ORDER: 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Government Pleader for Higher Education and Learned counsel for Respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned selection list dated 31.07.2014 for the posts of PRT, in the 1st respondent institution pursuant to the notification issued on 4th September, 2013 r/w. corrigendum issued in December, 2013 and the consequential appointments made to the said post is as illegal apart from contrary to N.C.T.E Regulations and Right to Education Act, 2009 and consequently hold that the candidates who possess D.Ed., qualification like the petitioner are alone entitled for selection and appointment to the post of PRT, in the respondent school 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 dated 04.09.2013 for recruitment of various posts under the control of Defence Laboratories Educational Society, notifying 2 (two) PRT’s and the requisite qualification is 1st class regular Graduate (English/Physics) with B.Ed from a recognized university and to have qualified in TET/CTET. b) Amending the requisite qualification for the said post/s, a corrigendum has been issued by the 1st respondent in December, 2013 thereby changing the qualifications to Senior Secondary School Certificate/Intermediate or equivalent with 50% marks in D.Ed or its equivalent for selection and appointment to the post of PRT. c) Petitioner having completed the Diploma in Education (D.Ed) & also passed in T.E.T examination and being fully eligible and qualified to the post of P.R.T had submitted the application for the said post. As per the notification, the method of selection is Written Test (70%) and Interview/Demo (30%) and is thus evident that respondents have to conduct the Written test and interview. d) For the said post/s, 1st respondent has conducted Oral Interviews to the candidates including the petitioner and respondent no. 2 & 3 during May, 2014. After the conduction of interviews, petitioner has been preparing for Written Examination but no Written Examination has been conducted and announced the selection list dated 31.07.2014. e) The said selection list dated 31.07.2014 for the post of PRT issued by the 1st respondent and selecting 2nd& 3rd respondents is illegal, discriminatory and contrary to Notification. After the conduction of interviews, petitioner has been preparing for Written Examination but no Written Examination has been conducted and announced the selection list dated 31.07.2014. e) The said selection list dated 31.07.2014 for the post of PRT issued by the 1st respondent and selecting 2nd& 3rd respondents is illegal, discriminatory and contrary to Notification. f) Contrary to the said notification, which mandates 70% marks for the Written Examination and 30% for the Interview, the 1st respondent had only conducted interview which only amounts to 30% of the marks, which is in clear violation of the said notification. If only the 1st respondent had conducted the Written Examination along with the Interview, the petitioner would have been selected for the said post. g) Moreover, as per Rule 23 (1) of Right of Children for free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E) is an academic authority, to lay down the qualifications for person/s to be eligible to be appointed as Teacher vide Notification dated 23.08.2010 and the petitioner possessing requisite qualification, is eligible to be appointed as Teacher. h) The qualification/s prescribed by the Govt. of India through N.C.E.T are applicable throughout India, including the schools maintained by Private, Aided and Unaided and also the schools being run by various societies. Any other qualification prescribed by the respondent authority is contrary to N.C.T.E regulations. i) In the present case, the 2nd and 3rdwho have only qualified B.Ed and not D.Ed are not entitled for selection and appointment to the post of PRT as per the regulations of NCTE and hence the appointment of respondent no. 2 and 3 is illegal and contrary to NCTE regulations. B.Ed qualification is not equivalent to D.Ed as held by Supreme Court and both the qualification are different and distinct. j) The qualification B.Ed is not the requisite qualification for primary teachers like PRTs and therefore the selecting the candidates with B.Ed qualification instead of D.Ed is clear illegal, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Principles of Natural Justice. Hence the Writ Petition. 4. The case of the respondents, in brief, as per the counter affidavit, is as follows: a) The Writ Petition is not maintainable as, “The Secretary”/respondent society is not a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence the Writ Petition. 4. The case of the respondents, in brief, as per the counter affidavit, is as follows: a) The Writ Petition is not maintainable as, “The Secretary”/respondent society is not a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. b) As the Respondent Laboratories were situated far away from the city, schools were established to cater to the educational needs of the children and accordingly the society has been established and registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Areas) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli with registration number 2317/94 dated 18.05.1994 and hence the society is private in nature and there is no government interest, share or control in the affairs of the society and hence does not fall under the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. c) To achieve the righteous objectives the society has been established a school at RCI, Vignankancha and another at DRDL, Kanchanbagh and these schools impart education in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the central board for Secondary Education from Nursery to 12th class. d) The Society then issued an advertisement in the Times of India and The Hindu newspapers on 04.09.2013 for filling up 2 posts of Primary School Teacher among other posts. The stqualification required for the post of PRT’s was class Graduate with B.Ed from recognized University and must have qualified in TET/CTET and the same was challenged in W.P. No. 28845 of 2013, on the ground that the prescribed qualification has to be D.Ed instead of B.Ed. e) Due to poor response and after representations, the society had issued corrigendum on 25.12.2013 lowering the prescribed qualification from D.Ed to B.Ed. f) After scrutiny by the scrutiny committee, 52 applications were found to be in order to satisfying the requirements including that of the petitioner. As the number of applications were low, the society decided to dispense of with the Written Examination and conduct Interviews straight away. g) Accordingly, call letter were sent to all 52 applicants and interviews were fixed and out of 52 applicants, 30 reported to the interview including