ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in prescribing B.Ed, qualification as requisite qualification for the post of P.R.T vide notification issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution apart from being contrary to N.C.T.E Regulations and Right to Education Act, 2009 and consequently the candidates who possess D.Ed., qualification like the petitioner are alone entitled for selection and appointment to the post of P.R.T. in the respondent school and the B.Ed., candidates are not eligible for selection and appointment to the post of P.R.T. in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi with all consequential benefits. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The 1st respondent issued notification for recruitment of various posts under the control of Defence Laboratories School, Hyderabad including that of P.R.T. (Primary School Teacher). According to the said notification, two posts of P.R.Ts., have been notified. The qualifications prescribed for the said post is 1st class regular Graduate (English/Physics) with B.Ed., from recognized University and also qualified in TET/CIET. b) The petitioner passed B.Sc. (MPC) and also completed Diploma in Education (D.Ed) and got one year experience in recognized school. The petitioner also passed TET examination. Therefore, the petitioner is qualified to hold post of Primary School Teacher to teach Class I to VIII. However, the respondents are not entertaining the application of the petitioner for the said post due to fixation of B.Ed as one of the qualification which is clearly illegal and contrary to the NCTE Regulations. c) Rule 23(1) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act 23 of 2009) any person possessing such minimum qualifications as laid down by the academic authority, authorized by the Central Government by notification shall be eligible for appointment as Teacher. In the present case, Central Government authorises the NCTE as academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher vide notification dated 23.08.2010. In the present case, Central Government authorises the NCTE as academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher vide notification dated 23.08.2010. d) The State of Andhra Pradesh, in the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 9.1.2012 for recruitment of Teachers (DSC 2012) that for selection and appointment to the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers who teach Classes I to V must possess the certificate of Intermediate and D.Ed. (B.Ed candidates are not eligible for selection). NCTE prescribed qualification for appointment of teachers to teach classes I to V i.e. intermediate and D.Ed as Child Phychology is one of the subjects in D.Ed, because they have to deal with small children whereas there is no such subject in B.Ed course. B.Ed candidates do not have training in Elementary Education. From NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 it is clear that the intermediate and D.Ed candidates are only eligible for appointment as S.G.T., to Classes I to V and the candidates with Bachelor’s Degree and B.Ed, are eligible to teach classes III to X. The syllabus of B.Ed are totally different from that of D.Ed./TTC and the syllabus of D.Ed is better suited for imparting education to the students taking education in primary schools. e) NCTE has given notification on 03.09.2001 according to which for appointment of teachers for primary classes, basic teacher training programme of two years duration is required B.Ed, is not a substitute for basic teacher training programme. In view of the aforesaid rule position and also the doctrine of law on the field and also NCTE Regulations, the B.Ed is not the requisite qualification for primary teachers like PRTs. Therefore, prescribing B.Ed instead of D.Ed/TTC thereby defeating the chances of the rightful candidates like the petitioner is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in particular, paras 8, 9 and 11 reads as under: “8. That the society received 157 applications for the posts of Primary School Teacher and after scrutiny by the scrutiny committee 52 applications were found to be in order satisfying the requirements. The petitioner applied and his application was found to be in order. That the society received 157 applications for the posts of Primary School Teacher and after scrutiny by the scrutiny committee 52 applications were found to be in order satisfying the requirements. The petitioner applied and his application was found to be in order. I respectfully submit that the objective of conducting the written examination is to shortlist candidates and is in the nature of elimination test as the society was expecting a large number of applications. As the number of applications was low, the society decided to dispense with the written test and conduct interviews straight away. Accordingly, call letters were sent to all the 52 candidates whose applications were found to be in order fixing the dates of interviews on 22.05.2014, 23.05.2014 and on 24.05.2014. 30 out of 52 candidates reported to the interview including the petitioner. All the 30 candidates were subjected to the interview and marks were awarded on the following criteria : a. Subject Knowledge 20 marks b. Communication Skills 20 marks c. Attitude 20 marks d. General Personal Aspects 20 marks e. Co-Curricular Activities 20 marks The petitioner was subjected to interview on 24.05.2014 and the petitioner scored 16.25 marks while the selected candidates scored 85.5 and 84.5 marks respectively. Thus, the petitioner did not qualify for appointment as he did not score marks higher than the selected candidates. The society appointed selected candidates as Primary Teachers on 31.07.2014 and they are working at the school at RCI, Vignankancha. The petitioner was well aware that the written test was dispensed and attended the interview. As the petitioner became unsuccessful, he is estopped from challenging the selection process after participating in the same as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. That the entire recruitment process was conducted in a transparent manner by involving outsiders in the process and no illegality was committed by the society. The petitioner was well aware that the written test was dispensed with and he participated in the interview without any objection or demur. The petitioner met the minimum qualification prescribed and thus his case was considered by subjecting her to interview. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition only after being unsuccessful in the interview. In this view of the matter the petitioner is estopped from challenging the appointment of the selected candidates after participating in the recruitment process as laid down by the apex court. