JUDGEMENT : Heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Begum, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/1051/2019, WP(C)/1440/2019, WP(C)/1554/2019 and WP(C)/1601/2019. Also heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/4688/2020, WP(C)/1814/2019, WP(C)/1863/2019, WP(C)/1866/2019, WP(C)/3080/2020, WP(C)/3782/2020, WP(C)/4235/2020, WP(C)/2788/2020, WP(C)/3499/2020 and WP(C)/5268/2020, Mr. A. F. N. U. Mollah, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/4785/2019 and Mr. B. Purkayastha, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/1321/2019. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Advocate General, Assam representing the State of Assam, assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam. 2. These writ petitions are taken together for disposal as the same are interlinked and arises out of similar causes of action. The first challenge is of a Notification dated 05.01.2019, whereby Notifications dated 29.10.2018 and 21.11.2018 were withdrawn. The Notifications dated 29.10.2018 and 21.11.2018 were issued allowing the petitioners, who had qualified Madrassa TET examination to participate in a selection process initiated by an advertisement dated 11.03.2018. These writ petitioners had qualified Madrassa TET examination for HS Pre Senior Section, F.M. Pre Senior and Assistant Teachers, Hindi. The other challenge is Notification dated 10.09.2020 whereby all earlier Notifications allowing Madrassa TET qualified teachers including Hindi and Arabic Teachers to participate in the selection process for selection of teachers in Upper Primary (UP) and Lower Primary (LP) Schools under Secondary and Elementary Education Department were cancelled. These Madrassa TET qualified candidates in Hindi and Arabic were earlier allowed to participate in the selection process initiated by advertisement dated 11.03.2018. The third challenge is the advertisements dated 11.09.2020 and 24.09.2020 which were issued for filling up the posts of Graduate Teachers in Science and Arts in Provincialised High and Higher Secondary School in Assam. 3. The undisputed background facts: (i) The Government of Assam in Secondary Education Department by way of an advertisement dated 03.08.2014 initiated the process of conducting Teachers Eligibility Test for the Madrassa Institutions with a view of offering quality education in Provincialised Madrassa Institutions. (In short MTET). The petitioner participated in the said TET examination for Assistant Teacher, HS Pre-Senior Section, F.M. Pre-Senior Section, Assistant Teacher, Hindi. (In short MTET). The petitioner participated in the said TET examination for Assistant Teacher, HS Pre-Senior Section, F.M. Pre-Senior Section, Assistant Teacher, Hindi. (ii) On 17.10.2015 by order of the Governor, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department, issued a notification stating that due to non-availability of TET qualified candidates to fill up the posts of Arabic Teachers and Hindi Teachers in provincialised Schools/ Madrassas, the same need to be filled up from MTET qualified candidates. (iii) On 11.03.2018, the Director of Elementary Education issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Teachers in Upper Primary Schools of Assam. Clause 13 of the said advertisement made MTET qualified in F.M (pre-senior Section) candidates eligible for the post of Arabic Teachers and Clause.14 made MTET (Hindi) qualified candidates eligible for the posts of Assistant Teacher in Hindi. The same is in conformity with notification dated 17.10.2015. However, no other MTET qualified candidates like HS Pre-Senior Section were made eligible to participate in the said Selection Process. (iv) On 08.08.2018, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam issued a letter addressed to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam stating that the office of the Director of Secondary Education is having no objection, if Government considers MTET for filling up of posts teachers in Arabic, Social Science and General Science in ME Schools. (v) On 29.10.2018, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam issued a notification in the name of the Governor that candidates who acquired MTET in H.S. Pre Senior Section, having all other required qualification prescribed in the respective Service Rule, shall be eligible to apply for the post of teachers in Arabic, Social Science and General Science in ME Schools. (vi) On 02.11.2018 another notification was issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secondary Education, Department declaring that MTET (Pre Senior Section) qualified candidates having all other required qualification will be eligible to apply for the post of Teachers (B.A), Teachers (B.Sc.) and Teachers in Assamese Language in ME/High Schools/ High Madrassa Schools. (vii) Thereafter, On 03.11.2018 by way of Addendum (II) to the advertisement dated 11.03.2018, the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam declared that the MTET (Pre Senior Section) qualified candidates having all other required qualification will be eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher, Hindi Teacher, Arabic Teacher and Science Teacher. (vii) Thereafter, On 03.11.2018 by way of Addendum (II) to the advertisement dated 11.03.2018, the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam declared that the MTET (Pre Senior Section) qualified candidates having all other required qualification will be eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher, Hindi Teacher, Arabic Teacher and Science Teacher. (viii) On the basis of such Addendum the petitioners (MTET, H.S. Pre Senior Section) became eligible to participate in the selection process initiated vide advertisement dtd.11.03.2018 and the petitioners applied for the posts in question. (ix) Thereafter, on 05.01.2019, by an even dated order, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, canceled the above two notifications dated 29.10.2018 and 02.11.2018, thus excluded the petitioners (MTET, H.S. Pre Senior Section) from the purview of the selection initiated by Advertisement dtd.11.03.2018. Such Notification is under challenge in some of the writ petitions, where