JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satyaveer Singh, Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lalit Kumar Pandey, and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Avaneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 (U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad). 2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties WRIT -A No. 9739 of 2018 is treated as the leading writ petition and facts thereof are being noted. 3. The reliefs sought in the leading writ petition is as under : “A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned rules 8(6) of U.P. Sub-ordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) services (4th Amendment) rules 2016 to be ultra virus to article 40 of the Constitution of India to an extent that it does prescribed as one of the qualification of having passed intermediate with subject Sanskrit one of the qualification relating to Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduates Grade) Subject Hindi. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record and quashing impugned advertisement dated 15.03.2018 being advertisement no. ,&1@b&1&@2018 issued by Secretary U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad to an extent that it prescribes Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate Qualification of Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduate Grade) Subject Hindi as provided in impugned rule 8(6) of U.P. Sub-ordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) services (4th amendment) Rules 2016. C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate selection on the post of Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduate Grade) Subject Hindi after prescribing qualification B.A. or equivalent with Hindi and Sanskrit and B.Ed. not Sanskrit as subject in intermediate in government inter college in state of U.P.” Facts : 4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioners claim themselves to be aspirants to apply in selection of Assistant Teachers (Trained Graduate Grade) (Men/Women Branch) Examination 2018, wherein qualification for assistant teachers (Men/Women Branch) – Hindi, in brief, has been prescribed as Intermediate with Sanskrit as one of the subject and graduation with Hindi and B.Ed. for appointment as Assistant Teacher for Class 9th and 10th in Government Secondary Intermediate Schools or Colleges. for appointment as Assistant Teacher for Class 9th and 10th in Government Secondary Intermediate Schools or Colleges. All the petitioners claim that they have degree of graduation with the subject Hindi and Sanskrit and also have B.Ed. Degree from recognised Universities but have passed their intermediate without Sanskrit as a subject. Since Sanskrit had not been their one of the subject in Intermedia, therefore, as per provisions of the U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Services (4th Amendment) Rules 2016, they are not eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) for Class 9th and 10th in Government Colleges. 5. According to the petitioners, Rule 8(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983 as amended by the 4th Amendment Rules 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1983) providing for Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate for Hindi Teachers for High School (Class 9th and 10th) is arbitrary, illegal and is in conflict with the eligibility provided under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which does not provide Sanskrit as a mandatory subject in Intermediate for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi). Consequently the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions praying to declare the impugned Rules 8(6) of the amended Rules 1983 to be viloative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent it prescribes Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate as one of the qualification for the post of Assistant Teachers (Hindi) and the consequent Advertisement No.A-I/E-1/2018, dated 15.03.2018 issued by the Secretary U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad. They have also sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to initiate selection on the post of Assistant Teachers (Trained Graduate Grade) Subject – Hindi by deleting Sanskrit as one of the subject in Intermediate. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners 6. They have also sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to initiate selection on the post of Assistant Teachers (Trained Graduate Grade) Subject – Hindi by deleting Sanskrit as one of the subject in Intermediate. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit as under :- (i) Qualification prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Sub-ordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Services Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1983") enacted by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, as amended by the 4th amendment Rules, 2016, providing for academic qualification for the post of Assistant Teachers (Men / Women) (Hindi), is in conflict with Appendix-A (Regulation I) Chapter II framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1921") and the Regulation 4 of the National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations 2001) (hereinafter referred to as NCTE Regulation, 2001), inasmuch as the Rules 1983 prescribes qualification for Assistant Teacher (Hindi) to be (I) Bachelor's Degree with Hindi as a subject from a recognized University in India and Intermediate with Sanskrit as a subject or equivalent examination with Sanskrit and (II) B.Ed. or equivalent degree from a recognized University in India, whereas the regulations framed under the Act, 1921 provides academic qualification for Hindi Teacher to be graduation in Hindi and Sanskrit and the NCTE regulation provides graduate/postgraduate as academic qualification