JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1717 of 2022. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant. The appellant has preferred the said writ petition to seek the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification vide order No. Prog. & Moni/155/VIII-1(03)-4/2021-22, dated 23.08.2022 (contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to frame Service Rules for the separate cadre of Teacher Educators expeditiously within a fixed time frame of four weeks or such time as may be deemed suitable by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The Notification dated 23.08.2022, assailed by the appellant-writ petitioner in the writ petition, reads as follows :- ^^foKfIr mRrjk[ka.M jkT; ds ftyk f'k{kk ,oa Áf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa ¼MkbV~l½ esa ofj"B ÁoDrk] dk;kZuqHko f'k{kd] rduhdh lgk;d ,oa lkaf[k;dhdkj ds fjDr inksa ij inLFkkiuk gsrq mRrjk[kaM jkT; esa fo|ky;h f'k{kk ds jktdh; ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds dk;Zjr jktdh; f'k{kd ,oa Á/kkuk/;kidksa ls vkosnu vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSaA foKkiu ,oa vkosnu lEcU/kh foLr`r fooj.k] vgrkZ] fu;e] 'krsZa] vkosnu i= dk Ák#i bR;kfn ,l-lh-bZ-vkj-Vh- mRrjk[k.M dh osclkbV www.scert.uk.gov.in ij fnukad 24 vxLr 2022 ls ÁkIr fd;s tks ldrs gSaA iw.kZ #i ls Hkjs gq, vkosnu i= jkT; 'kSf{kd vuqlU/kku ,oa Áf'k{k.k ifj"kn~ ¼,l-lh-bZ-vkj-Vh½ mRrjk[kaM ukykikuh jksM+ riksou] iksvkW jk;iqj nsgjknwu fiu dksM&248008 esa dsoy iathd`r Mkd@ LihM iksLV ls fnukad 07 flrEcj 2022 dks lk;a 5-00 cts rd Lohdkj fd;s tk;saxsA** 3. The case of the members of the appellant- Teacher Educator Forum is that, in terms of the National Policy on Education (NPE), 1986, and its Programme of Action (POA), a Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Restructuring and Reorganization of Teacher Education was launched in the year 1987 to create a sound institutional infrastructure of pre- service and in-service training of teachers at elementary and secondary level. Under this scheme, the District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) were constituted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the members of the appellant-forum are the teacher educators, who were posted to serve in the DIETs, after due selection process. 5. Under this scheme, the District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) were constituted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the members of the appellant-forum are the teacher educators, who were posted to serve in the DIETs, after due selection process. 5. We may observe that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact, and this is not in dispute, that the members of the appellant-forum were appointed as teachers in Government Secondary/ High School/ Intermediate Colleges, and they were posted in DIET’s due to administrative exigency, as recruitment to the DIET’s was not undertaken by the State. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that, since Service Rules for recruitment to the DIET’s were not framed, the teachers serving in Government Secondary/ High School/ Intermediate Colleges were posted in DIET’s, which, according to the appellant, was after due selection process. 7. An advertisement was issued on 23.08.2022 by the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), inviting application for appointment on various teaching and non-teaching positions in DIETs. It appears that the members of the appellant-forum were concerned that once the recruitments are made to fill up the teaching and non- teaching positions in the DIETs, they may be reverted back to their parent cadre. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue raised by the appellant in the writ petition was that recruitment was sought to be made on positions which do not even exist under the Central Government Scheme, whereunder DIETs were constituted. The posts, which, according to the appellant, exist in the DIETs’, are the following:- “i. Principal; ii. Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in District Resource Unit for Alternative Education/ Non-Formal Education; iii. Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in Pre-Service Teacher Education; iv. Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in In-Service Education, Field Interaction and Innovation, Coordination; v. Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in Curriculum, Material Development and Evolution; vi. Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in Education Technology; vii. Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in Planning and Management, and; viii. Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in Work Experience.” 9. In this regard, the appellant has referred to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), New Delhi, in November, 1989 with regard to the District Institutes of Education and Training. 10. Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in Planning and Management, and; viii. Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in Work Experience.” 9. In this regard, the appellant has referred to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), New Delhi, in November, 1989 with regard to the District Institutes of Education and Training. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.C. Wadhwa & others vs. State of Bihar & others, (1987) 1 SCC 378 , to submit that the State Government is bound to frame Statutory Rules governing the recruitment and conditions of service in the DIETs. He submits that in the year 2013, the respondents had taken the stand that such Rules would be framed- while issuing the communication dated 27.06.2013, constituting the cadre. However, the Rules have still not been framed, and recruitment is sought to be made to populate the DIETs. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and we have also perused the impugned order. 12. It is not in dispute that the parent cadre of the members of the appellant is that of teachers in Government Secondary/ High School/ Intermediate Colleges. They were merely posted in the DIETs due to administrative exigency, and they have not been substantively appointed in the cadre of DIETs. Thus, they have no vested right to continue to serve in the cadre of DIETs. 13. The endeavour of the State to now fill up the posts in the DIETs cannot be obstructed by the members of the appellant, only because that may result that the said members may be revered back to their parent cadre. 14. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The respondents should, however, examine the issue whether any separate Rules relating to recruitment and conditions of service in DIETs, at all need to be framed, in the light of the fact that the guidelines of the Central Government are already in existence. 15. We, however, make it clear that the aforesaid observations shall not be an impediment on the respondents in continuing and completing the recruitment process in the DIETs. 16. The special appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 17. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.