Ashutosh Kumar, J. – All the appeals raise a common question of law, based on same set of facts and therefore, they have been dealt with together and a common judgment is being pronounced. 2. We have heard Sri P.K. Sahi, learned Advocate General for the State in one of the appeals, Sri Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate for the BPSC and Sri Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra and Sri Amit Pandey, learned Advocates for the respondents and Sri Sumit Kumar Jha for one of the proposed intervenors, who was permitted to raise the issues during the course of argument even though he had not formally been impleaded as an intervenor party. Sri Prince Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate has appeared for the successful candidates, whose appointment is under cloud because of the judgment under challenge; Sri Manoj Kumar Singh for the Rehabilitation Council of India and Sri Sunil Singh for the NCTE. 3. A batch of writ petitions was heard by the learned Single Judge, the lead case being CWJC No. 15081 of 2018, wherein an issue was raised on behalf of the applicants who had M.Ed. Special Degree, against the decision of not finding them to be having requisite qualification for being considered for appointment as Teachers in Government Training Colleges against Advertisement No. 2 of 2016. 4. The Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 was issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment on 478 posts of Teachers in Government Training Colleges in various subjects. The qualification prescribed in the Advertisement was M.A. with minimum of 55% marks in anyone of the subjects and M.Ed. with minimum of 55% marks. 5. This Advertisement was in consonance with the provisions contained in Bihar Education Service Rules, 2014; Section 28 of which provides for the process of appointment. 6. According to the Rules, referred to above, the appointment in the basic cadre would be done as follows: – I. There shall be direct appointment on the 50% posts of basic grade. II. Rest 50% posts shall be filled up on the basis of limited competitive examination from amongst the teachers working in government schools at least for three years and having requisite qualification for the posts. Relaxation of 5 years would be given in their upper age limit. III. II. Rest 50% posts shall be filled up on the basis of limited competitive examination from amongst the teachers working in government schools at least for three years and having requisite qualification for the posts. Relaxation of 5 years would be given in their upper age limit. III. The posts of basic grade for appointment shall be done on the basis of subject wise vacancies and appointment shall also be done subject wise. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 28 further provides specification with respect to minimum educational and training qualification. The qualification is PG qualification having 55% marks from a recognized University and requisite qualification in the specific subject with 55% marks in M.Ed. 7. Most of the writ petitioners were having M.Ed. Special degree with 55 or more percentage of marks, who were included in the provisional list of eligible candidates who could have been considered for appointment on the post of Teachers in the Government Training Colleges. 8. However, vide communication dated 08.06.2018 addressed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Education to the Secretary of Bihar Public Service Commission, it was informed that only M.Ed. degree in specific subject would be the requisite qualification and not M.Ed. Special degree as there is essential difference between the two degrees in the sense that M.Ed. Special Education/Special Visual Impairment/Mental Retardation is a degree which is recognized by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) whereas M.Ed. Degree is recognized by the NCTE. 9. Based on this communication from the Principal Secretary of the Department of Education, the writ petitioners were ousted from the zone of consideration. 10. The learned Single Judge took exception to their exclusion and found that the Advertisement merely contained the minimum educational qualification to be M.Ed. with 55% marks without specifically excluding M.Ed. in Special Education. 11. The Bench, therefore, was of the view that in accordance with the well settled norms of interpreting any instrument, exclusion cannot be readily inferred; it has to be rather specific. 12. He has further opined that most of the writ petitioners having M.Ed. Special degree were pass-outs of prestigious Institutions and the distinction sought to be made by the Commission was illusory. He has further held that making any distinction between the two degrees of M.Ed. and M.Ed. 12. He has further opined that most of the writ petitioners having M.Ed. Special degree were pass-outs of prestigious Institutions and the distinction sought to be made by the Commission was illusory. He has further held that making any distinction between the two degrees of M.Ed. and M.Ed. Special mid-way the process of selection is bad in the eyes of law as the writ petitioners had already been shortlisted for the purposes of consideration thereby finding them to be eligible so far as their minimum qualification was concerned. 13. The Commission ought not to have given preference to the mere official communication of the Principal Secretary of the Department of Education addressed to the Secretary of the Commission. 14. Taking reference of the case of Y. V. Rangaiah and Ors. vs. J. Sreenivasn Rao and Ors.: AIR 1983 SC 852 , the learned Single Judge quashed the entire selection process. 15. While doing so, the Court also clarified that such decision was taken by him as the opportunity provided to the Commission to adopt corrective measures to accommodate the writ petitioners was not availed of by the respondents and that the State as well as the BPSC were only to be held responsible for occasioning such a decision. The Bench characterized the decision of the Commission as well as the State to be a “misadventure”. 16. The appellant, State and the Commission have advanced similar nature of arguments, assailing the decision of the learned Single Judge. 