for Assistant Teacher (Hindi) to be minimum educational qualification. Therefore, the petitioners who are graduate in Sanskrit and Hindi both, possesses the required academic qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi). Thus, the Rules 1983 providing for graduation in Hind with Sanskrit in Intermediate as a subject, is in conflict with the aforesaid regulations framed under the Act 1921 and NCTE regulations, 2001. Consequently it being conflict with the regulations, is not a valid piece of legislation. (ii) The petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Government owned Schools / Colleges for which the academic qualification has been provided in the Rules 1983, whereas the academic qualification for aided Colleges is provided in the regulations framed under the Act 1921. (ii) The petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Government owned Schools / Colleges for which the academic qualification has been provided in the Rules 1983, whereas the academic qualification for aided Colleges is provided in the regulations framed under the Act 1921. The qualification prescribed under the Rules 1983 is not based on any reasonable classification, therefore, the relevant provision under the Rules, 1983 prescribing academic qualification for Assistant Teacher (Hindi) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Even if it assumed that the State Government can lawfully prescribed academic qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher, despite it having been provided under the NCTE Regulation 2001, yet the State Government can only prescribe higher qualification than as provided under the NCTE Regulations, 2001. Providing for qualification of Intermediate in Sanskrit would be a lower qualification. Therefore, to this extent the Rules 1983 as amended by the 4th Amendment Rules 2016 is ultra vires to the NCTE Regulations 2001. (iv) Different academic qualification has been prescribed by the regulations framed under the Act, 1921 for Non-Government aided institutions and under the 4th Amendment Rules, 2016 for Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Government institution whereas the pay scale and the service benefits of Government and aided Non-Government Schools Assistant Teachers are at par. Syllabus etc. of both types of schools are governed by the provisions of Act, 1921. Thus, the 4th Amendment Rules, 2016 is clearly discriminatory. Assistant Teacher (Hindi) teaching in Government Schools or Non-Government aided schools are teaching one and the same syllabus to students. The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 as may be relied by the State respondents is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as it relates to some training course. 7. In support of their submissions of learned counsel for petitioners have relied upon the following judgements : i. Judgement dated 10.05.2018 in Writ-A No.11545 of 2018 (Jai Prakash Yadav and 46 others vs. The Union of India and 4 others). ii. State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others, (2010) 13 SCC 203 . Submissions on behalf of the respondents 8. ii. State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others, (2010) 13 SCC 203 . Submissions on behalf of the respondents 8. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, submits as under :- (i) Academic Qualification prescribed for Class 9th and 10th of the Government institutions under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the regulations were amended on 04.05.2016 prescribing qualification similar to the qualification prescribed under the Rules 1983 as amended by the 4th amendment Rules 2016 for non Government aided Schools/Colleges. Therefore, there is absolutely no difference between the academic qualification prescribed for recruitment of Assistant Teacher in Government Colleges and aided Schools/Colleges. Now both academic qualification stands at par. Therefore, there is no discrimination. (ii) The State may prescribe any additional qualification in addition to the qualifications prescribed under the NCTE Regulation, 2014. Therefore, prescribing Intermediate with Sanskrit Subject in addition to the graduation in (Hindi) by the 4th amendment Rules, 2016, is not in conflict with the NCTE Regulation, 2014. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P. and others, (1999) 7 SCC 120 (Paragraphs 35 to 38), A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh vs. D. Achyuta Rao and others (Paragraph 41), Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 2 All LJ 401 (FB), State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others, (2010) 4 SCC 606. (iii) As per syllabus provided in the advertisement No. A-1/E-1/2018 dated 15.03.2018, for subject (Hindi), Sanskrit Sahitya is included which indicates imparting of education of elementary Sanskrit to Class 9th and 10th Students. The petitioners who are not intermediate with Sanskrit but have graduated in Sanskrit are not suitable to impart education of elementary Sanskrit required in the syllabus . (iv) The impugned rules are neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India nor is in conflict with the regulation framed under the Act, 1921 nor in conflict with the NCTE Regulation, 2014. (v) Candidates not possessing the prescribed academic qualification but possessing higher qualification, cannot be held to be eligible candidate unless, the rules prescribes that a candidate possessing higher qualifications would be eligible. (v) Candidates not possessing the prescribed academic qualification but possessing higher qualification, cannot be held to be eligible candidate unless, the rules prescribes that a candidate possessing higher qualifications would be eligible. Reliance is placed upon the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Anita and others, (2015) 2 SCC 170 (Paragraphs 7 to 16) and Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 (Paragraphs 23, 25, 26 and 27). 