ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The candidature of the petitioner for the post of Primary Teacher (Music) in Kendriya Vidyalaya has been rejected on the ground that she possesses higher qualification of B.Ed. The challenge to the said order by her through Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) has also been rejected. Thus, aggrieved she has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 18.01.2019 and for a direction that she may be given appointment ignoring her B.Ed. degree, as she is otherwise eligible and has qualified the selection. 3. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) issued an Advertisement No.7 for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 inviting applications for the various teaching posts including 998 unreserved posts of Primary Teacher (Music). The advertisement provided for the following educational qualifications for the above post:- (i) Senior Secondary School certificate with 50% marks or intermediate with 50% marks or its equivalent; (ii) Pass in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the CBSE in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the porpose; (iii) Competence to teach through Hindi & English Media. Desirable: Knowledge of Computer Applications 4. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement also applied as she possessed all the basic essential qualifications, as laid down above and in addition to it possessed the degree of B.Ed. The petitioner cleared the written examination by obtaining 88 marks out of 120. She was permitted to appear in interview provisionally, wherein she secured 38 marks out of 60. The petitioner in all qualified for the selection, but by order dated 27.06.2016, her candidature was rejected simply on the ground that according to the clarification received from the NCTE, candidates with B.Ed. degree are not eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher. 5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing Original Application No.291/95/2017 before the Tribunal. The said application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Anita & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.7983-7986/2009) decided on 24.09.2014. 5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing Original Application No.291/95/2017 before the Tribunal. The said application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Anita & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.7983-7986/2009) decided on 24.09.2014. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anita (supra) inter-alia lays down that possession of higher qualification has no relevance and that a candidate must possess qualification, as stipulated in the advertisement or the rules. The candidates who do not possess the qualifications, as prescribed, are not eligible for appointment. 6. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the advertisement provided for the above essential qualifications and no other. It may be essential to mention here that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Appointment, Promotion, Seniority etc. Rules), 1971, as passed to us by the respondents, clearly provide for the essential educational qualifications required to be held for the post of Primary Teacher and the said qualifications are exactly the same, as contained in the advertisement. There is also no dispute that the petitioner possesses all the said essential qualifications and had qualified the written examination as well as the interview for the post in question. In addition to the aforesaid essential qualification, she also possesses a B.Ed. degree. 7. The advertisement does not mention that a candidate possessing the essential qualification and having some higher qualification would be ineligible for holding the post. In view of the fact that the petitioner possesses the basic essential qualification, as prescribed, cannot be excluded from appointment if she has qualified the selection and is having an additional qualification. 8. The possession of the higher degree or qualification, if ignored, would not disturb the eligibility of the petitioner. Therefore, in our opinion the petitioner who possesses the essential qualifications for the post of Primary Teacher, as laid down in the advertisement, with an additional qualification of B.Ed., is certainly eligible for the post of the Primary Teacher, as advertised. 9. The possession of the additional qualification is not a disqualification. No statutory rule has been placed before us to show that for the post of Primary Teacher some other qualification is necessary. 10. 9. The possession of the additional qualification is not a disqualification. No statutory rule has been placed before us to show that for the post of Primary Teacher some other qualification is necessary. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the counter affidavit filed to the petition submits that by clarification menu of the portal hoisted by the respondents, it was later provided that for the post of Primary Teacher, in addition to the above essential qualifications, a candidate must possess a degree of 4 years Bachelor of Elementary Education or 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education. The petitioner does not possess the said qualification. 11. We afraid we cannot accept the above argument for the simple reason that the candidature of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground that she does not possess a degree of 4 years Bachelor of Elementary Education or 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education. The respondents cannot be permitted to substitute a new reasoning through counter affidavit for the rejection of her candidature as the validity of the order rejecting her candidature has to be adjudged on the basis of the reasons recorded in the order itself. This apart, once the process of selection had started with the issuance of the advertisement some time in the month of July, 2013, it was not open for the respondents to have changed the rules of the game by providing additional qualification for the post by clarification in the menu of the portal of the respondents. 12. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, 2001 (10) SCC 51 , it has been observed that “the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced.” 13. The aforesaid view has been followed umpteen number of times including in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 540 , wherein it has been observed as under:- “...it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the ‘rules of the game’ insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the case of C. Channabasavaiah Vs. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 540 , wherein it has been observed as under:- “...it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the ‘rules of the game’ insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the case of C. Channabasavaiah Vs. State of Mysore [ AIR 1965 SC 1293 ] etc. in order to avoid manipulation of he recruitment process and its results.” 14. In the light of the above decisions and the legal principles established therein, in the absence of any statutory provision laying down any other essential qualification for the above post, it is not permissible for the respondents to change the eligibility condition, as contained in the advertisement. The petitioner do possesses the basic essential qualifications, as prescribed by the advertisement and in addition to it, has a degree of B.Ed. which, if ignored, would not disqualify the petitioner from holding the post of the Primary Teacher. The above higher qualification possessed by the petitioner do not presupposes acquisition of lower qualification, rather in the present case the petitioner actually possesses the lower qualification which is needed for the post. 15. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT, Delhi & ors, (2003) 3 SCC 548 , while considering the process of recruitment by selection to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools, held that if the advertisement prescribes possessing of the Teacher’s Training Certificate (TTC) for the post the candidates holding B.Ed. degree cannot be considered for the said post inasmuch as B.Ed. cannot be treated as a qualification either equivalent or higher than TTC. In the said case, the candidate was not possessed of the required certificate of TTC, but the B.Ed. degree only. This is not the situation in the case before us. The petitioner herein is actually possessed of the basic qualification, as laid down in the advertisement and the B.Ed. degree possessed by her is in addition to it. Therefore, the above decision is hardly of any value for the purposes of the present controversy. 16. In P.M. Latha & Anr. Vs. The petitioner herein is actually possessed of the basic qualification, as laid down in the advertisement and the B.Ed. degree possessed by her is in addition to it. Therefore, the above decision is hardly of any value for the purposes of the present controversy. 16. In P.M. Latha & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 541 , it has been laid down that in the matter of recruitment through the process of selection, qualification and over qualification other than that prescribed in the advertisement are not relevant. The recruitment to the posts of lower primary/upper primary teachers in government schools has to be in accordance with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement i.e. Trained Teachers’ Certificate (TTC) and, therefore, selecting those holding B.Ed. degrees as it is a higher qualification than the TTC is incorrect. The B.Ed. degree is not a qualification prescribed in the advertisement and cannot be treated as higher qualification than TTC. 17. There are no two opinions that the qualification not prescribed in the advertisement cannot be considered for appointment on the relevant post and that the possession of higher qualification does not necessarily presupposes acquisition of the essential qualification of TTC prescribed in the advertisement. However, where a candidate is actually possessed of the qualification prescribed in the advertisement i.e. TTC and in addition to it also possesses a higher qualification i.e. of B.Ed., probably he cannot be held to be disqualified. 18. In the case of Jyoti K.K. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596, the rule itself provided that higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the purpose, but obviously the said rule would not apply where there is no such statutory provision to the above effect to infer that higher qualification presupposes acquisition of the lower qualification. 19. The Apex Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404 , considering the above decisions in the cases of P.M. Latha (surpa) and Jyoti K.K. (supra), held that prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. 19. The Apex Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404 , considering the above decisions in the cases of P.M. Latha (surpa) and Jyoti K.K. (supra), held that prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility and it is not the function of the Courts to expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications by providing equivalence of qualification or by holding whether a particular qualification is sufficient for the post. Thus, it was held that where a candidate does not possess the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, he is not eligible for the post. The principle of law laid down by the above decision is well recognized, but it would not debar the petitioner from holding the post of the Primary Teacher if she actually possesses the basic qualification laid down for the aforesaid post. The possession of any higher qualification, in addition to the basic qualifications required, is of no relevance as to debar the petitioner from holding the advertised post. 20. It is important to mention that against the decision of KVS that a candidate having professional qualification of B.Ed. is not eligible for the post of Primary Teacher in terms of the same Advertisement No.7 for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14, one Ms. Reena Tripathi filed Original Application No.1496/14 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench. The said Original Application was decided vide order dated 09.06.2015 and KVS was directed to consider the case of said Ms. Reena Tripathi for selection as Primary Teacher. The writ petition against the said judgment was dismissed by the High Court and so was the SLP However, as she was not accorded appointment, she again preferred Original Application No.201/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench. It was allowed vide order dated 01.12.2017 and the KVS was directed to consider the case of Ms. Reena Tripathi for appointment immediately as she has qualified the selection. Since KVS failed to consider the matter of appointment of aforesaid Ms. Reena Tripathi, she filed another Original Application No.869/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench, whereupon it was directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner within 15 days. Reena Tripathi for appointment immediately as she has qualified the selection. Since KVS failed to consider the matter of appointment of aforesaid Ms. Reena Tripathi, she filed another Original Application No.869/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench, whereupon it was directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner within 15 days. The said order was upheld by the High Court as the writ petition against it was dismissed, whereupon vide memorandum dated 04.01.2023/05.01.2023, KVS decided to offer appointment to her. 21. In similar circumstances, vide memorandum dated 28.02.2019/01.03.2019, appointment was accorded to one Smt. Rajeshwari Katare and by memorandum dated 11.10.2021 to one Ms. Bindu Jha. In all the above memorandums, the essential qualifications for the post of primary teacher were stated to be same, as mentioned in the advertisement. 22. It is also pertinent to mention here that subsequently NCTE vide notification dated 28.06.2018 has specified that candidates who have acquired the qualification of B.Ed. from any NCTE recognized institution, shall also be considered for appointment as a teacher in Class 1 to 5 i.e. primary, provided the person so appointed as a teacher undergoes six months of bridge course in elementary education recognized by the NCTE within two years of the appointment as Primary Teacher, meaning thereby, that as on date NCTE has no objection if candidates with higher qualification, such as B.Ed., are also appointed subject to undergoing a bridge course in elementary education within two years of the appointment. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 18.01.2019 is not sustainable in law and is hereby set aside. It is directed that the candidature of the petitioner be accorded consideration for appointment as Primary Teacher (Music) in KVS pursuant to her qualifying the selection for the post as per the Advertisement No.7 within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the competent authority with the condition that that she undergoes a bridge course in elementary education recognized by the NCTE within two years from the date of such appointment. 24. The writ petition is allowed with the no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.