the petitioner and all were subjected to interview and marks were awarded accordingly. As the number of applications were low, the society decided to dispense of with the Written Examination and conduct Interviews straight away. g) Accordingly, call letter were sent to all 52 applicants and interviews were fixed and out of 52 applicants, 30 reported to the interview including the petitioner and all were subjected to interview and marks were awarded accordingly. h) Petitioner having attended the interview only scored 22.75 marks, while the 2nd and 3rd respondents scored 85.5 and 84.5 respectively and hence filling the 2 posts of PRT’s and petitioner did not qualify, as the petitioner did not score marks higher than respondent No. 2 and respondent no.3. i) Having scored requisite marks, the respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 were appointed as Primary Teacher on 31.07.2014 and started working at the school at RCI, Vignankancha. j) Petitioner was aware that the Written Test has been dispensed with and participated in interview without any objection or demur and the petitioner filed this Writ Petition only after being unsuccessful in the interview and hence the petitioner is estopped from challenging the appointment of Respondent no.2 and 3 after having participated the recruitment process. k) There are no recruitment rules governing recruitment to the post of Primary School Teacher in the society and in the absence of the same, the society is free to make appointments after conducting interviews and furthermore the Supreme Court of India held that interview is the best mode of assessing suitability of a candidate for appointment when compared to Written Test. l) Moreover, the qualifications prescribed are only minimum and there is no bar to appoint a person with higher qualification as laid down by the Supreme Court. m) Further, schools which are under the control of society impart syllabus prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education and the reliance placed by the petitioner on the rules issued by the Govt of Andhra Pradesh and NCET is incorrect and are not applicable to the schools run by the society. Hence the same is liable to be dismissed as there are no merits in the Writ Petition. 5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION : i. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent issued Notification dated 04.09.2013 for recruitment of various posts under the control of the Defence Laboratories Education Society, Hyderabad, including that of (Primary School Teacher). Hence the same is liable to be dismissed as there are no merits in the Writ Petition. 5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION : i. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent issued Notification dated 04.09.2013 for recruitment of various posts under the control of the Defence Laboratories Education Society, Hyderabad, including that of (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.A., from Recognized University and also qualified in TET/CTET. Subsequently the 1st Respondent issued corrigendum to the aforesaid notification in December 2013 amending the requisite qualification prescribing Senior Secondary School Certificate/Intermediate or equivalent with 50% of marks with D.Ed., or its equivalent are eligible for selection and appointment to the post of P.R.T. It is further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner completed Diploma in Education (D.Ed.,) and also passed T.E.T. examination conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State. In view of the Petitioner’s qualification, Petitioner is fully eligible and qualified to hold the post of Primary School Teacher. The Petitioner had applied for the said post and according to the Notification, the method of selection for the post of PRT is written test (weightage 70%) and interview/Demo (weightage 30%) and that the 1st Respondent has conducted oral interview to the candidates who have applied for the said post including the Petitioner and the Respondents No.2 and 3 during the month of May 2014. However, no written examination was conducted as indicated in the Notification and selection list was announced on 31.07.2017. ii. The Counsel for the Petitioner specifically pleaded as follows : a) As per the Notification the selection process consists of written examination for 70% marks and interview/Demo for 30% marks, but however, the 1st Respondent has conducted only interview for 30% marks without conducting any written examination and hurriedly published the select list which is contrary to the Notification. b) The specific plea of the Petitioner further as putforth by the counsel is that if the 1st Respondent conducted written examination to the candidates who possess D.Ed., or its equivalent qualification, along with interview, by duly deleting the candidates who possess B.Ed., qualification, the Petitioner would have been selected for the said post. b) The specific plea of the Petitioner further as putforth by the counsel is that if the 1st Respondent conducted written examination to the candidates who possess D.Ed., or its equivalent qualification, along with interview, by duly deleting the candidates who possess B.Ed., qualification, the Petitioner would have been selected for the said post. c) Entertaining persons with B.Ed., qualification for PRT teachers instead of D.Ed., is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and contrary to the NCTE Regulations. d) As per N.C.T.E. Regulations the B.Ed., is not the requisite qualification for primary teachers like PRTs and therefore selecting the candidates with B.Ed., qualification instead of D.Ed./T.T.C. like Petitioner was unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. e) The Counsel for the Petitioner further places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court on the points given below : i) Judgment of the Supreme Court in (2001) 10 SCC 51 on the point that the Rules of the Game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the Authorities concerned in a middle or after the process of selection has commenced. ii) AIR 2008 SC 1967 , (2005) 4 SCC 154 , (2010) 1 SCC L&S 367 and (2008) 1 SCC L&S 885, on the point that changing eligibility criteria during selection process is not permissible. 