petitioners are MTET qualified (H.S. Pre Senior Section). (x) On 8.03.2019, yet another Notification similar to the notification dated 17.10.2015 was issued, whereby the MTET FM (pre Senior) and MTET Hindi, were treated to be qualified for the posts of Arabic and Hindi teachers in ME Schools. (xi) Thereafter, on 10.09.2020, a notification in the name of the Governor was issued, whereby and where under all previous Notifications allowing MTET qualified teachers to participate in the selection process for the selection of Teachers in Upper Primary and Lower Primary Schools under Secondary and Elementary education Department, including the Notification dated 17.10.2015, were cancelled forthwith. This Notification in under Challenge in some of the writ petitions preferred by petitioners having MTET qualification, (H.S. Pre Section) and F.M. (Arabic) and MTET (Hindi). (xii) Thereafter, on 11.09.2020, another advertisement was issued for filling up posts of Graduate Teachers in Science and Arts in Provincialised High/Higher Secondary Schools in Assam. This Advertisement is also under challenge in some of the writ petitions as the same does not allow any MTET qualified candidates to participate in the selection process. (xiii) Yet another Advertisement dated 24.09.2020 was issued for filling up posts of Assistant Teachers in Upper Primary and Lower Primary Schools on contractual Basis and only Assam TET qualified Candidates were made eligible. The same is also under challenge in some of the writ petitions. 4. Leading the argument, Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted By Ms. (xiii) Yet another Advertisement dated 24.09.2020 was issued for filling up posts of Assistant Teachers in Upper Primary and Lower Primary Schools on contractual Basis and only Assam TET qualified Candidates were made eligible. The same is also under challenge in some of the writ petitions. 4. Leading the argument, Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted By Ms. N. Begum, the learned counsel representing some of the MTET (H.S. Pre Senior Section) qualified candidates submits: (i) The action of the respondent State is hit by the principles of promissory estoppel. (ii) The state by issuing the Notification dated 29.10.2018 and 02.11.2018 made the petitioners eligible to participate in the selection in question and resultantly, issued the Addendum (II) dated 3.11.2018. Such action is nothing but an unequivocal promise on the part of the state respondents and the petitioners by participating in the process of selection acted upon such unequivocal promise and the state cannot now be allowed to resile from such unequivocal promise. The state respondents have withdrawn the promise so made by the impugned notification dated 05.01.2019 and 10.09.2020 to the detriment of the petitioners. Therefore the same is liable to be set aside. (iii) The impugned action of the state is also unreasonable, arbitrary and result of gross abuse of power. The state authority has acted upon the representation of the petitioners and similarly situated candidates and made them eligible to participate in the selection by way of administrative decision, which is within the power of the state. Thus such action led to the legitimate expectation and the state has issued the impugned orders arbitrarily and unreasonably in gross abuse of their powers. Therefore, such decision is liable to be struck down. To buttress his argument on the point of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, Mr. Mahanta relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2012 (11) SCC 1 and in State of Jharkhand Vs. Brahmaputra Metallics Limited Ranchi and Another reported in 2021 (1) SCJ 131 . (iv) The impugned orders disqualifying the petitioners to participate in the selection process in question, is illegal being issued in contravention of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Union of India and Others reported in 2012 (11) SCC 1 and in State of Jharkhand Vs. Brahmaputra Metallics Limited Ranchi and Another reported in 2021 (1) SCJ 131 . (iv) The impugned orders disqualifying the petitioners to participate in the selection process in question, is illegal being issued in contravention of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The notification dated 29.10.2018 making the MTET (H.S. Pre Senior Section) qualified candidates eligible to participate in the selection process was duly issued in the name of the Governor, as required under Article 166 of the Constitution of India but the notification impugned has not been issued in the name of the Governor and thus issued in contravention of the Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Such action is not permissible under Law. Order issued in the name of the Governor can only be withdrawn in the name of the Governor. In support of his argument Mr. Mahanta relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in AIR 1964 SC 1823 . (v) The impugned order is also in violation of Rule 11 and 12 of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1961 which mandates that all orders or instruments made on behalf of Government of Assam shall be expressed to be made or executed in the name of Governor and shall be signed either by the Secretary, Additional Secretary etc which, has not been followed while issuing the impugned notifications. 5. Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned Counsel while adopting the arguments of Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Learned Senior Counsel relating to Principles of Promissory estoppel, principles of Legitimate expectation and violation of provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India and violation of provisions of Rules 11 and 12 of Rule Of Executive Business, 1968 further submits: (i) The arguments of Mr. K.K. Mahanta relating to promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation are equally applicable to the impugned notification dated 10.09.2020 and subsequent advertisements dated 11.09.2020 and dated 24.09.2020. (ii) There is no difference between the Madrassa TET and Assam TET. TET is based on a syllabus determined by expert body. Therefore, TET qualified candidates cannot be classified into two groups, violating right of the petitioners. (ii) There is no difference between the Madrassa TET and Assam TET. TET is based on a syllabus determined by expert body. Therefore, TET qualified candidates cannot be classified into two groups, violating right of the petitioners. (iii) Though the petitioners have passed the Madrassa TET, they are eligible for appointment in general school also inasmuch as the definition 2(K) of the Madrassa Education Provincialisation Act, 1995 clarifies that the syllabus of Madrassa as well as syllabus of students of general school are same as determined by Secondary Education Board, Assam. There is no distinction in the curriculum, however, only distinction is in the nomenclature of the degrees. Therefore, such classification is not based on any rational criteria. (iv) The State has created two classes without any rational and therefore, same is hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The right of the petitioners’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also being violated as the petitioners’ right to livelihood has been taken way without due process of law. (v) There is no mandate in the RTE Act’ 2009 to fix the total marks in TET exam at 150. The RTE Act’ 2009 only mandates for maintaining the quality of education. The fixation of mark is by the State as the secondary education is a State subject. On the basis of such power the State has already fixed the total mark and conducted the MTET exam and therefore, the State cannot resile now to say that it was a mistake on their part. (vi) While issuing the impugned order, the satisfaction of the Commissioner is only expressed. However, to come to a findings that there are difference between the general TET and Madrassa TET, the body under RTE Act, 2009 must take such a decision. 6. Mr. A.F.N. U. Mullah, and Mr. B. Purkayastha, the learned counsels, adopt the arguments advanced by M Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned Counsel. 7. Mr. D. Saikia, Learned Advocate General, State of Assam assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel submits: (i) Different kinds of TETs are being held in Assam. The first is the general TET for Assam, known as Assam TET meant for recruitment of teachers in General Schools. There were some Siksha Mitra’s working in different UP and LP Schools, who sought for their regularizations. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel submits: (i) Different kinds of TETs are being held in Assam. The first is the general TET for Assam, known as Assam TET meant for recruitment of teachers in General Schools. There were some Siksha Mitra’s working in different UP and LP Schools, who sought for their regularizations. As no order of regularization could be made, these Siksha Mitra’s were given a chance so that they can get qualified for their absorption, accordingly a Special TET for Siksha Mitra’s was also held. As the Sixth Schedule Areas of the Assam were not having sufficient number of qualified teachers from those areas, the State of Assam had also taken a decision to have a special TET for Sixth Schedule Areas so as to give an opportunity to the persons/candidates who are residents of Sixth Schedule Areas. Accordingly TET for Sixth Schedule Areas was held. The Government of Assam also took a conscious decision to have a separate TET for Madrassa Schools for the purpose of appointment of teachers in the Madrassa Schools, keeping in mind the syllabus etc of Madrassa Schools. Accordingly the Madrassa TET was held. (ii) The decision to held Madrassa TET was pursuant to the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dated 22.01.2014 passed in a PIL 48/2013 (Peoples Society and Another Vs. State of Assam and Others.) In peoples Society, (supra) an undertaking was given on behalf of the State of Assam that a decision to introduce Teacher Eligibility Test for the recruitment of teachers in provincialised Madrassas has already been taken. Accordingly, the said PIL was disposed of with an observation that the State shall comply with the undertaking in letter and spirit, while recruiting the teachers in the Madrassa institutions strictly on the basis of norms set out for the selection. (iii) Subsequent to such decision, the advertisement dated 03.08.2014 for conducting MTET for unreserved post in provincialised Madrassa institution was issued. (iv) The advertisement dated 30.08.2014 clearly stipulates that the Madrassa TET was held only for the purpose of recruiting teachers in the Provincialised Madrassa institutions and not for general schools. (v) On the basis of such advertisement, the petitioners had participated in the TET examination and got qualified. Therefore, there was no unequivocal promise on the part of the State that the petitioners would be accommodated in general schools. (v) On the basis of such advertisement, the petitioners had participated in the TET examination and got qualified. Therefore, there was no unequivocal promise on the part of the State that the petitioners would be accommodated in general schools. (vi) Therefore, the submission of the petitioners that they are having legitimate expectation and the action of the State is hit by promissory estoppel is having no legs to stand. (vii) There cannot be any promissory estoppel and /or legitimate expectation against law. (viii) There are marked differences between the structures, syllabus etc. between the General TET and the Madrassa TET inasmuch as the Madrassa TET was conducted only for recruiting teachers in the provincialised Madrassa Schools and not for general Schools. (ix) The intervening decision between holding of Madrassa TET and allowing some persons having qualification of Madrassa TET to participate in the selection process for General Schools was erroneous inasmuch as said decision was in contravention of the Central Legislation i.e. RTE Act’2009 and Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the Government was within its jurisdiction to rectify such decision taken in contravention of law. The impugned decision was taken in the interest of students of general schools. (x) There is no violation of Article 166 of Constitution of India and all the orders issued were