ORDER : All these writ petitions present two sets of claims for adjudication. Such claims, though juxtaposed, involve common questions of facts and law, therefore, are being decided together by a common judgment. First set consists of claims in CWPOA No. 6251 of 2020 (OA 247 of 2019 filed before erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal) along with CWP Nos. 426, 756, 1052, 1053, 1055, 1079, 1097, 1136, 1204, 1212, 1221 and 1350 of 2021 (for short, “first set”) and the Second set includes claims in CWPOA No. 132 of 2019 and CWP No. 3197 of 2020 (for short, “second set”). 2. Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (for short, “HPSSC”) issued advertisement dated 19.12.2018 (for short, “advertisement”) and thereby invited applications from eligible candidates for selection to the posts of Junior Basic Teachers, Class-III, Non-Gazetted (for short, “JBTs”) in Elementary Education Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh. The advertisement triggered the dispute that primarily relates to necessary qualification for the post of JBTs and as a consequence thereof all the above noted petitions came to be filed. 3. The petitions in first set have been filed on the grounds that the petitioners therein are either Science or Arts graduates with B.Ed. and have also qualified prescribed Teachers Eligibility Test (for short, ‘TET’). They have claimed that vide Notification dated 28.06.2018 National Council for Teachers Education (for short, “NCTE”) has enhanced the scope of eligible candidates for the post of JBT by including candidates with B.Ed. therein subject however to the condition they must have qualified TET and should also undergo six months “Bridge Course” within two years from the date of their appointment as JBT. As per petitioners therein, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for JBTs were framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh in 2017 (for short, 2017 Rules”) i.e. before issuance of NCTE notification dated 28.6.2018 and thus the 2017 rules required amendment or in alternative by necessary implication shall include the additional qualification prescribed by NCTE notification. It is further contended on their behalf that they were eligible for the post of JBT but were wrongly and illegally precluded from participation in the recruitment process initiated through the advertisement, as the essential qualification prescribed in said advertisement did not include prescription made by NCTE notification dated 28.6 2018. 4. It is further contended on their behalf that they were eligible for the post of JBT but were wrongly and illegally precluded from participation in the recruitment process initiated through the advertisement, as the essential qualification prescribed in said advertisement did not include prescription made by NCTE notification dated 28.6 2018. 4. To place the facts straight, it is being noticed that having failed to obtain interim orders in the Original Application No. 247 of 2019, petitioners therein had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 191 of 2019. This Court had decided the said petition on 18.01.2019 in following terms: - “3. Be that as it may, as the moot issue raised in the Original Application, has to be at the first instance adjudicated by the Tribunal, therefore, without making any observation on the merit of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners be permitted to apply for the post in issue provisionally subject to their fulfilling other eligibility criteria contained in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules except qualification. It is further clarified that this direction shall not be construed as if this Court has found the petitioners eligible for the post in issue. The same shall depend upon the outcome of the Original Application to be decided by the learned Tribunal. It is further clarified that submission of the applications for the post by the petitioners, shall not confer upon them any equity to claim the post in issue, if the Tribunal decides the original application against them. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 5. The petitions forming second set, on the other hand, have been filed on the hypothesis that the Government of Himachal Pradesh in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has laid down 2017 Rules for the JBTs. The decision of NCTE to include the category of graduates with B.Ed. to the list of eligible candidates, for the post of JBT, vide its Notification dated 28.06.2018 is bad in law being arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory and ultra vires being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has further been contended that the students for primary classes (Classes I to V) require specialist teachers for which special courses such as JBT course was prescribed. It has further been contended that the students for primary classes (Classes I to V) require specialist teachers for which special courses such as JBT course was prescribed. The curriculum of B.Ed. course is totally different and is meant for the teachers for classes VI to VIII. The decision of NCTE to include the graduates with B.Ed. to be eligible for JBT was without any rationale and amounted to relaxation of the eligibility conditions without the concurrence of the State Government, which was in violation of Section 23(2) of RTE Act. It has also been asserted that rights of a large number of candidates who were otherwise eligible for the post of JBT as per 2017 Rules would be prejudiced by the enlargement of the zone of eligible candidates. As per petitioners therein, the impugned Notification would also be an impediment in batch-wise selection of candidates for the post of JBT. Hence, a prayer has been made to quash NCTE Notification dated 28.06.2018 and to direct official respondents to carry the recruitment and selection process to the post of JBT, strictly in terms of 2017 Rules and advertisement dated 19.12.2018 issued by HPSSC. 