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition only after being unsuccessful in the interview. In this view of the matter the petitioner is estopped from challenging the appointment of the selected candidates after participating in the recruitment process as laid down by the apex court. It is relevant to submit that there are no recruitment rules governing recruitment to the post of Primary School Teacher in the society as it is a private society running a private school. In the absence of the same, the society is free make appointments after conducting interview. Further, it has been held by the apex court that interview is the best mode of assessing suitability of a candidate for appointment when compared to written test. It is relevant to submit that there are no allegations of malafide made by the petitioner in the writ petition. I further submit that the DEd qualification prescribed is 'minimum' and thus there is no bar from considering candidates with higher qualification than the minimum including B.Ed. 11. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 3 it is submitted that the case of petitioner was considered as he possessed the minimum qualification of DEd. As already submitted, in view of the low number of applications, the written test was dispensed with and interview was conducted and the petitioner has participated in the same without any demur. The society is free to adopt its own process of recruitment as it is private society running a private school. The rules applicable for recruitment to the posts in government schools are not applicable for recruitment to the posts in the schools run by the society.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained D.Ed qualification as requisite qualification for the post of P.R.T vide notification issued by the respondent contrary to NCTE Regulations and Right to Education Act, 2009 and that the candidates to possess D.Ed qualification like the petitioner alone is entitled for selection and appointment to the post of P.R.T. in accordance with the guidelines issued by the NCTE, New Delhi. 6. 6. This Court vide its interim orders dated 04.10.2013 directed the respondents to receive the application of the petitioner pursuant to the notification for recruitment to the post of P.R.T in the respondent school and permit the petitioner to the selection process without reference to possess D.Ed qualification by him. 7. A bare perusal of the relevant paras 8, 9 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 5 referred to and extracted above, it is very clear that in pursuance to the orders of the interim order dated 04.10.2013, the respondent received application of the petitioner and the case of the petitioner was considered as he possessed minimum qualification of D.Ed. But the petitioner was subjected to interview on 24.05.2014 and the petitioner’s score 16.25 marks and the selected candidates i.e. unofficial respondents herein scored 85.5, 84.5 respectively. The petitioner did not qualify for appointment as he do not secure higher than the selected candidates. The respondent society appointed selected candidates as Primary Teachers on 31.06.2014 and they are working at the school at RCI, Vignankancha. The petitioner was fully aware that the written test was dispensed and attended the interview. As the petitioner became unsuccessful, he challenged the selection process by filing the present writ petition. 8. In a judgment reported in 2008(4) SCC 17 in Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal and others it was clearly held that the petitioner participated in the selection process and the interview is not palatable to him and he cannot turn round and challenge his selection. The relevant para 8 of the said judgment reads as under: “8. In Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 , this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.” 9. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2020) SCC on line 897 in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v Anit Kumar Das at paras 19, 21, 26 observed as under: “19. In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), this Court has distinguished another decision of this Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) 15 SCC 596, taking the view that in a case where lower qualification is prescribed, if a person has acquired higher qualifications, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In the said decision, this Court also took note of another decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2 SCC 170 , in which case, this Court on facts distinguished the decision in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra). 21. Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts. In the present case, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the candidate must have passed 12th standard is justified and as observed hereinabove, it is a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent- original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. 26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329]. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. 10. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. 10. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2016 (1) SCC 454 in Madras Institute of Development Studies and another v K.Sivasubramaniyan and others at paras 14, 15 and 16 observed as under: “14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra. 15. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585 , a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:- “15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal’s case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal’s case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: “It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point.” 16. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486 , similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that:- “9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 11. 11. This Court takes into consideration the specific averments made by respondents 1 to 5 at paras 8, 9 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition referred to and extracted above and also taking into consideration the fact that the respondent society is a private society running private school and the petitioner having participated in the selection process is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection, surely, if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not even thought of challenging the selection, the petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution only when he found that his name has not figured in the merit list prepared by the committee, this Court opines that the conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and also the proposition of law laid down in the various judgments referred to and discussed above i.e. reported in 2008(4) SCC 17 in Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal and others, reported in (2020) SCC on line 897 in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v Anit Kumar Das and the judgment reported in 2016 (1) SCC 454 in Madras Institute of Development Studies and another v K.Sivasubramaniyan and others wherein, it is held that the petitioner having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge about the recruitment rules and having waived the petitioner’s right to question the advertisement or methodology of selection cannot turn around and challenge the process of selection, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and averments specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 5 at paras 8, 9 and 11 referred to and extracted above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.