9. Sri Avaneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for Public Service Commission supports the submissions advanced by learned Additional Advocate General. Discussion and Findings 10. Before we proceed to consider the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of Rule 8(6) of the Amended Rules 1983, as under :- “8. Academic qualification. -A candidate for direct recruitment to the various posts in the service must possess the following qualifications or as specified by the Government from time to time – (6) Assistant Teacher (Men/Women) Hindi (i) Bachelor's degree with Hindi as a subject from a recognised University in India and Intermediate with Sanskrit as a subject or equivalent examination with Sanskrit. (ii) B.Ed. or equivalent degree from a recognised University in India. 11. In paragraph 4 of the short counter affidavit, the respondent no.6 i.e. the National Council for Teachers Education, (for short NCTE) has stated that in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (dd) of sub section (2) of Section 33 read with Section 12 A of the National Council for Teachers Education Act 1993 and in super session of the National Council for Teachers Education (determination of minimum qualification for recruitment of teachers in schools) Regulations 2001 the NCTE has framed “The National Council for Teachers Education (determination of minimum qualification for persons to be recruited as education teachers and physical education teachers in pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or Intermediate schools or colleges ) Regulation 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the NCTE Regulations 2014). 12. Regulation 4, Clause 4 of the 1st Schedule of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 provides as under : “4. 12. Regulation 4, Clause 4 of the 1st Schedule of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 provides as under : “4. Qualification for Recruitment -The qualifications for recruitment of teachers in any recognized school imparting Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges imparting senior secondary education shall be as given in the First and Second Schedule(s) annexed to these Regulations. (b) For promotion of teachers the relevant minimum qualifications as specified in the First and Second Schedule(s) are applicable for consideration from one level to the next level. 4. Secondary/High School (For Classes IXX) (a) Graduate/Post Graduate from recognized University with at least 50% marks in either Graduation or Post Graduation (or its equivalent) and Bachelor of Education. (B.Ed) from National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution. Or (b) Graduate/Post Graduate from recognized University with at least 45% marks in either Graduation or Post Graduation (or its equivalent) and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution {in accordance with the National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002 notified on 13.11.2002 and National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 notified on 10.12.2007} Or (c) 4-years degree of B.A.Ed/B.Sc.Ed. from any National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution.” 13. Syllabus of Hindi Subject for Class 9th and Class 10th as prescribed by the U.P. Secondary Education Board includes a little elementary Sanskrit relating to Sanskrit Grammer, translation from Sanskrit to Hindi and two questions to be answered in Sanskrit. from any National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution.” 13. Syllabus of Hindi Subject for Class 9th and Class 10th as prescribed by the U.P. Secondary Education Board includes a little elementary Sanskrit relating to Sanskrit Grammer, translation from Sanskrit to Hindi and two questions to be answered in Sanskrit. The syllabus of Class 11th and 12th of Sanskrit subject prescribed by the U.P. Secondary Education Board are reproduced below : ^^laLd`r d{kk&11 [k.M&d¼x|½ pUnzkihMdFkk ¼lkag fir`Hkous ckyr;k------------------loZ je.kh;dkuke~ ,dfuoklHkwrke~] dknEcjha nn'kZ½ [k.M&[k ¼i|½ j/kqoa'kegkdkO;e~ ¼f}rh; lxZ½ ¼'yksd la[;k 27 ls 40½ [k.M&p ¼O;kdj.k½ dkjd ,oa foHkfDr& f}rh; foHkfDr& vf/k'kh³LFkklk deZ] dkyk/ouksjR;Urla;ksxsA Loj lfU/k& ,f³ij#ie~] ,M%inkUrknfiA 'kCn#i&iqfYyax&Hkxor~] dfju~] ifr] lf[k pUnzel~A L=hfyax&okp~] lfjr] Jh] L=h] vi~A /kkrq#i&ijLeSin&vl~] u'k~] vki~] 'kd~] b"k~] d`"kA d{kk&12 [k.M d&¼x|½ pUnzkihMdFkk fuxZrk;ka ds;wjds.k lg-------------------vkuUnL; v/;xPNu~A [k.M&[k ¼i|½ j?kqoa'kegkdkO;e~ ¼f}rh; lxZ½ 'yksd la[;k 65&75 rdA [k.M&p ¼O;kdj.k½ dkjd ,oa foHkfDr&prqFkhZ foHkfDr Li`gsjhfIlr% ] iapeh foHkfDr& tqxqIlkfojkeÁeknkFkkZukeqila[;kue~ ¼ok0½A] vk[;krksi;ksxsA "k"Bh foHkfDr&rr~L; p orZekus] "k"Bh pkuknjsA lIreh foHkfDr&lk/olk/kqÁ;ksxs p ¼ok0½ O;atu lfU/k&>yka t'k~ >f'k] rksfyZ] vuqLokjL; ;f; ijlo.kZ%A folxZ lfU/k& vrksjksjIyqrkiIyqrs] ok 'kfj] jksfj] ढªyksis iwoZL; nh?kksZ·.k%A 'kCn #i& uiqaldfyax&txr~] czáu~] /kuq"kA loZuke=⃥~]vnl~A /kkrq#i&vkReusin&Hkk"k~] fon~A mHk;in&pqj] fJ] Øh] /kkA** 14. Graduation course in Sanskrit includes a higher standard of Sanskrit but does not include the course of Sanskrit included in the syllabus of Hindi subject for class 9th and 10th. Assistant Teachers (Men/Women) Hindi have to teach students of Class 9th and 10th a little elementary Sanskrit. Therefore, for efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of qualification, contents of the course of studies and the functions attached with post is relevant. Therefore, looking into the syllabus of Class 9th and 10th for Hindi subject, the State Government in its wisdom and on due consideration of relevant aspects, has prescribed certain academic qualification under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 1983 for Assistant Teacher (Hind) including “bachelor’s degree with Hindi as a subject from a recognised University in India and intermediate with Sanskrit as a subject or equivalent examination with Sanskrit and B.Ed.”