in the name of Governor. (xi) He further submits that it is always presumed that any Executive Instruction is taken in the name of the Governor until and unless, it is proved contrary. In support of his such submission of Mr. Saikia relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1964 (6) SCR 368 , 1970 (1) SCC 443 , 2016 (16) SCC 168, 2011 (12) SCC 333 . (xii) There was no promise on the part of the state respondents. The advertisement dated 3.08.2014 to conduct TET exam, wherein the petitioners participated and qualified was initiated only for the purpose of filling up posts of teachers in provincialised Madrassas and therefore, even if there was any promise, it was against law. Accordingly, the same was rectified and therefore, there can neither be promissory estoppel nor the petitioners can have any legitimate expectation to participate in the selection of teacher meant for general Schools. Accordingly, the same was rectified and therefore, there can neither be promissory estoppel nor the petitioners can have any legitimate expectation to participate in the selection of teacher meant for general Schools. (xiii) Arabic and Hindi Teachers were allowed for want of qualified candidates and since this persons are qualified in Hindi and Arabic and not required to teach other subjects accordingly, in exigencies and in public interest they were allowed to participate in the selection process initiated by advertisement dated 11.03.2018. Therefore the cases of Arabic and Hindi Teachers so far relating to the advertisement dated 11.03.2018 cannot be equated with the other Teachers i.e. HS (Pre Senior). 8. Findings and observation of the Court: A: RTE Act, 2009, NCTE Act, 1993: (i) The Parliament enacted the Right to Education Act, 2009, (in short RTE Act, 2009) on 4th August, 2009. The object of the said Act is to fix the procedure and modalities for implementation of free and compulsory education for children aged between 6 to 16 years as mandated under the Article 21 (A) of the Constitution of India. This Act came into effect on 1st April, 2010. (ii) Section 23(1) of the RTE Act, 2009 provides that any person possessing any such minimum qualification, as laid down by an academic authority, authorized by the Central Government, by Notification, shall be eligible for appointment as teachers. (iii) The National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (in short NCTE Act, 1993) was enacted to provide for establishment of a National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development of teachers’ education system throughout the Country. The further object was to regulate and maintain the norms and standards in the teacher’s education system and for matters connected therewith. (iv) Section 12 of the NCTE Act, 1993, provides functions of the NCTE. Pursuant to the enactment of RTE Act, 2009, the NCTE Act, 1993 was amended and a Section namely 12(A) was incorporated in the principal act. The Section 12(A) of NCTE Act, 1993, provides that for the purpose of maintaining standard of education in Schools, the Council may by regulation determine the qualification of persons for being recruited as Teachers in any Pre-Primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or intermediate Schools and Colleges. The Section 12(A) of NCTE Act, 1993, provides that for the purpose of maintaining standard of education in Schools, the Council may by regulation determine the qualification of persons for being recruited as Teachers in any Pre-Primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or intermediate Schools and Colleges. (v) Thereafter, in exercise of power conferred by Sub-Section 1 of Section 23 of the RTE Act, 2009, the NCTE issued a notification dated 23.08.2010 declaring the minimum qualification of teachers. The notification dated 23.08.2010 provides the following qualification, for being teachers of Class I to VIII:- “(i) Classes I-V. (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name know) OR 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) 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. (Emphasize supplied) (i) Classes VI-VIII (a) B.A/B.Sc and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR B.A/B.Sc with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 – year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed). in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) 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 elementary Education (B.El.Ed) OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) 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”. (Emphasize supplied). (vi) Thus, it has become mandatory to have TET qualification for the purpose of being appointed as Teacher in the Schools imparting education from Class-I to Class-VIII. (Special Education) 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”. (Emphasize supplied). (vi) Thus, it has become mandatory to have TET qualification for the purpose of being appointed as Teacher in the Schools imparting education from Class-I to Class-VIII. (vii) Subsequent to this, a guideline in exercise of power under Sub Section 1 of Section 23 of the RTE Act, 2009 was issued on 11.02.2011 by NCTE for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test. Thus NCTE has become the Academic Authority as reflected in Sub Section 1 of Section 23 of the RTE, Act, 2009 by virtue of the amendment of NCTE, Act, 1993 i.e. incorporation of Section 12(A) of the Act as aforesaid. (viii) The structure and content as envisaged in the Guideline dated 11.02.2011 at Clause 7, which is necessary so far relating to the teachers who are aspirant for teaching to Class-I to Class-VIII, are as follows:- “Clause 7: There will be two papers of the TET Paper I will be for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes I to V. Paper II will be for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes VI to VIII. A person who intends to be a teacher either for classes I to V or for classes VI to VIII will have to appear in both papers (Paper I and Paper II). “Paper I (for classes I to V), No. of MCQs – 150; Duration of examination: one-and-a-half hours Structure and Content (All Compulsory) (i) Child Development and Pedagogy 