6. Thus, the core issue that arises for determination is, Whether the recruitment/selection process initiated by the HPSSC vide advertisement dated 19.12.2018 for the posts of JBT in the Department of Elementary Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh strictly on the basis of 2017 Rules by ignoring the NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 is sustainable? 7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the records. 8. Indisputably, NCTE notification has only enhanced the zone of eligible candidates for post of JBTs without rendering already eligible candidates including the petitioners in second set of petitions ineligible. This being so, the right of such petitioners to file and maintain petitions in second set becomes questionable. 9. It is settled that the prescription of qualification for selection to particular post falls within the sole domain of the employer and the recruitment/selection process cannot be made subject matter of judicial review merely on the ground that the employer has changed/ amended the rule(s) after initiation of the process. Reference in this regard can be made to para 9 of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary; Ashok Tukaram Barde Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Others; Suhas Sudhakarrao Lavhekar and Others Etc. Reference in this regard can be made to para 9 of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary; Ashok Tukaram Barde Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Others; Suhas Sudhakarrao Lavhekar and Others Etc. Etc., (2019) 6 SCC 362 , wherein it has held as under : [9] The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. To similar effect is exposition made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav, (1994) 6 SCC 151 , which reads as under : [5] It is not in dispute that Statutory Rules have been made introducing Degree in Science or Engineering or Diploma in Technology as qualifications for recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Weights and Measures. It is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualifications for recruitment. Here is a case that pursuant to amended Rules, the government has withdrawn the earlier notification and wants to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It is not a case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims according to the rules then in vogue. It is not a case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have only prospective operation. The government is entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously, no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State is entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules. 10. Adverting to the facts of the case, noticeably, the State of Himachal Pradesh does not have any legislation of its own prescribing qualifications for teachers. 2017 Rules hold the field in the state prescribing qualifications for the post of JBT and said rules derive their source from proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 11. NCTE was established by the Central Act named the ‘National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, (for short, “NCTE Act”) which came into force w.e.f. 29.12.1993. The main object of the establishment of NCTE was to achieve planned and coordinated development of the Teacher Education system throughout the country, the regulations and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the Teacher’s Education system (including qualifications of school Teachers) and for matters connected therewith. 12. Another Central legislation “Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009” (for short, “RTE Act”) came into force w.e.f. 26th August, 2009. Section 23 (1) of the RTE Act read as under:- 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, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. This provision mandated only such persons to be eligible for appointment as teacher who possess such minimum qualification as laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government by Notification in this behalf. The Central Government vide Notification dated 31.03.2010 authorized NCTE as academic authority, under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act, to lay down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as Teacher. 13. The Central Government vide Notification dated 31.03.2010 authorized NCTE as academic authority, under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act, to lay down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as Teacher. 13. An amendment was carried in the NCTE Act in 2011 as a result thereof, Section 12-A was added in the following terms:- “12A. Power of Council to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers.—For the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools, the Council may, by regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college, by whatever name called, established, run, aided or recognised by the Central Government or a State Government or a local or other authority: Provided that nothing in this section shall adversely affect the continuance of any person recruited in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate schools or colleges, under any rule, regulation or order made by the Central Government, a State Government, a local or other authority, immediately before the commencement of the National Council for Teacher Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 (18 of 2011) solely on the ground of non-fulfillment of such qualifications as may be specified by the Council: Provided further that the minimum qualifications of a teacher referred to in the first proviso shall be acquired within the period specified in this Act or under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009).” Thus, by inclusion of aforesaid provision, NCTE was vested with powers to determine the qualification of persons for being recruited as teachers in any pre-primary, primary, upper-primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or intermediate school or college, established, run, aided or recognized by the Central Government or State Government or a local or other authority, by regulations for the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools. 14. NCTE vide Notification dated 23.08.2010, in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act prescribed minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher, including teachers in Class I to V in a school referred to in Clause (n) of Section 2 of RTE Act. 14. NCTE vide Notification dated 23.08.2010, in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act prescribed minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher, including teachers in Class I to V in a school referred to in Clause (n) of Section 2 of RTE Act. The qualifications so prescribed came to be amended from time to time and one such amendment was carried vide impugned notification dated 28.6.2018, as noticed above, whereby candidates with B.Ed. have also been made eligible for the post of JBT. 15. The issue as to legality, efficacy and prevalence of notification dated 28.6.2018 issued by NCTE is no more res-integra after the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Sharan Maurya and others vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2021 SC 954 . Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the powers & jurisdiction of NCTE vis-a-vis Notification dated 28.06.2018 has been pleased to hold as under : “38.4 It is thus clear that for maintaining standards of education in schools, the NCTE is now specifically empowered to determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in schools or colleges. In addition to regulating standards in “teacher education system”, the NCTE Act now deals with regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in respect of qualifications of persons to be recruited as teachers. By Notification dated 31.03.2010, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23 of the RTE Act authorised the NCTE as an “Academic Authority” to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. 40. The Notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the NCTE was in exercise of power so conferred upon it by virtue of the Notification dated 31.03.2010. In terms of the Notification dated 28.06.2018, the qualification of ‘Bachelor of Education’ from any NCTE recognised institution shall now be a valid qualification for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher mandatorily undergoes six months’ Bridge Course in elementary education within two years of such appointment. 41. Going by the Parliamentary intent in empowering NCTE under the provisions of the NCTE Act and specific authorization in favour of NCTE under said Notification dated 31.03.2010, the authority of NCTE is beyond any doubt. 41. Going by the Parliamentary intent in empowering NCTE under the provisions of the NCTE Act and specific authorization in favour of NCTE under said Notification dated 31.03.2010, the authority of NCTE is beyond any doubt. Though there is no specific regulation as contemplated under Section 32 read with Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, for the present purposes by virtue of the specific authorization under the Notification dated 31.03.2010, NCTE was entitled to lay down that those holding the qualification of ‘Bachelor of Education’ as detailed in said Notification are entitled to be appointed as teachers for classes I to V. Such prescription on part of the NCTE would be binding. It is for this reason that G.O. dated 01.12.2018 notifying ATRE-2019 clearly stated that the candidates possessing minimum qualifications specified in Notifications issued by the NCTE including one dated 28.06.2018 were entitled to participate in ATRE-2019. 43. The Notification dated 28.06.2018 being binding on the State Government, the statutory regime put in place by the State has to be read in conformity with said Notification. The eligibility or entitlement being already conferred by Notification dated 28.06.2018, the amendments to 1981 Rules were effected only to make the statutory regime consistent with the directives issued by the NCTE. The right or eligibility was not conferred by amendments effected to 1981 Rules for the first time and therefore the element of retrospectivity present in the concerned amendments has to be read in that perspective. The intent behind those amendments was not to create a right for the first time with retrospective effect but was only to effectuate the statutory regime in tune or accord with NCTE directives. Theoretically, even if such statutory regime was not made so consistent, the concerned candidates holding B.Ed. degrees could still be eligible and could not have been denied candidature for ATRE-2019. 16. There also is no challenge in second set of petitions to the power vested in NCTE, by Section 12-A of NCTE Act and under Section 23(1) of RTE Act, to prescribe minimum qualification for the teachers. This being so, the Notification issued by the NCTE prescribing qualifications for the teachers of Class I to V has to be read as mandatory prescription of valid law. Education being subject of concurrent list in schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, the prevalence of Central Act shall remain. 