. Thus, looking into the syllabus of Class 9th and 10th graduation in Hindi has been prescribed as academic qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Men/Women) - Hindi. 15. It is settled law that essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to access, determine and decide. Thus, looking into the syllabus of Class 9th and 10th graduation in Hindi has been prescribed as academic qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Men/Women) - Hindi. 15. It is settled law that essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to access, determine and decide. Court can not in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer. It is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualification for any post and it is not for the court to consider and assess it. A greater latitude is permissible for the State Government to prescribe qualification for the post of Assistant Teachers but it should not be repugnant to the NCTE Regulations, 2014. The view taken by us is also supported by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others(2019) 6 Supreme Court Cases 362 (para 9), Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Anit Kumar Das 2020 SCC OnLine SC 897 (para 21) and State of Punjab and others Vs. Anita and others (2015) 2 SCC 170 (para 14). 16. It is settled law that while while prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several factors including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 (para 27). 17. Therefore, the prescribed academic qualification in question can not be said to be arbitrary or based on irrelevant consideration. 18. So far as question of higher qualification is concerned, we are of the view that normal rule to the concept of “Higher Qualification” is that candidature of a candidate possessing higher qualification can not be rejected on that basis but that higher qualification must be through the channel/faculty of the prescribed qualification. 19. 18. So far as question of higher qualification is concerned, we are of the view that normal rule to the concept of “Higher Qualification” is that candidature of a candidate possessing higher qualification can not be rejected on that basis but that higher qualification must be through the channel/faculty of the prescribed qualification. 19. Therefore, the petitioners who admittedly passed Intermediate without a subject of Sanskrit, can not be said to possess a higher qualification only because they have graduated in Sanskrit subject, since they do not possesses graduation degree in Sanskrit through the channel/faculty of the prescribed qualification of Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate. The view taken by us is also supported by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarkhand and others Vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the concept of higher qualification (paras 11and 12) and held as under : "11. We are conscious of the principle that when particular qualifications are prescribed for a post, the candidature of a candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be rejected on that basis. No doubt, normal rule would be that candidate with higher qualification is deemed to fulfill the lower qualification prescribed for a post. But that higher qualification has to be in the same channel. Further, this rule will be subject to an exception. Where the prescription of a particular qualification is found to be relevant for discharging the functions of that post and at the same time, the Government is able to demonstrate that for want of said qualification a candidate may not be suitable for the post, even if he possesses a "better" qualification but that "better" qualification has no relevance with the functions attached with the post. 12. In the present case, we find the situation falling in this excepted category. As pointed out above, the Assistant Teacher is meant to impart education to students at primary level. For teaching primary students, subjects studied while doing basic B.Ed. Degree would be relevant and appropriate. For teaching such students, B.Ed. with Specialisation in vocational education would be of no use as those students are not imparted vocational education, which is the thrust in the degree obtained by the respondents herein. For teaching primary students, subjects studied while doing basic B.Ed. Degree would be relevant and appropriate. For teaching such students, B.Ed. with Specialisation in vocational education would be of no use as those students are not imparted vocational education, which is the thrust in the degree obtained by the respondents herein. In the instant case, proficiency in the basic subjects taught at primary level is required and thus vocational training would not serve any purpose. Thus, when we find that in the instant case, essential education qualification is B.Ed. Degree which is prescribed in the relevant rules, having statutory flavour, the action of the Government cannot be faulted with, in rejecting the candidature of the respondents because of the reason that they do not have the qualification, as mentioned in the advertisement viz. B.Ed. Degree simpliciter." (Emphasis supplied by me) 20. In view of the discussions made above, we hold that the petitioners who admittedly have not passed Intermediate with Sanskrit as a subject, but passed the Intermediate with other subjects and did graduation in Sanskrit, can not be said to possess higher qualification as they have not completed graduation through the channel/faculty of the prescribed qualification of Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate. Whether academic qualification prescribed under Rule 8(6) of the Rules 1983 for Assistant Teachers (Men/Women) Hindi for Class 9th and 10th of Government Schools/Colleges, is different from the academic qualification provided for aided Schools/Colleges for Class 9th and 10th in Appendix-A of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 ? 