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Language I 30 MCQs 30 Marks (iii) Language II 30 MCQs 30 Marks (iv) Mathematics 30 MCQs 30 Marks (v) Environmental Studies 30 MCQs 30 Marks” “Paper II (for classes VI to VIII), No. of MCQs – 150; Duration of examination: one-and-a-half hours Structure and Content (i) Child Development & Pedagogy (Compulsory) 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Language I (Compulsory) 30 ” 30 ” (iii) Language II (Compulsory) 30 ” 30 ” (iv) (a) For Mathematics and Science teacher : Mathematics and Science – 60 MCQs of 1 mark each. (b) For Social Studies teacher : Social Studies – 60 MCQs of 1 mark each (c) For any other teacher - either 4(a) or 4(b)”. (b) For Social Studies teacher : Social Studies – 60 MCQs of 1 mark each (c) For any other teacher - either 4(a) or 4(b)”. (ix) It was mandated in the said guideline that the question in the test for Paper-I will be based on the topics of the prescribed syllabus of the State for Class-I to Class-V. (x) As a result, the students who are getting education in Class-I to Class-VIII in the Schools run by the appropriate Government including Madrassa Institutions are having a statutorily recognized right to have qualified teachers, having the TET qualification. B. Madrassa Education and Incorporation of TET: (i) The State Legislature enacted Madrassa Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1995 (since repealed) with an object to provincialise the services of teachers and supporting staff of 74 numbers of Senior Madrassas, Title Madrassas and Arabic Colleges imparting instructions at the secondary level. The said institutions had long been under deficit system of Grant-in-Aid. Thus the services of Teachers and other staff of the Madrassa institutions as aforesaid were brought under the Government fold and under the Secondary Education Department. (ii) The Act, 1995 defines Madrassa education as a system of education in which instruction is imparted in Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Quran, Tafsir, Hadith, Fiqh, Usul, Aquaid, Mantique, Hiqmat, Balagat, Islamic History along with some or all general subjects like Modern Indian Language, Science, Social Science, Computer Science, Technical and Vocational education up to Secondary School level; the syllabi, curriculum and examination are regulated by the State Madrassa Education Board, Assam up to the level of Fadilul-Ma'rif (F.M) and Mumtaz-ul-Muhaddithin (M.M). (iii) A Notification dated 12.09.2012 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department laying down the procedure for selection and appointment of candidates in provincialised Madrassa institutions in Assam. (iv) The object of the said Notification was to decentralize the selection of teachers in Madrassa Institutions and delegated it to the Managing Committees and the Governing Bodies of the Madrassa institutions. Accordingly, it mandated for constitution of Selection Committees. The Clause 8 of the said Notification directed the Managing Committees, Governing Bodies so constituted under the said Notification to give wide publicity locally for such selection process. (v) Pursuant to such Notification different Madrassa Institutions started issuing advertisement for filling up of the post and Managing Committees/Selection Committees were constituted. Accordingly, it mandated for constitution of Selection Committees. The Clause 8 of the said Notification directed the Managing Committees, Governing Bodies so constituted under the said Notification to give wide publicity locally for such selection process. (v) Pursuant to such Notification different Madrassa Institutions started issuing advertisement for filling up of the post and Managing Committees/Selection Committees were constituted. (vi) The qualification of TET was not made an essential qualification for the purpose of such selection though such qualification, in the meantime had become essential qualification for appointment of teachers in Schools run by appropriate government and imparting education from Class I to Class VIII. (vii) A PIL (Peoples Society) was filed challenging the Notification dated 12.09.2012 as well as all the advertisements and recruitment processes initiated pursuant to the Notification dated 12.09.2012 with a further prayer to direct the respondents to follow the minimum qualification as prescribed by NCTE vide regulation dated 23.08.2010 and 26.08.2010 for the purpose of recruitment of teachers in the 74 numbers of provincialised Madrassa Institutions of the State. (viii) In the proceeding of said PIL, the State Government took a stand that State has taken a decision to introduce Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) for recruitment of the teachers in these provincialised Madrassa Institutions. It was a stand taken by the State of Assam through the learned Additional Advocate General that the decision impugned in the PIL has already been revoked and the Government has taken a decision to introduce the TET for recruitment of teachers in these provincialised Madrassa Institutions. (ix) In view of such stand, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court closed the said PIL with an observation that the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam on behalf of the State shall be complied with in letter and spirit by the State while making recruitment of teachers in the concerned Institutions strictly on the basis of norms set out for selection. (x) Alleging non compliance of the aforesaid direction and decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the PIL petitioners filed a contempt petition which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench giving six months time to the respondent authorities to comply with the order passed in the PIL. (xi) Pursuant to this, the Teachers Eligibility Test for Madrassa Education was initiated by the advertisement dated 30.08.2014. (xi) Pursuant to this, the Teachers Eligibility Test for Madrassa Education was initiated by the advertisement dated 30.08.2014. (xii) A reading of the advertisement dated 30.08.2014 shows that the said advertisement was issued in view of the decision of the Government to incorporate the