Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J.—Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 19205 of 2016. Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 22519 of 2018 and Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bihar Public Service Commission. 2. C.W.J.C. No. 19205 of 2016 was filed by two petitioners challenging the Advertisement No. 06/2016 as well as validity of Rule. However, it was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners before the Division Bench that validity of any rule framed under the Bihar Education Services Rules, 2014 is not under challenge and they are only challenging the validity of Advertisement no.06/2016 that the advertisement is contrary to the statutory rules and that is why these matters have been placed before the learned Single Bench. 3. On 21.08.2018, after hearing the parties a Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following orders:— “Heard the parties. The petitioners, in the present writ application, are aggrieved by the Advertisement No.06/2016, issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission in respect of appointment of Lecturer through a limited competitive examination in the Government Training Colleges. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the Note of the advertisement, which governs the eligibility criteria of the candidates in respect of the above referred advertisement. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the Note of the advertisement, which governs the eligibility criteria of the candidates in respect of the above referred advertisement. Note of the advertisement is as follows : ^^uksV%& f'k{kd ls rkRi;ZZ ^^izkFkfed@eè;@mPPk@mPprj ¼10+2½ Lrj ds ljdkjh fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr fu;fer@fu;fer fu;ksftr f'k{kd** ls gSA f'k{kkfe=k ,oa vU; fdlh Hkh izdkj ds f'k{kd bl vf/;kfpr Ikn ij fu;qfDr gsrq ik=k ugha gksxsaA** Same includes “Niyamit Niyojit Shikshak” as to when Rule 28(1)(ii) of the Bihar Shikshak Seva Niyamabali, 2014 is as follows : ^^28- fu;qfDr dh izfØ;kA&¼1½ ewy dksfV esa fu;qfDr fuEuor dh tk,xhA (i) ewy dksfV ds 50 izfr'kr inksa ij fu;qfDr lh/kh HkrhZ ls dh tk,xhA (ii) 'ks"k 50 izfr'kr inksa ij fu;qfDr jkT; ds ljdkjh fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr oSls f'k{kdksa ftudh lsok vof/k 3 o"kksZa ls de dh u gks rFkk in ds fy, fuèkkZfjr vgZrk /kkfjr djrs gksa] ls lhfer izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds ekè;e ls dh tk,xhA mUgsa vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa 05 o"kksaZ dh NwV vuqekU; gksxhA (iii) fu;qfDr gsrq ewy dksfV esa inksa dh x.kuk fo"k;okj fjfDr ds vk/kkj ij dh tk;sxh vkSj fu;qfDr Hkh fo"k;okj dh tk,xhA** The said Rule only refers to teachers in Govt. School and not Niyamit Niyojit Shikshak. Hence the inclusion of Niyamit Niyojit Shikshak in the advertisement by the B.P.S.C. is in contravention to Rule 28(1)(ii). The petitioners have further relied upon the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.12005 of 2016. The said writ application was disposed of in the terms as elaborated in paragraph 3, which is as follows : “3. From the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State as well as the Bihar Public Service Commission, it transpires that the persons who have been allowed to take part in the said Limited Competitive Examination are only those who are regular Government teachers and not persons who had been appointed as Shiksha Mitras and later on became Panchayat/Block/Nagar Teachers employed on contractual basis.” Considering the aforesaid facts as stated above, the respondents are directed to file further counter affidavit, in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, within a period of four weeks. However, participation of the category of Niyamit Niyojit Shikshak will not confer any indefeasible right to such candidates of the said category which will be subject to the final outcome of this writ application. However, participation of the category of Niyamit Niyojit Shikshak will not confer any indefeasible right to such candidates of the said category which will be subject to the final outcome of this writ application. List this matter on 26.09.2018 under the heading ‘For Orders’.” 4. On the other hand, C.W.J.C. No. 22519 of 2018 has been filed by 60 petitioners against the letter no. 458 dated 12.10.2018 issued by the Principal Secretary, Education, Department, Bihar, Patna whereby the Principal Secretary, Education, Department, Bihar, Patna issued guideline to the Bihar Public Service Commission to exclude the Niyamit Niyojit Teachers working in Panchayati Raj institutions and Nagar Nikay institutions. 5. In C.W.J.C. No. 22519 of 2018 invention petitions were filed by the interveners, bearing I.A. No. 9582 of 2018, I.A. No. 02 of 2019, I.A. No. 03 of 2019, I.A. No. 05 of 2021 and I.A. No. 06 of 2021 and they have opposed the prayer made by the petitioners in this writ application. 6. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the interveners of I.A. No. 05 of 2021 opposes the writ application but taking the line of least resistance he submits that now the result is ready and, therefore, the Court may dispose of the writ application with a direction to the Bihar Public Service Commission to publish the result in terms of the eligibility condition under the Rules. 7. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh appearing on behalf of intervener of C.W.J.C. No. 22519 of 2018 has placed reliance on oral judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12005 of 2016 where a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was made to understand that the Bihar Public Service Commission as well as State has taken decision that Limited Competitive Examination are only for those persons, who are regular Government teachers and not persons who had been appointed as Shiksha Mitras and later on became Panchayat/Block/Nagar Teachers employed on contractual basis. 8. Firstly: From order dated 20.06.2017, the Court finds that the Panchayat/Block/Nagar Teachers were leveled as the contractual employee though they may not be the Government Teachers, but they are teachers working in the Government Schools, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not properly instructed on the factual aspect. Secondly; learned Single Judge has not adjudicated any issue, which will apply as a binding system. 9. Mr. Secondly; learned Single Judge has not adjudicated any issue, which will apply as a binding system. 9. Mr. Siyaram Shahi, who appears in C.W.J.C. No. 19205 of 2016 has also appeared on behalf of interveners to oppose the writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 22519 of 2018 and submitted that the petitioners are not eligible in terms of the Rule and, therefore, the action of the respondents excluding the petitioners, who are Niyojit Nagar Panchayat/Block Teachers does not suffer from any infirmity and the action of the State and the B.P.S.C. are fully justified. 10. Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the BPSC submits that the BPSC has acted on the decision of the Principal Secretary of the Education Department and it is not the decision of BPSC, but it is the decision of the Secretary of the Education Department and on that score he submits that the action of the BPSC, which is challenged in the present writ application is practically the decision of the State Government and not the independent decision of the Commission. 11. Adverting to the pleading in C.W.J.C. No. 19205 of 2016, the petitioners in the aforesaid writ application has questioned the advertisement, particularly, the note appended to the advertisement, which adds nothing but the reiteration of the term mentioned in the Rule itself. 11. Adverting to the pleading in C.W.J.C. No. 19205 of 2016, the petitioners in the aforesaid writ application has questioned the advertisement, particularly, the note appended to the advertisement, which adds nothing but the reiteration of the term mentioned in the Rule itself. The advertisement is quoted below for ready reference: ^^1- foKkiu la-&06@2016] jkT; ds ljdkjh izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa esa fofHkUu fo"k;ksa ds O;k[;krk ds uol`ftr dqy 478 ¼pkj lkS vBgRrj½ inksa ij lhfer izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds }kjk fu;qfDr gsrq lq;ksX; mEehnokjksa ls fofgr izi=k esa vkosnu&i=k vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSaA (i) 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%&lacaf/kr fo"k; esa LukrdksRrj] U;wure 58 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk gksuk vfuok;Z gSA 2- foKkiu la-&07@2016] jkT; ds ljdkjh izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa esa LokLF; ,oa 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk fo"k; ds O;k[;krk ds uol`ftr dqy 26 ¼NCchl½ inksa ij lhfer izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds }kjk fu;qfDr gsrq lq;ksX; mEehnokjksa ls fofgr izi=k esa vkosnu&i= vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSaA (ii) 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%&LokLF ,oa 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk fo"k; esa LukrdksRrj (M.P.Ed.) U;wure 88 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk gksuk vfuok;Z gSA 3- foKkiu la-&08@2016] jkT; ds ljdkjh izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa esa dyk ,oa f'kYi fo"k; ds O;k[;krk uol`ftr dqy 26 ¼NCchl½ inksa ij lhfer izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds }kjk fu;qfDr gsrq lq;ksX; mEehnokjksa ls fofgr izi=k esa vkosnu&i= vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSaA (ii) 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%&pk{kql dyk (Visual Arts) izn'kZ dyk (Performing Arts) esa LukrdksRrj@led{k&Uwure 55 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk gksuk vfuok;Z gSA (a) p;u dk vkèkkj %&(i) oLrqfu"B ijh{kk esa izkIr vadksa ds vk/kkj ij