21. We have already reproduced in para 12 above the academic qualification for Assistant Teachers Class 9th and 10th for Government Schools/Colleges under Rule 8(6) of the Rules 1983. Earlier Sanskrit as a subject in intermediate was not provided in the Regulation framed under the Act, 1921. After Rule 8 of the Rules 1983 was amended by the 4th Amendment Rules, 2016, simultaneously the Appendix-A of Chapter II of the Regulation framed under the Act, 1921 was also amended and Sanskrit as a subject in intermediate or equivalent examination, was provided as an essential academic qualification for appointment of Assistant Teachers in High School (Class 9th and 10th), by notification No.Parishad – 9/133 dated 04.05.2016. Thus, the submissions of learned counsels for the petitioners that Sanskrit as a subject in intermediate has not been prescribed in the academic qualification for Assistant Teachers (Hindi) in aided Schools/Colleges under Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921, is totally groundless. Therefore, the submission deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. That apart, the teachers of Government Colleges and teachers of private/aided Colleges are two different class, and both are governed by different sets of rules. Therefore, the academic qualification provided in Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Act, 1921 is not even relevant for the purposes of the Rules, 1983. Whether there is conflict between the prescribed minimum qualification for teachers by NCTE and the academic qualification prescribed under Rule 8(6) of the Rules 1983 ? 22. By virtue of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, the subject 'Education' was withdrawn from Entry II (List-II) -State List, and was placed in Entry 25 of List-III -Concurrent List. Thus the Legislative Competence to legislate on the subject "Education" was brought under the Concurrent List. In view of the provisions of Article 246 (2) of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding anything in clause (3), the Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule. The Parliament enacted The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (No.73 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act 1993') to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. Section 12A of the Central Act, 1993 as inserted by Act No.18 of 2011 dated 12.10.2011 w.e.f. 01.06.2012, confers power upon the NCTE to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers which is reproduced below: "12A. Section 12A of the Central Act, 1993 as inserted by Act No.18 of 2011 dated 12.10.2011 w.e.f. 01.06.2012, confers power upon the NCTE to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers which is reproduced below: "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 solely on the ground of non-fulfilment 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)." 23. Relevant portion of the minimum standard of education as prescribed by the NCTE has already been reproduced in paragraph 12 above. 24. Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 1983 has prescribed qualification for Assistant Teacher (Men/Women) – Hindi, to be Bachelor’s degree with Hindi. Thus, to this extent there is no conflict between the aforequoted NCTE Regulations and Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 1983. The point of dispute is the prescribing of additional qualification of “Intermediate with Sanskrit as a subject or equivalent examination with Sanskrit” under Rule 8(6)(i). Thus, the prescribing of Intermediate with Sanskrit as a subject, is in addition to the minimum qualification prescribing under Regulation 4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 looking into the syllabus of Class 9th and 10th. This additional qualification has a direct bearing with the syllabus prescribed for Class 9th and 10th. Therefore, we hold that there is no conflict between the Rule 8(6) and Regulation 4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. 25. This additional qualification has a direct bearing with the syllabus prescribed for Class 9th and 10th. Therefore, we hold that there is no conflict between the Rule 8(6) and Regulation 4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. 25. The submissions of the petitioners with reference to the academic qualification prescribed in regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, has no substance. This aspect of the matter was considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No.11545 of 2018 Jai Prakash Yadav And Others Vs. The Union Of India And Others, decided on 10.05.2018 and after referring to various provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, it has been held as under : “On conjoint reading of the Intermediate Act, Act 1982 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, selection of teachers against substantive vacancy of private and aided schools is exclusively within the domain of the Selection Board. The selection of teachers for government high school/intermediate schools is with the government which is outside the purview of the Selection Board.” 