of the Constitution. The Parliament made an Act known as Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Under Section 38 of the said Act of 2009, the State Government has also framed statutory Rules on 27.7,2011 in the name of Right of Children of Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. 19. Under the aforesaid provisions, the qualification and prescription of norms for possessing qualification have also been provided. On 23.8.2010 NCTE prescribed the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. This notification was amended by notification dated 29.7.2011 and as per the amended notification the minimum qualification which have been prescribed for appointment of an assistant teacher for teaching students from class 1 to 5 are now as follows:- "(i) Classes I-V. (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002. OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.EL.Ed.). OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education) OR Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose." 20. OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education) OR Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose." 20. It was on the basis of the notification of the NCTE dated 23.8.2010 as amended on 29.7.2011 certain candidates approached this court challenging the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 which mentioned educational qualification as (i) Graduate degree from University established by law in India (ii) Two years B.T.C/ two years B.T.C.(Urdu)/two years special B.T.C. Training conducted by S.E.R.T and (iii) Passed in any TET examination conducted by U.P. or Central Government. 21. The petitioners were holding diploma in Education (Special Education) conducted by the Rehabilitation Council of India. By order 14.12.2013, learned Single Judge dismissed group of writ petitions, leading petition being Writ- A No.60054 of 2013. Aggrieved by the said order, Special Appeal Defective No.130 of 2014 (Harsh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed. 22. While deciding the said appeal the Division Bench held as under:- “13. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was in error in coming to the conclusion that since the recruitment was in pursuance of a special drive, the Government was justified in confining the eligibility qualifications only to those who held the BTC qualifications for the reason that such candidates could not be adjusted earlier for want of TET qualification. The passing of the TET was introduced as a mandatory requirement by the notification dated 23 August 2010 issued by the NCTE. Persons who did not fulfill the eligibility conditions prescribed in the notification dated 23 August 2010, as amended on 29 July 2011, were not qualified for consideration for appointment as primary school teachers. Hence, there was no occasion for the State to contend or for that matter the learned Single Judge to accept the submission that in order to adjust such BTC qualified candidates, the present advertisement had been issued. The learned Single Judge held that the appellants could not claim equivalence with those candidates who possess BTC qualification. Hence, there was no occasion for the State to contend or for that matter the learned Single Judge to accept the submission that in order to adjust such BTC qualified candidates, the present advertisement had been issued. The learned Single Judge held that the appellants could not claim equivalence with those candidates who possess BTC qualification. This, in our view, begs the question because once the Diploma in Education (Special Education) is held to be a qualification which is recognised for appointment of Assistant Teachers for teaching Classes I to V, it would be impermissible for the State Government to exclude them from being considered for appointment. In a special drive or otherwise, it is not open to the State Government to exclude one class of teachers who fulfill the qualifications for eligibility prescribed by the NCTE. Any such action would be impermissible for the simple reason that the exclusive power to prescribe eligibility qualifications for such teachers is vested in the NCTE. Once the NCTE has spoken on the subject, as it has through its notification, those qualifications must govern the eligibility requirement. Jurisdiction and power of the NCTE to do so is now settled beyond any doubt, as noted by the Supreme Court. 14. In the circumstances, the special appeals would have to be allowed and are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 14 November 2013 is set aside. A mandamus would, accordingly, issue directing the State to permit the appellants and such other persons who claim to be holding the qualifications which are within the purview of the notification issued by the NCTE on 23 August 2010, as amended on 29 July 2011, to apply for the post of Assistant Teachers for Classes I to V which was the subject matter of the advertisement in question.” 23. The said view was further reiterated by another Division Bench in Uma Yadav (supra) by order dated 11.3.2014. 24. It was in the year 2015 that one Shakshi Shukla approached this Court for a direction to correct the advertisement for including the Nursery Teachers Training (NTT) as the eligibility qualification. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, which was challenged in Special Appeal No.915 of 2015 by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad. 25. 24. It was in the year 2015 that one Shakshi Shukla approached this Court for a direction to correct the advertisement for including the Nursery Teachers Training (NTT) as the eligibility qualification. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, which was challenged in Special Appeal No.915 of 2015 by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad. 25. The Division Bench while dealing, not only with the issue of the notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended on 29.7.2011 of the NCTE prescribing minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment to be a teacher in Classes I to VIII in the Schools referred in Section 2(h) of the Act of 2009 also considered the Rule 8 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981 as well as the National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2002 and 2009. Further, the Division Bench also in depth considered the judgment of Uma Yadav (supra) and Harsh Kumar (supra). The Court while dealing with the said issue, whether the candidates holding the diploma in NTT were eligible and were having essential qualification as required by the notification, held:- “N.T.T. course is not recognized under Appendix I or II of N.C.T.E. Recognition (Norms and Procedure) Regulation 2009 as Appendix-I of Regulation 2009 is only meant for Early Childhood Education Programme leading to Diploma in Early Childhood Education (D.E.C.Ed.). Early Childhood Education (E.C.E.) includes Class I and II of the Primary Education and same is of crucial importance from the point of view and perspective of the development of child's language, intelligence and personality. Elementary Teacher Education Programme aims at preparing teachers for elementary stage of education i.e. Classes I to VI/VIII and in Recognition (Norms and Procedure) Regulation 2009, Appendix-I has subsumed Pre-School Teacher Education Programme (P.T.T.) and Nursery Teacher Training Programme (N.T.T.) both i.e. Appendix-3 and 4 of Recognition (Norms and Procedure) Regulation 2002 and said nomenclature has been changed to Diploma in Early Childhood Education (D.E.C.Ed.) as Appendix-1 and N.T.T. course of 2 years duration in Dau Dayal P.G. Mahila College was granted Recognition under appendix-4 of the Regulation 2002 and not at all under the Regulations of 2009. N.T.T. Course as mentioned in the Government Order dated 30.06.2010 is not at all recognized under the Appendix-1 or 2 of the Regulations 2009 and N.T.T. Course is recognized as per Appendix-4 of the Regulation 2002. N.T.T. Course as mentioned in the Government Order dated 30.06.2010 is not at all recognized under the Appendix-1 or 2 of the Regulations 2009 and N.T.T. Course is recognized as per Appendix-4 of the Regulation 2002. Petitioners-opposite party have completed two years course of Nursery Teacher Training from Dau Dayal Mahila (P.G.) College, Firozabad, after they have applied for persuing said Course pursuant to Government Order dated 30.06.2010, wherein categorical mention has been made that in reference of Nursery Teacher Training, Nursery School means where children upto the age of 6 years and below Class I are being imparted instructions. Petitioners-opposite party right from day one knew fully well the nature of course that was pursued by them and the said course/training was designed to impart instructions child below six years of age and to classes below 1st standard. Basic Shiksha Parishad in the State of U.P. does not accord recognition to any Nursery School to run additionally Class 1 and 2. There are three category of institutions (1) Nursery School (ii) Junior Basic School (iii) Senior Basic School. Petitioners-opposite parties can be at the best appointed in Nursery School but they cannot be appointed in Junior Basic School/Senior Basic School.” 26. Having considered the submissions of the counsels for the parties and going through the judgments of Uma Yadav (supra), Harsh Kumar (supra) and U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (supra), we are of the opinion that the two years Teachers Certificate (Shishu Shikha) of which the petitioners-respondents are relying upon is not within the ambit of the Recognition, Norms and Regulations, 2009 or 2014 of the NCTE and the said Teachers Certificate (Shishu Shiksha) only covers the teaching in preschools in the age group of 3 to 6 years and cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to cover the requisite minimum qualification as envisaged in the notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended on 29.7.2011 under the diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known). 27. The Division Bench in the case of U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (supra) had clearly distinguished between NTT Diploma which is only eligible for pre-school teaching and maximum upto Class 1 and 2 and does not cover Junior Basic School in which education is imparted for Class 1 to 5. 27. The Division Bench in the case of U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (supra) had clearly distinguished between NTT Diploma which is only eligible for pre-school teaching and maximum upto Class 1 and 2 and does not cover Junior Basic School in which education is imparted for Class 1 to 5. The said Teachers Certificate (Shishu Shiksha), which is equivalent to NTT and this diploma at best can be for teaching in preschools education and not for Junior Basic Schools, which is imparting education from Class 1 to 5. 28. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the respondents-appellants to declare the result of the petitioners respondents and issue appointment letters on the basis of the judgment of Harsh Kumar (supra) and Uma Yadav (supra) as both the Division Benches had only held that the minimum prescribed qualification for appointment of Assistant Teachers shall be, as per the notification of NCTE dated 23.8.2010 as amended on 29.7.2011 and have no where dealt the issue in regard to the present Teachers Certificate (Shishu Shiksha) or Nursery Teachers Training (NTT). It was only in the case of U.P. Basic Shikha Parishad that the issue was dealt in depth and both the aforesaid Division Bench judgments were also taken note off. 29. Further, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Bajpai (supra), Hind Lamps Ltd.(supra) and State of U.P. and others (supra), we are of the view that no final relief can be granted at the interim stage, unless and until the Court is satisfied that ultimately the petitioner is bound to succeed and fact situation warrants granting such a relief. In the present case, as one of the Division Bench had taken a view that diploma in NTT is not equivalent to BTC as such, the relief granted would amounts to final relief and in the facts of the case the situation does not warrant for passing of such order at the interim stage. 30. Hence the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.9.2014 is set aside, and the Special Appeal is allowed leaving it open for the learned Single Judge to decide the matter on its own merits after the exchange of affidavits and also considering the subsequent Division Bench Judgment in the case of U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (supra).