lk{kkRdkj fy;k tk,xkA lk{kkRdkj gsrq fjfDr ds 2-5 ¼ढ+kbZ½ xq.kk mEehnokjksa dks vkj{k.k dksfVokj vkeaf=r fd;k tk,xkA rRi'pkr~ oLrqfu"B ijh{kk esa izkIr vad] vdknfed vad ,oa lk{kkRdkj esa izkIr vadksa dks tksM+dj vafre ijh{kkiQy rS;kj fd;k tk,xkA (ii) vuqHko%&fcgkj jkT; ds ljdkjh fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kd] ftudh lsok 03 o"kZ dh gks pqdh gSA uksV%&f'k{kd ls rkRi;Z ^^izkFkfed@eè;@mPp@mPprj ¼10+2½ Lrj ds ljdkjh fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr fu;fer@fu;fer fu;ksftr f'k{kd** ls gSA f'k{kkfe=k ,oa vU; fdlh Hkh izdkj ds f'k{kd bl vf/;kfpr in ij fu;qfDr gsrq ik=k ugha gksaxsA** 12. Mr. Siyaram Sahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in case of conflict between the advertisement and the Rule, the Rule shall prevail. He submits that the note appended to the advertisement runs contrary to the Rule and, therefore, the advertisement is bad. 13. Mr. Siyaram Sahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in case of conflict between the advertisement and the Rule, the Rule shall prevail. He submits that the note appended to the advertisement runs contrary to the Rule and, therefore, the advertisement is bad. 13. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that 2014 Rules is the deciding factor on the issue of eligibility, suitability and selection for the post of lecturer in Teachers Training Colleges. 14. Mr. Siyaram Shahi, learned counsel, with reference to Rule 28 submits that there are two modes of recruitment, one is by way of direct recruit and the other is by way of Limited Competitive Examination amongst the teachers working in the Government schools, who have completed three years service and having the prescribed eligibility condition and in their case there shall be a maximum age relaxation of five years. Mr. Shahi further submits that for the Limited Competitive Examination, the condition precedent is that one should be working in Government School, which necessary meas the Government teachers and any teachers other than the Government teachers are not qualified. He refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee & Ors, reported in 2019(2) PLJR SC 454 [: 2019 (3) BLJ 460 (SC)], particularly, page 470 to contend that the cadre of regular teacher is District/Division whereas the Niyojit Teacher cadres is in the respective Panchayat, Block, Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Parishad, Nagar Nigam or Zila Parishad. About the status it has been mentioned that the employee of the State Government where the employees of the Panchayat Teachers are the employees of respective institutions of the Panchayati Raj Insitution/Urban Local bodies or the Zila Parishad. 15. Mr. Shahi submits that in order to avail the benefit of Limited Competitive Examination one has to answer the requirement of cadre because of Limited Competitive Examination is confined to those, who are in the cadre. 16. The term cadre means total strength of the service. The Apex Court has also noted that the cadre of Niyojit Teacher is in the respective Panchayat and Block etc. It does not state that the Teachers working in the capacity of Panchayat Teacher was not forming any cadre. Scrutinizing the submission of Mr. 16. The term cadre means total strength of the service. The Apex Court has also noted that the cadre of Niyojit Teacher is in the respective Panchayat and Block etc. It does not state that the Teachers working in the capacity of Panchayat Teacher was not forming any cadre. Scrutinizing the submission of Mr. Siyaram Shahi, at the touch stone of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee & Ors. (Supra), the Court find that the Apex Court also noted that Panchayat Teachers also forms the cadre. 17. So far as the status is concerned, it is true that they have not been accepted as Government Teacher, but adverting to the Rule, it is seen that the condition is that the teacher must be working in the Government school. There is no stipulation that the Teacher should be a Government Teacher. Mr. Shahi further submitted that these Panchayat Teachers are not eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster. Mr. Shahi is ignorant of the Rule, 2012, which inter alia provides for promotion to the post of Headmaster to the Niyojit Teacher. Rule 15 (Ch)(iii) is quoted for ready reference, which provides for promotion to the post of headmaster from the list of trained graduate teachers, who have satisfactory service of five years. "Rule 15( p ) (iii) izf'kf{kr Lukrd f'k{kdksa esa ls ojh;rk ,oa Lukrd xzsM esa 5 ¼ik¡p½ o"kksZa dh U;wure lsok ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj ojh;rk lwph ls eè; fo|ky; ds fu;r osru ds izk/;kid ds in ij izksUufr nh tk,xhA** 18. Therefore, the Court does not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Shahi that these Niyojit Teachers are not eligible for promotion as Headmaster, therefore, they are not eligible to participate in the Limited Competitive Examination. The Court is of the considered view that construction, which exclude the Niyojit Teacher from the zone of consideration for Limited Competitive Examination is in teeth of the Rule, 2014. 