qualification of TET so far relating to the Madrassa Institutions. The said advertisement reflects the decision of the Government fixing minimum standard of qualification for Teachers Eligibility Test for Madrassa Institutions under the Directorate of Madrassa Education in accordance with the NCTE Regulation. (xiii) The advertisement further reflects that, such decision was taken with an object to offer quality education in the provincialised Madrassa Institutions in Assam. (xiv) The advertisement also reflects that the said TET examination was held for filling up un-reserved post of teachers in provincialised Madrassa Institutions. (xv) By that time, by virtue of the mandate of RTE Act, 2009, of NCTE Act, 1993 and Guideline dated 11.02.2011; the qualification of TET has become mandatory for recruitment of teachers in schools managed by appropriate Govt. from Class I to VIII, which includes Provincialised Madrassa Institutions in Assam. (xvi) Accordingly, the advertisement dated 03.08.2014 was issued. The writ petitioners participated in the MTET examination pursuant to the said advertisement dated 03.08.2014. The relevant portion of said advertisement, so far relating to the Assistant Teachers HS (Pre-Senior Section), Assistant Teacher (Hindi) and F.M. (Arabic) which are the subject matter of the present writ petitions declaring the intent of the advertisement are quoted herein below: “GOVERNMENTOFASSAM SECONDARYEDUCATIONDEPARTMENT Advertisement No. RMSA/TET/MADRASSA/342/2014/1 Dated 30.08.2014 Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) of Madrassa Education for the unreserved posts in Provincialised Madrassa Institutions With a view of offering quality education in the Provincialised Madrassa Institutions of Assam, the Govt. of Assam has fixed the minimum standard of qualification for teacher’s eligibility for the Madrassa Institutions under the Directorate of Madrassa Education in accordance with NCTE Regulation. (Emphasize supplied) Article 3 of the Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1995 refers that as per the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, a employees of Madrassa, now covered by deficit scheme of grants-in-aid under the Government of Assam shall be deemed to have become the employees of the Government on and from the appointed day on the following terms and conditions. Further section 3(a) of the said Act. Further section 3(a) of the said Act. reads as: All rules including service rules and rules of conduct and discipline, which are applicable to the Government servants of corresponding grade, similarly placed shall be applicable to a employees of the Madrassa. So, in the light of strength conferred by the Act. and to bring quality education to the doorsteps of Madrassa Institutions. Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) for teachers positions in the Madrassa Institutions will be conducted tentatively in the Month of November, 2014 by the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department”. (Emphasize supplied) (xvi) The structure and content of the test relating to F.M. (Pre Senior Section), Assistant Teacher (Hindi), and Assistant Teacher (Pre Senior Section) mandated in the advertisement are as follows:- “(i) For the position Assistant Teacher, H.S. (Pre Senior Section): (Medium of Questions will be in English Language). SL No. Subject Number of Question Marks 1 General English 20 MCQs 20 2 General Mathematics (10th Standard) 10 MCQs 10 3. Arabian History 10 MCQs 10 4. General Knowledge & Current Affairs 10 MCQs 10 Total 50 MCQs 50 “(g) For the position Assistant Teacher, Hindi : (Medium of Questions will be in English Language). SL No. Subject Number of Question Marks 1. Pedagogy 20 MCQs 20 2. General English 20 MCQs 20 3. Hindi Language 20 MCQs 20 4. Arabian History 20 MCQs 20 5. General Knowledge & Current Affairs 20 MCQs 20 Total 100 MCQs 100 “(d) For the position F.M.(Assistant Teacher): (Pre Senior Section): (Medium of Questions will be in Urdu Language). SL No Subject Number of Question Marks 1. Theology (Quaran & Hadith) 20 MCQs 20 2. Arabic Literature 20 MCQs 20 3. Arabic Grammar 20 MCQs 20 4. Islamic History 20 MCQs 20 5. General Knowledge & Current Affairs 20 MCQs 20 Total 100 MCQs 100 (xvii) A comparison of both i.e. the Guideline dated 11.02.2011 issued by the NCTE and the advertisement dated 30.08.2014, clearly reflects difference in structure, content and marks. However, this Court is not entering into the arena whether such difference as laid in the advertisement dated 30.08.2014 is in contravention of the NCTE Guideline as the same is not under challenge and is not an issue in the present lis. 9. Now let this Court deal with the arguments advanced in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. A. Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation. 9. Now let this Court deal with the arguments advanced in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. A. Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation. (i) The doctrine of Estoppel debars a person/authority from negating any fact constituted to be truth either by action or deeds or by representation of that person/authority. Promissory estoppel is a kind of estoppel based on promise made by one party to the other and such promise is made without any enforceable contract. However such promise must be unequivocal on the basis of which, the promisee has already acted and if such promise is withdrawn, the same shall be detrimental to the promisee. However, such principle of promissory estoppel cannot be used against law. (ii) The Legitimate expectation is an expectation of relief or remedy or benefit. Such benefit, relief or remedy comes from a promise or an established practice. When it is an established practice, it should be a regular, consistent, predictable practice and certain act of the decision making authority. Legitimate means logical, valid and reasonable. Therefore, an expectation to be a legitimate expectation, it should be valid, logical and reasonable. Legitimate expectation is a doctrine conceptualized by a Courts and such doctrine has evolved for the purpose of judicial review of administrative action. (iii) An expectation, legitimate, needs