26. Thus, the selection of teachers for Government High School/Intermediate Schools is with the State Government and in this regard the Rules, 1983 prescribing minimum qualification for Assistant Teacher in Government High School/Intermediate Schools, has been enacted which holds the field and the academic qualification prescribed thereunder shall continue to hold good until it is repugnant to the qualification prescribed by the NCTE regulations. In the present set of facts we have already held that the academic qualification prescribed under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 1983 is not repugnant or in conflict with the academic qualification prescribed under Regulation 4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Thus, the submissions of the petitioners taking shelter of the regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. Presumption of Constitutional Validity 27. In the case of Anant Mills Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1975 SC 1234 (para 20), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- "20. There is a presumption of the constitutional validity of a statutory provision. Presumption of Constitutional Validity 27. In the case of Anant Mills Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1975 SC 1234 (para 20), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- "20. There is a presumption of the constitutional validity of a statutory provision. In case any party assails the validity of any provision on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is for that party to make the necessary averments and adduce material to show discrimination violative of Article 14. No averments were made in the petitions before the High Court by the petitioners that the assessments before the coming into force of Ordinance 6 of 1969 bad been made by taking into account the rent restriction provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. Paragraph 2B and some other paragraphs of petition No. 233 of 1970 before the High Court, to which our attention was invited by Mr. Tarkunde, also do not contain that averment. No material on this factual aspect was in the circumstances produced either on behalf of the petitioners or the Corporation. The High Court, as already observed, decided the matter merely on the basis of a presumption. It is, in our opinion, extremely hazardous to decide the question of the constitutional validity of a provision on the basis of the supposed existence of certain facts by raising a presumption. The facts about the supposed existence of which presumption was raised by the High Court were of such a nature that a definite averment could have been made in respect of them and concrete material could have been produced in support of their existence or non-existence. Presumptions are resorted to when the matter does not admit of direct proof or when there is some practical difficulty to produce evidence to prove a particular fact. When, however, the fact to be established is of such a nature that direct evidence about its existence or non-existence would be available, the proper course is to have the direct evidence rather than to decide the matter by resort to presumption. A pronouncement about the constitutional validity of a statutory provision affects not only the parties before the Court, but all other parties who may be affected by the impugned provision. There would, therefore, be inherent risk in striking down an impugned provision without having the complete factual data and full material before the court. A pronouncement about the constitutional validity of a statutory provision affects not only the parties before the Court, but all other parties who may be affected by the impugned provision. There would, therefore, be inherent risk in striking down an impugned provision without having the complete factual data and full material before the court. It was therefore, in our opinion, essential for the High Court to ascertain and field out the correct factual position before recording a finding that the impugned provision is violative of article 14. The fact that the High Court acted on an incorrect assumption is also borne out by the material which has been adduced before us in the writ petitions filed under article 32 of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied by us) 28. In Charanjit Lal Choudhary Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1951 SC 41 (para 10), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is presumption that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its people. In Union of India Vs. Elphinstone Spinning and weaving Co. Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 724 (para 9), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is presumption that the legislature does not exceed its jurisdiction. In State of Bihar and others Vs. Smt. Charusila Dasi, AIR 1959 SC 1002 (para 14), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that there is presumption that the legislature does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction. In Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 (para 26), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that provision should be construed in the manner as will uphold its constitutionality. In Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Libery Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 1107 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that the provision should be read in the manner as will make it valid. Similar view has been expressed by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. S.P. Kasture and ors., AIR 1968 SC 565 (para 32). In Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration and ors., AIR 1978 SC 1675 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the legislature expresses wisdom of community. In State of Bihar VS. Bihar Distilleries, AIR 1997 SC 1511 (para 18), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that an Act made by legislature represents the will of people and cannot be lightly interfered with. In Zameer Ahmad Latifur Rehman Sheikh Vs. In State of Bihar VS. Bihar Distilleries, AIR 1997 SC 1511 (para 18), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that an Act made by legislature represents the will of people and cannot be lightly interfered with. In Zameer Ahmad Latifur Rehman Sheikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., J.T. 2010 (4) SC 256 (para 34), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that every legally possible effort should be made to uphold the validity. In Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and others, (2007) 6 SCC 236 (paras 82 to 85), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : " 82 The constitutional validity of an Act can be challenged only on two grounds, viz. (i) lack of legislative competence; and (ii) violation of any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. In State of A. P. & Ors. v. McDowell & Co. & Ors. [ (1996) 3 SCC 709 ], this Court has opined that except the above two grounds, there is no third ground on the basis of which the law made by the competent legislature can be invalidated and that the ground of invalidation must necessarily fall within the four corners of the afore-mentioned two grounds. 