19. Mr. Shahi has referred to the letter of the Director (Research and Training) dated 07.09.2015 to contend that in the selection process guideline was sought by the BPSC and after the clarification from the Director (Research and Training), the BPSC considered the candidature of the Niyojit Teachers. Referring to Rule, he submits that the Rule does not permit consideration of the candidature of Niyojit Teacher. Referring to Rule, he submits that the Rule does not permit consideration of the candidature of Niyojit Teacher. Rule simply says that the teachers should be working in a Government School and have completed three years and must possess the minimum qualification. There is no classification that the teacher eligible in terms of Rule 28 should be only and only the government teacher all that is mention in the Rule is Teachers working in Government School. Undisputedly, the Niyojit Teachers are working in the Government School and in terms of Rule 28, those who have completed three years, they are eligible in terms of Rule. It is now well settled that exclusion should be specific and cannot be inferred since the Rule does not exclude Niyojit Shikshak any construction to exclude the Niyojit Shikshak from the zone of consideration would be unsustainable. 20. Mr. Shahi is correct on his submission that the Rule cannot be diluted or read down in the light of advertisement or Executive instruction. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors, reported in 2006 (9) SCC 507 that in case of conflict between the advertisement and the Rules, the Rules shall prevail. The proposition is well settled and there is no quarrel on the proposition that Rule shall prevail and it cannot be read down or diluted by the terms advertisement or by way of correspondence between the BPSC and the Secretary of the Department. Since the Rule is most unambiguous and does not provide any construction or interpretation for Teacher, the term for exclusion of Niyojit Teacher on the basis of the correspondence made by the BPSC with the Principal Secretary or the Director (Research and Training) is not going to help in the matter of construction of Rule. 21. The Court finds that the Rule is most unambiguous and, therefore, there is no question of any external aid for interpretation of the Rule. This is the settled principles of law holding the field that if any of the Rule is unambiguous, there is no question of any external aid or any question of interpretation, hence the objectives raised by Mr. Shahi to question the eligibility of the Niyojit Teachers runs contrary to the unambiguous provisions of Rule as submitted by Mr. This is the settled principles of law holding the field that if any of the Rule is unambiguous, there is no question of any external aid or any question of interpretation, hence the objectives raised by Mr. Shahi to question the eligibility of the Niyojit Teachers runs contrary to the unambiguous provisions of Rule as submitted by Mr. Shahi and also the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2006(9) SCC 507 . 22. The Court finds that it is not the terms of the advertisement or the correspondence made by the BPSC and the Director (Training) or the Secretary of the Education Department that will prevail over the unambiguous terms and conditions of eligibility set out in Rule 28. The Rule has to be given full effect and the BPSC and the respondents are hereby directed to strictly follow the rule which does not make distinction between the Government Teacher or the Regular Teacher or Niyojit Shikshak. The Rule simply says that teachers working in Government school and if they have completed three years as teacher they become eligible subject to condition that educational and other educational qualification for the post they hold. 23. In the aforesaid circumstance, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 19205 of 2016). It is, accordingly, dismissed. 24. So far as C.W.J.C. No. 22519 of 2018 is concerned, the same is disposed of with a direction to the BPSC to reconsider the case of the petitioner and alike in the light of the Rule, as indicated hereinabove, and adopt corrective measures within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 25. Any other construction on the basis of the advertisement or any letter issued by the Principal Secretary, Education Department is contrary to the Rule and is unsustainable. The BPSC and the concerned respondents are directed to strictly adhere to the observations and directions issued hereinabove. 26. In view of the above, all the connected writ applications are also disposed of, as all the counsel appearing on behalf of other writ applications have adopted the arguments of C.W.J.C. No. 22519 of 2018.