17. It was urged on behalf of the appellants including the successful candidates whose appointment letter had already been issued that there is essential difference between the two qualifications of M.Ed. and M.Ed. Special. 18. M.Ed. Special is a specified degree in training visually impaired or in any manner differently abled students. Since the Advertisement, which is in complete consonance with the Rules (Bihar Education Service Rules, 2014), which clearly stipulated the minimum qualification for being eligible to be considered for appointment as Government Teachers is M.Ed. with 55% marks, such specification could not have been watered down or could have been permitted to include any other degree on some illusory ground of parity/equivalence in the two degrees. 19. It was further urged on behalf of the appellants that the NCTE provides recognition to degrees in M.Ed., whereas M.Ed. Special degree is recognized by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). 20. 19. It was further urged on behalf of the appellants that the NCTE provides recognition to degrees in M.Ed., whereas M.Ed. Special degree is recognized by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). 20. The State had sent a requisition to the Commission for carrying out the process of appointment of Teachers in Government Training Colleges, where the existing/serving Teachers would be imparted training. 21. The need of the State is specific and precisely for this reason, the advertisement was issued accordingly. 22. M.Ed. Special degree, no doubt is a specialized degree, but the curriculum for obtaining such degree is different from M.Ed. degree and a M.Ed. Special candidate is trained to impart training to physically disabled/differently abled persons, who are equally required in large measure because of the decision of the Government and the obligation of the State to make the education of differently abled students to be all inclusive. 23. In this context, while canvassing their cases, the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court to a memorandum of understanding between the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) and Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). 24. The preamble of the memorandum specifically states that as per the Right to Education Act, 2009, it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that every child, irrespective of his caste, creed, sex and location, must get elementary education. The same applies to the Secondary Education also. 25. In order to achieve this objective, various schemes and programmes have been launched by the Government of India. Inclusive Education is one of them to bring children with disabilities within the mainstream of education. This effort is further supported by provisions of resource rooms and home based education and special schools where besides Teachers, special Teachers/Educators are also involved and appointed. 26. The Rehabilitation Council of India has been charged with the responsibility of standardizing the syllabi, regulating and monitoring the training of special Teachers/Educators, who will teach children with special needs arising out of disabilities. In fact, it is mandatory for these professionals and personnel to be registered with Rehabilitation Council of India. 27. 26. The Rehabilitation Council of India has been charged with the responsibility of standardizing the syllabi, regulating and monitoring the training of special Teachers/Educators, who will teach children with special needs arising out of disabilities. In fact, it is mandatory for these professionals and personnel to be registered with Rehabilitation Council of India. 27. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of NCTE to regulate and monitor the training of Teachers to be appointed in Colleges and Teachers/Educators to be appointed in the Teachers Education institutions and to determine the minimum qualifications of Teachers under the Right to Education Act, 2009. 28. To achieve the goal of inclusive education, it is necessary for and Rehabilitation Council of India and NCTE to act in convergent manner within the purview of their statutory powers. 29. On the strength of the above noted memorandum of understanding between NCTE and RCI, it has been urged on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners that under inclusive education scheme/conception, it is of utmost importance that besides Teachers, Special Teachers/Educators be also appointed. 30. Thus, with the inclusion of M.Ed. Special, it would be only in the nature of an advancement of the conception of the Government that the Educators and the Teachers also get trained in imparting education to physically disabled persons. Even if the appointees are to teach the serving Teachers, then also those Educators can, to a large measure, become Special Educators for differently abled persons. 31. It has also been argued by the respondents that even if it is found that the two degrees viz. M.Ed. and M.Ed. Special are different but no great purpose would be served in emphasizing the minute/tiny distinction between the two degrees when, in fact, the degrees are identical. This should not kick in any argument on equivalence. The issue of equivalence only arises when there are basically two different degrees and what is to be decided, whether for certain purposes, they can be treated as equivalent [referred to Anand Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 5383 ]. 32. We may also record that Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, learned Advocate, during the course of argument, pressed his intervenor application in one of the LPAs praying for impleadment as a party-respondent for a slightly different cause than the other writ petitioners/respondents. 33. The contention of the proposed intervenors viz. 32. We may also record that Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, learned Advocate, during the course of argument, pressed his intervenor application in one of the LPAs praying for impleadment as a party-respondent for a slightly different cause than the other writ petitioners/respondents. 