83. Power to enact a law is derived by the State Assembly from List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Entry 32 confers upon a State Legislature the power to constitute cooperative societies. The State of Maharashtra and the State of Andhra Pradesh both had enacted the MCS Act 1960 and the APCS Act, 1964 in exercise of the power vested in them by Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Power to the enact would include the power to re-enact or validate any provision of law in the State Legislature, provided the same falls in an entry of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution with the restriction that such enactment should not nullify a judgment of a competent court of law. In the appeals / SLPs/petitions filed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the legislative competence of the State is involved for consideration. Judicial system has an important role to play in our body politic and has a solemn obligation to fulfil. In the appeals / SLPs/petitions filed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the legislative competence of the State is involved for consideration. Judicial system has an important role to play in our body politic and has a solemn obligation to fulfil. In such circumstances, it is imperative upon the courts while examining the scope of legislative action to be conscious to start with the presumption regarding the constitutional validity of the legislation. The burden of proof is upon the shoulders of the the incumbent who challenges it. It is true that it is the duty of the constitutional courts under our Constitution to declare a law enacted by Parliament or the State Legislature as unconstitutional when Parliament or the State Legislaturehad assumed to enact a law which is void, either for want of constitutional power to enact it or because the constitutional forms or conditions have not been observed or where the law infringes the fundamental rights enshrined and guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. 84. As observed by this Court in CST v. Radhakrishnan in considering the validity of a Statute the presumption is always in favour of constitutionality and the burden is upon the person who attacks it to show that there has been transgression of constitutional principles. For sustaining the constitutionality of an Act, a Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, reports, preamble, history of the times, objection of the legislation and all other facts which are relevant. It must always be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and that discrimination, if any, is based on adequate grounds and considerations. It is also well-settled that the courts will be justified in giving a liberal interpretation in order to avoid constitutional invalidity. A provision conferring very wide and expansive powers on authority can be construed in conformity with legislative intent of exercise of power within constitutional limitations. Where a Statute is silent or is inarticulate, the Court would attempt to transmutate the inarticulate and adopt a construction which would lean towards constitutionality albeit without departing from the material of which the law is woven. These principles have given rise to rule of "reading down" the provisions if it becomes necessary to uphold the validity of the law. 85. In State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. & Ors. These principles have given rise to rule of "reading down" the provisions if it becomes necessary to uphold the validity of the law. 85. In State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. & Ors. [ (1997) 2 SCC 453 ], this Court indicated the approach which the Court should adopt while examining the validity/constitutionality of a legislation. It would be useful to remind ourselves of the principles laid down, which read: (SCC p.466, para 17): "The approach of the court, while examining the challenge to the constitutionality of an enactment, is to start with the presumption of constitutionality. The court should try to sustain its validity to the extent possible. It should strike down the enactment only when it is not possible to sustain it. The court should not approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting, much less inexactitude of language employed. Indeed, any such defects of drafting should be ignored out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity/constitutionality of the enactment. After all, an Act made by the legislature represents the will of the people and that cannot be lightly interfered with. The unconstitutionality must be plainly and clearly established before an enactment is declared as void. The same approach holds good while ascertaining the intent and purpose of an enactment or its scope and application." In the same para, this Court further observed as follows: "The Court must recognize the fundamental nature and importance of legislative process and accord due regard and deference to it, just as the legislature and the executive are expected to show due regard and deference to the judiciary. It cannot also be forgotten that our Constitution recognizes and gives effect to the concept of equality between the three wings of the State and the concept of "checks and