6. The Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on various judgments listed below and pleads that the Writ Petition has to be allowed as prayed for: i) Judgment dated 28.11.2019 of the Apex Court in Assam Public Service Commission & Others vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma & Others (paras 13, 14 and 15). ii) Full Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court reported in AIR 2000 Bombay 394. (paras 2, 4 and 29). iii) AIR 1981 SC 487 (para 19). iv) AIR Online 2022 SC 859 (paras 6, 7, 18, 20, 31). v) AIR 2003 SC 1241 (paras 3 & 7) vi) AIR 1991 SC 1607 (para 11) 7. ii) Full Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court reported in AIR 2000 Bombay 394. (paras 2, 4 and 29). iii) AIR 1981 SC 487 (para 19). iv) AIR Online 2022 SC 859 (paras 6, 7, 18, 20, 31). v) AIR 2003 SC 1241 (paras 3 & 7) vi) AIR 1991 SC 1607 (para 11) 7. This Court opines that there is no dispute in so far as the legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the various judgments relied upon by the Petitioner (referred to and extracted above) yet the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case in view of the specific averments made by the Respondent No.1 at paras 8, 9 and 11 of the Counter Affidavit, in view of the fact as borne on record that the Petitioner subjected herself for an interview on 24.05.2014 and secured 22.75 marks and the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 scored 85.5 and 84.5 marks respectively. The Petitioner did not qualify for appointment and the Society appointed Respondents No.2 and 3 as Primary Teachers on 31.07.2014 and they are working at the school at RCI, Vignankancha. 8. This Court opines that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in its judgments referred to and discussed below : (a) Judgment of the Apex Court dated 05.03.2008 in Dhanjay Malik and Others vs. State of Uttranchal & Others reported in 2008 (4) SCC 17 , wherein it was clearly observed by the Supreme Court that those who participate in the selection process cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge their non-selection. The relevant para 8 of the said judgment reads as under : “8. In Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, reported in (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.” (b) Judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.08.2015 in Madras Institute of Development Studies & Another Vs. K.Siva Subramaniyan and others and S.Anandhi & others Vs. K.Siva Subramaniyan and others, reported in 2016 (1) SCC 454 para 14, 15 and 16 read 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 G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, reported in 1976 (3) SCC 585 a similar question came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Anthropology 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 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:” “9. 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 v. State of J&K reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 at para 9, 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. 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 Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986 AIR 1043) 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." (c) Full Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Anil Kumar Das reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 897 at para 16 it is observed on the point that “once a conscious decision is taken by the employer prescribing a specific qualification, thereafter unless it is found to be most arbitrary, the same cannot be the subject matter of judicial review. Para 16 of the said judgment reads as under: “16. It is required to be noted that the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement inviting the applications was as per Circular letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinabove. As stated in the counter to the writ petition, a conscious decision was- taken by the bank providing eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible for the post of Peon/subordinate staff. The said decision was taken consciously looking to the nature of the post. At this stage, it is required to be noted that originally writ petitioner never challenged the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. He participated in the recruitment process on the basis of the advertisement, without challenging the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore, once having participated in the recruitment process as per the advertisement, thereafter it is not open for him to contend that acquisition of higher qualification cannot be a disqualification and that too when he never challenged the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. (d) Judgment of Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar and Others vs. Government of NCT Delhi and Others, reported in AIR 2003 SCC 1241: “7. (d) Judgment of Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar and Others vs. Government of NCT Delhi and Others, reported in AIR 2003 SCC 1241: “7. This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the R.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent-illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC pass candidates s open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the- source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals [CA No. 1726-28 of 2001] arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the natures of training imparted for grant of certificate and degree are totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from B.Ed. category and very few from TTC category. 9. This Court opines as follows:- (1) The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. (2) The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. (3) It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. (4) Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of Judicial review. (5) Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine.” (6) 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. (5) Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine.” (6) 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. (7) Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may be. (8) The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. 10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid said facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments referred to and extracted above, this Court opines that the Petitioner after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that 100 marks were earmarked for interview 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, and the written examination being dispensed with, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or the process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner’s name had appeared in the selection list, the Petitioner would not have even thought of challenging the process of selection. The Petitioner admittedly invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Respondents. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles the Petitioner from questioning the selection as per the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to and discussed above. This Court opines that the present Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.