to be created by the action of administrative body on the basis of either a representation or on the basis of past practice. Being a part of promissory estoppel, the person who claims remedy under the doctrine of legitimate expectation must show that he has relied on the action of the administrative authority that an expectation was created and rejection of that expectation has worked to the detriment of the said person. In claims based legitimate expectation, it need to be shown that the authority has acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and gross abuse of power or such decision has not been taken in public interest. (iv) Thus this Court can conclude that the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies when an administration decision is taken on the basis of a representation or on the basis of prevalent practice leading to expectation which is within the power of the authority to take such decision in that way, subject to public interest. (iv) Thus this Court can conclude that the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies when an administration decision is taken on the basis of a representation or on the basis of prevalent practice leading to expectation which is within the power of the authority to take such decision in that way, subject to public interest. On the basis of this principle the Court can interfere only when the Court comes to a conclusion that the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable and in gross abuse of power or in violation of the principle of natural justice and not taken in public interest. (v) The Hon’ble Apex in Monnet Ispat, (supra) while laying down the guideline for applying the principle of promissory estoppel, amongst other, held at paragraph 182.5 that in no case the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be pressed in to and to compel the Government or the public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the government or the public authority to make. It was further held that no promise can be enforced which is statutorily prohibited or is against public policy. At paragraph 183, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Monnet Ispat (supra) held that there are parallels between the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation because both these doctrines are founded on the concept of fairness and arise out of natural justice. At paragraph 188, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the principle relating to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The ratio of Monnet Ispat (Supra) lays down that legitimate expectation can be invoked as substantive and enforceable rights and it is founded on reasonableness, fairness, principle of natural justice, however subject to the condition that if the decision of the authority is founded in public interest as per executive policy or law, the Court should be reluctant to interfere by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The Hon’ble Apex Court has gone further by holding that legitimate expectation is different from anticipation and same cannot be invoke to fetter changes in the administrative policy, if it is in the public interest to do so. The ratio laid down in Brahmaputra Metallic’s (supra), relied on by Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Learned Senior Counsel, is also similar to the ratio laid down in Monnet Ispat (supra). The ratio laid down in Brahmaputra Metallic’s (supra), relied on by Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Learned Senior Counsel, is also similar to the ratio laid down in Monnet Ispat (supra). In fact Monnet Ispat (Supra) was discussed at paragraph 40 of the said judgment. (vi) Coming to case in hand, it is apparent that the NCTE Act, 1993 and the Guideline mandates TET to be an essential qualification for being recruited as Teachers in Schools run by appropriate Government, including the Provincialised Madrassa Institutes in Assam. The TET for Madrassa Institutions was conducted with a specific syllabus and content specially designed for recruitment of Teachers in Provincialised Madrassa Institutes and admittedly the petitioners are qualified in these special drive. Therefore, they cannot have a legitimate expectation to participate in selection process for appointment of Teachers for General School on the basis of their TET qualification. In view of specific provision and intent of Advertisement dated 03.08.2014, as held hereinabove, the State could not have issued the notifications dated 29.10.2018 and 02.11.2018 allowing the petitioners (H.S. Pre Senior) to participate and get appointed in General Schools whereas, they were qualified the TET conducted only for the purpose of recruitment of teachers in Provincialised Madrassa Schools. Therefore, even if there is some promise made, such promise cannot be enforced applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The impugned Notifications and advertisement cannot also be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable and result of gross abuse of power or in violation of the principle of natural justice in as much as such expectation was created only by virtue of Notifications date 29.10.2018 and 21.11.2018, which were not in conformity with the executive policy of the Government to hold special TET for Madrassa Institute as reflected in advertisement dated 30.08.2014. When the petitioners are qualified TET for recruitment in Madrassa Institutes, they cannot have a legitimate expectation beyond their TET qualification to get recruited in General Schools. (vii) The stand of the State respondents that it was a mistake on their part allowing the H.S. Pre-Senior TET qualified candidates to participate in the selection process and such mistake has been rectified by issuing the order impugned in the present writ petitions and the same was done in public interest cannot therefore, be faulted with, in view of the aforesaid findings of the Court. (viii) That being the position the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to fetter changes in administrative policy taken in the public interest. Since, the qualification of TET acquired by the petitioners was only for recruitment in