17. This being so, the Notification issued by the NCTE prescribing qualifications for the teachers of Class I to V has to be read as mandatory prescription of valid law. Education being subject of concurrent list in schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, the prevalence of Central Act shall remain. 17. Thus, it is clear from above noted exposition of law that the attempt of petitioners in second set of petitions to challenge the prescription made by NCTE vide notification dated 28.6.2018 is a futile exercise. These petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be heard to have acquired any vested right on the basis of advertisement issued by HPSSC, as the said advertisement itself was deficient in prescription of essential qualification mandated under law and hence would deem to include such lawful prescription. Even otherwise, the notification issued by NCTE prescribing graduation with B.Ed. as one of the essential qualifications for JBT was prior in time to the advertisement and on this account also petitioners in second set of petitions do not have any right to assail the same. 18. Another ground raised in second set of petitions is that students of Classes I to V require special kind of treatment and appropriate teaching methods were taught only to the persons having undergone two years specialized basic course in education techniques, which was lacking in the case of candidates who had undergone B.Ed. course. This contention, in our considered view, cannot be a subject of judicial review for the reason that the Central Government in its wisdom has constituted a body of experts for the specific purpose and this court cannot sit in judicial review over the decision of expert body, especially in absence of any material to prove arbitrariness in making of such decision. The education techniques have to keep pace with ever evolving society. Like all other progressive fields, the field of education cannot remain static. We have been taken through a paper published by the NCTE in 2009 titled “National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education” which clearly reveal that the need for the up-gradation of teaching procedure was on higher agenda of concerned authorities, therefore, it cannot be said that the qualification prescribed by NCTE for appointment of Teachers is a mindless exercise. We have been taken through a paper published by the NCTE in 2009 titled “National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education” which clearly reveal that the need for the up-gradation of teaching procedure was on higher agenda of concerned authorities, therefore, it cannot be said that the qualification prescribed by NCTE for appointment of Teachers is a mindless exercise. In addition, nothing has been placed before us, which may suggest even remotely that NCTE has either over-stepped its jurisdiction or has made decisions which are not in the public interest. 19. It has also been contended against the Notification dated 28.06.2018 that it was in violation of Sub-section 2 of Section 23 of RTE Act. To canvass this proposition, it has been argued that the Central Government or NCTE were precluded from the exercising the jurisdiction under the above said provision without request being made by the concerned State Government in that behalf. This argument deserves to be rejected for the reason that the NCTE had exercised the power under sub-section 1 of section 23 of the RTE Act for prescribing qualification for teachers and sub-Section 2 of Section 23 was thus inapplicable. It has further been argued in this regard that since the prescription made through Notification dated 28.06.2018 amounted to relaxation of qualification, therefore, the exercise of power by NCTE was to be construed under Section 2 of Section 23 of RTE Act. This assertion also deserves to be rejected. There are no plausible or reasonable grounds to hold that mere enhancement in the field of qualified candidates amounts to relaxation in qualification, rather in our considered view, it amounts to enhancing the qualification for JBT with the purpose to boost the efficiency. For the same reasons as detailed above, we do not find any substance in the contention that inclusion of category prescribed by the Notification dated 28.06.2018 makes ineligible persons eligible. 20. In view of the above discussion it is held that the Notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by NCTE is binding on Elementary Education Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh as also the HPSSC. Hence, the recruitment process initiated by the HPSSC through advertisement dated 19.12.2018 for the post of JBTs without inclusion of the category prescribed vide Notification dated 28.06.2018 of NCTE is bad in law being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the recruitment process initiated by the HPSSC through advertisement dated 19.12.2018 for the post of JBTs without inclusion of the category prescribed vide Notification dated 28.06.2018 of NCTE is bad in law being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The HPSSC is directed to complete the recruitment process for the post of JBTs initiated in pursuance to advertisement dated 19.12.2018 by considering the candidates with qualifications prescribed vide NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 eligible in addition to the already eligible candidates. The Government of Himachal Pradesh, Elementary Education Department is also directed to amend 2017 rules accordingly to avoid any misgiving in future. 21. All the petitions are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.