33. The contention of the proposed intervenors viz. Kamna Shree and Maya Kumari in English and Economics subjects respectively is that even though they should have been considered for appointment in the backward category Female candidates but the Commission has chosen to completely exclude them on the plea that they were no candidates in that category. 34. They had preferred a writ petition vide CWJC No. 1251 of 2021, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Commission to consider the case of the petitioners while preparing a fresh list for appointment in the light of direction issued in one of the writ petitions where the entire appointment process was quashed. 35. The order definitely was in favour of the proposed respondents and precisely for this reason, instead of preferring any appeal against the aforesaid order, they have chosen to intervene in the present matter, where the entire selection process is under challenge and consideration is being made on the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the entire process has been quashed. 36. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it becomes rather clear that the Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 is in complete consonance with the Rules of 2014, so far as the minimum educational qualification is concerned. That the writ petitioners/respondents were provisionally selected for consideration does not give them any right for being finally considered, when it was found that wrongly they were included in the list of such candidates having eligibility to be considered. 37. The respondents have an as important degree as M.Ed. i.e. M.Ed. Special but the target beneficiary for such specialization is different and not the existing/serving Teachers, who are imparted education in Government Training Colleges. 38. 37. The respondents have an as important degree as M.Ed. i.e. M.Ed. Special but the target beneficiary for such specialization is different and not the existing/serving Teachers, who are imparted education in Government Training Colleges. 38. In this context, it would be appropriate to incorporate the statement made by the learned Advocate General that in view of a slew of orders passed in Public Interest Litigation with the allegation that there are no sufficient infrastructure and trained Educators in various Institutions/Colleges for disabled students/specially abled students, a decision has been taken by the Government to fill-up a large number of posts in such Institutions in order to channelize and make effective the concept of inclusive education for specially abled persons. 39. This might provide good opportunity to the respondents to make use of their qualification/expertise. Nonetheless, they would not have the requisite qualification, so far as the present advertisement is concerned, for the reason which has been stated above. 40. The learned counsel for the respondents have reiterated their stand that before the writ court it was found that there are only few number of such candidates having M.Ed. Special degree and the vacancy still remains and therefore, eight seats were kept reserved for eight of the respondents in separate batch of LPAs. They could be accommodated against such reserved posts, more so, when the vacancy has remained unfilled even after such a long exercise. 41. The opposition to such a contention by the State is that there are many other candidates with M.Ed. Special degree, who could not approach the Courts and for excluding them in case of the inclusion of the respondents, would have no justification. 42. It has further been submitted that including the respondents without the specific qualification as asked for in the Advertisement would only amount to excluding the other candidates having the requisite qualification but who would not to be taken in because of the inclusion of candidates without the requisite minimum qualification. 43. The respondents are needed for the society but not for training Teachers. Their special knowledge could effectively be put to use in organizations/institutions for specially abled persons/children or for training special Educators for which this process has not been conducted. 44. 43. The respondents are needed for the society but not for training Teachers. Their special knowledge could effectively be put to use in organizations/institutions for specially abled persons/children or for training special Educators for which this process has not been conducted. 44. We are not in agreement with the learned Single Judge when a declaration has been made by him that a document/instrument cannot be interpreted to be exclusionary in the absence of any such specification of exclusion. Whenever specification is given in an Advertisement with respect to minimum educational qualification, it is as specific as excluding any other qualification which does not squarely fall within the requisite qualification specified. 45. There is no question in the present instance to refer to the aspects which would advance the argument of the respondents regarding equivalence or parity. 46. M.Ed. Special degree holders are also Educators like M.Ed. degree holders, but the target students for the two degrees are different set of persons. 47. The distinction between the two degrees cannot be said to be illusory. 48. For the afore-noted reasons, we find that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law and per force we are left with no further option but to set it aside. 49. The appeals challenging the judgment are allowed. 50. The case of the proposed intervenor is also disposed of with a direction to the Commission to consider their respective cases and intimate them about their decision. In case they are to be included for consideration, that shall be done. 51. While parting, we indicate that it would be in the interest of the State to expedite the process of filling-up posts in special institutions, where the special Educators like the respondents would provide yeomen service to the inclusive education, a laudable concept for which there should not be any opposition from any quarter. The appeals stand disposed of. I.A. No. 3 of 2021 (in LPA No. 363 of 2021) also stands disposed of accordingly.