the Provincialised Madrassa Institutions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of the State authorities in issuing the impugned notifications and advertisement for selection of teachers in general Schools cannot be said to be unreasonable and unfair. In the totality of the matter, therefore, the argument of the learned Senior Counsels are rejected. B. Violation of Article 166 of the Constitution of India and Rule 11 and 12 of the Assam Rule of Executive Business, 1968: (i) The further argument of Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel is the non compliance of mandate of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel that the notifications dated 17.10.2015, 29.10.2018 and 02.11.2018 allowing the petitioners to participate in the selection process for appointment of Teachers in Provincialised Madrassa Schools reflects that the same has been issued under the authority of Governor of Assam and the notification was issued under the signature of Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department. However, he submits that the impugned notification dated 05.01.2019 and 10.09.2020 reflects that the same has not been issued in the name of Governor. A bare perusal of impugned notification dated 05.01.2019, reflects that the said notification had been issued by orders of Governor. Since this issue has vehemently been argued, the heading of two notifications is quoted below:- “GOVERNMENTOFASSAM SECONDARYEDUCATIONDEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-5 ORDERSBYTHEGOVERNOR NOTIFICATION ” (ii) The two notifications as aforesaid had been issued under the signature of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government Assam, Secondary Education Department and as “ORDERS BY GOVERNOR”. Therefore, it is the considered opinion of this court that the provision of Article 166 of the Constitution of India and Rule 11 and 12 of the Assam Rule of Executive Business,1968 had substantially been complied with while issuing the two notifications. Therefore, the case laws relied on by the Learned Counsels in this regard i.e. effect of non compliance of Article 166 of the Constitution of India is not necessary to be discussed. Therefore, the case laws relied on by the Learned Counsels in this regard i.e. effect of non compliance of Article 166 of the Constitution of India is not necessary to be discussed. C. The remaining arguments: (i) The Madrassa TET was a special examination and the advertisement dated 30.08.2014 clearly shows that the purpose was to create a separate class of qualified candidates for selection of Teachers only for the Madrassa Institutions. Therefore, the argument of Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel that both the TETs i.e. MTET and Assam TET are same and that similarly situated persons are treated unequally is rejected. (ii) The further argument that Degree granted to Madrassa educated students and Degree granted to students of General Schools are similar is also having no relevance for determination of the present case in view of findings of this Court regarding purport and intent of holding Madrassa TET. (iii) The argument of Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel that impugned order has been issued on the basis of satisfaction of the Commissioner only but same ought to have been issued on the basis of expert body under RTE Act, 2009, also do not find favour of this Court for the reason that the decision to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process in question is not by the expert body under RTE Act, 2009 inasmuch as the TET in which the petitioners participated and got qualified held by the expert body was only for recruitment to the Provincialised Madrassa Institutions. 10. A stand has been taken by the learned Advocate General, Assam that the MTET qualified Arabic and Hindi Teachers were allowed to participate in the selection process initiated by advertisement dated 11.03.2018, as there were dearth of candidates. The same position was also clarified by notification dated 03.11.2018. Subsequent to issuance of the impugned notifications dated 05.01.2019, another notification dated 08.03.2019 was issued further clarifying that MTET F.M. (Pre Senior) and MTET Hindi were treated to be qualified for Arabic and Hindi Teachers in ME Schools. Therefore, this Court is not interfering with such decisions, not being under challenge. 11. However, the decisions reached by this Court shall be applicable to the notification dated 10.09.2020 and advertisements dated 11.09.2020 and dated 24.09.2020. Therefore, this Court is not interfering with such decisions, not being under challenge. 11. However, the decisions reached by this Court shall be applicable to the notification dated 10.09.2020 and advertisements dated 11.09.2020 and dated 24.09.2020. The impugned order dated 10.09.2020 cancelled all earlier notifications allowing MTET qualified candidates to participate in the selection process, including the notification dated 17.10.2015 allowing the MTET F.M. (Pre Senior) and MTET Hindi qualified candidates. No specific relaxation has been granted in favour of MTET F.M. (Pre Senior) and MTET Hindi, though the learned Advocate General, Assam, has verbally submitted that the State is allowing the MTET F.M. (Pre Senior) and MTET Hindi to participate in selection process relating to appointment of Hindi and Arabic Teachers in Provincialised Schools as they need to teach their respective subject only i.e. Arabic and Hindi and not any other subjects. However, such submission is contrary to the notification dated 10.09.2020 and no subsequent notification has been placed on record recalling the notification dated 10.09.2020, so far relating to the MTET F.M. (Pre Senior) and MTET Hindi. Therefore, it is made clear that though this Court is not interfering with the notification dated 10.09.2020, for the reasons enumerated hereinabove, the State is at liberty to take a fresh decision in that regard, as has been submitted by the learned Advocate General, Assam verbally. 12. In term of the aforesaid discussions, reasons, and observations, these writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order if any, stands vacated.