balances" inherent in such scheme." (Emphasis supplied by us) 29. In the case of Promoters and Builders Association Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation (2007) 6 SCC. 143 (para 9), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising legislative function, unless unreasonableness and arbitrariness is pointed out it is not open for the Court to interfere. Principles of Constitutional Validity:- 30. The constitutional validity of an Act can be challenged only on two grounds, viz. Pune Municipal Corporation (2007) 6 SCC. 143 (para 9), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising legislative function, unless unreasonableness and arbitrariness is pointed out it is not open for the Court to interfere. Principles of Constitutional Validity:- 30. The constitutional validity of an Act can be challenged only on two grounds, viz. (i) lack of legislative competence; and (ii) violation of any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. Except the above two grounds, there is no third ground on the basis of which the law made by a competent legislature can be invalidated. The ground of invalidation must necessarily fall within the four corners of the aforementioned two grounds. In considering the validity of a Statute the presumption is always in favour of constitutionality and the burden is upon the person who attacks it to show that there has been transgression of constitutional principles. For sustaining the constitutionality of an Act, Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, reports, preamble, history of the times, object of the legislation and all the other facts which are relevant. It must always be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and that discrimination, if any, is based on adequate grounds and considerations. The courts will be justified in giving a liberal interpretation in order to avoid constitutional invalidity. Where a Statute is silent or is inarticulate, the Court would attempt to transmutate the inarticulate and adopt a construction which would lean towards constitutionality albeit without departing from the material of which the law is woven. These principles give rise to rule of “reading down” the provisions if it becomes necessary to uphold the validity of the law. While examining the challenge to the constitutionality of an enactment, the court is to start with the presumption of constitutionality and try to sustain its validity to the extent possible. The court cannot approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting, much less inexactitude of language employed. An act made by the legislature represents the will of the people and that cannot be lightly interfered with. It is presumed that the legislature expresses wisdom of the community, does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction and correctly appreciates the need of its own people. An act made by the legislature represents the will of the people and that cannot be lightly interfered with. It is presumed that the legislature expresses wisdom of the community, does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction and correctly appreciates the need of its own people. Principles governing validity of a subordinate legislation:- 31. Apart from the aforenoted principles to determine constitutional validity, one additional ground is available to test the validity of a subordinate legislation. The additional ground is that the authority making subordinate legislation must act within the limits of its power and cannot transgress the same. Reference with regard to these settled principles of validity of a subordinate legislation can be found in the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hukum Chand vs. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 601 , General Officer Commanding-in-Chief vs. Subhash Chandra Yadav and another, (1988) 2 SCC 351 , Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Administration vs. Siri Ram, (2000) 5 SCC 451 , Sukhdev Singh and others vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and another, (1975) 1 SCC 421 , State of Karnataka and another vs. H. Ganesh Kamath and others, (1983) 2 SCC 402 , Kunj Behari Lal Butail and others vs. State of H.P. and others, (2000) 3 SCC 40 , Union of India vs. M/s G.S. Chatha Rice Mill, (2021) 2 SCC 209 and judgment dated 16.12.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.9252-9253 of 2022 (Kerala State Electricity Board and others vs. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J. and others). 32. We have already found rational behind prescribing additional qualification to be Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate in addition to the graduation in Hindi and B.Ed. for the post of Assistant Teachers in Hindi to teach students of Class 9th and 10th in Government owned colleges so as to maintain standard of education. The academic qualification as provided under Rule 8(6) of the Rules 1983, as already held; is neither in conflict with the regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 nor in conflict with Regulation 4 of the NCTE Regulation, 2014 nor it is beyond the rule making power of the State Government. Therefore, the impugned Rules are wholly valid. The State Government has not transgressed its power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame the Rules, 1983 prescribing qualification for Assistant Teachers (Men/Women) – Hindi under Rule 8(6). Therefore, the impugned Rules are wholly valid. The State Government has not transgressed its power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame the Rules, 1983 prescribing qualification for Assistant Teachers (Men/Women) – Hindi under Rule 8(6). Thus, the impugned rules and the impugned advertisement are wholly valid. All the writ petitions have no merit and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 33. For all the reasons aforestated, all the writ petitions are dismissed.