JUDGMENT : Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3864 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the decision taken as contained in letter no.655 dated 10.09.2020 by which the contract of the petitioner has been terminated. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, reads as under:- 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on 16.03.2003, the village education committee was constituted and writ petitioner was selected as Para-Teacher on the same day and subsequently, her selection was approved by the committee and thereafter, she was sent for training to Block Resource Center, Pratappur, Chatra, thereafter, she was released vide office order dated 23.07.2003 for giving her joining in Utkramik Prathmik Vidyalay, Bantha under Kunda Block, Chatra. 4. The writ petitioner joined as Para-Teacher on 23.07.2003 in Utkramik Prathmik Vidyalay, Bantha, Chatra and since then she was working sincerely. 5. It is the further case that subsequently with permission of the Department, the writ petitioner had appeared in Intermediate Examination and passed in 2nd Division from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar (Jharkhand) in the Year 2009 and submitted her certificate before the respondent authorities and continued her service. 6. The writ petitioner was rendering her service as Para Teacher from the date of her joining even after submissions of intermediate pass certificate in the Year 2010, but, no explanation was asked from her by the respondent authorities till her removal from service, i.e., in the Year, 2020. 7. The Respondent No. 4 issued impugned Letter No. 655 dated 10.09.2020 against the writ petitioner directing the Respondent No. 5 for terminating the contract of the writ petitioner/appellant working as Para Teacher pursuant to Letter dated 04.09.2015 issued by the Respondent No. 2. 8. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 issued letter on 04.09.2015 to the District Education Superintendent-cum- District Program Officer of all the districts stating therein last date for submitting intermediate pass certificate was June, 2008. 8. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 issued letter on 04.09.2015 to the District Education Superintendent-cum- District Program Officer of all the districts stating therein last date for submitting intermediate pass certificate was June, 2008. The Para Teachers whose qualification was matriculation directed to issue show cause notice within seven days and after five years, the writ petitioner/appellant has been removed from the service though the writ petitioner has already submitted her certificate in the Year 2010 much prior to issuance of letter dated 04.09.2015. 9. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the writ petitioner preferred writ petition for quashing of Letter No. 655 dated 10.09.2020 and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on 11.07.2023 being W.P. (S) No. 3864 of 2020. 10. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the petitioner was appointed as Para Teacher, based upon her qualification of matriculation. However, the minimum requirement so far as the educational qualification was concerned during the relevant time, was intermediate, but the State Government in order to make out mechanism so as to provide an opportunity to such candidates who have appointed as para teacher, based upon the matriculation qualification, have been given chance to obtain the intermediate certificate within the period of 3 years, in view of the decision so taken by the State Government on 30.01.2004. 11. The appellant/writ petitioner, however, has not obtained the intermediate certificate within the period of three years from 30.01.2004, rather, he has obtained the certificate sometime in the year, 2010. But in the meanwhile, the competent authority due to non-compliance of the aforesaid policy decision since, the intermediate certificate had not been submitted, has taken decision to rescind the contract of the petitioner vide letter dated 10.09.2020 as contained in letter no.655. 12. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said decision, has challenged the said order by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3864 of 2020. 13. The learned Single Judge, after calling upon the State and taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed on their behalf, has dismissed the writ petition by considering the fact that as per the policy decision, three years’ time was granted to the petitioner and identically placed para teacher to submit the intermediate certificate within the period of three years from 30.01.2004. But, but the intermediate certificate since has not been produced then the same was taken as a ground to rescind the contract of the petitioner who was working as para teacher during the relevant time. 14. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid ground of the State, has dismissed the writ petition by declining to interfere with the impugned order, against which, the present appeal. 15. Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel for appellant assisted by Mr. Jitesh Kumar, has taken the ground that the authority concerned as also the learned Single Judge have not taken into consideration the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner has discharged his duty fairly for the period of about more than 15 years and hence, equity is in her favour but without considering the said fact, the contract has been rescinded, as such, the decision of the authority, as also, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in not appreciating the aforesaid issue of equity, is the sole ground to interfere with the impugned order. 16. Per contra, Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned AC to GP-VI appearing for the State has defended the impugned order. 17. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 18. The issue which requires consideration herein is as to whether if the petitioner/appellant is not fulfilling the required eligibility criteria and even after giving an opportunity to obtain the same, if such eligibility criteria to hold the post has not been obtained, can it be available for such para teacher to take the ground of equity and merely on the ground that the writ petitioner has discharged her duty for the period of 15 years, she be allowed to continue in service. 19. This Court before answering the said issue needs to refer herein the certain undisputed fact. 20. It is evident from the pleading made that the writ petitioner at the time of appointment as para teacher was matriculate. However, the requisite qualification required was intermediate pass. 21. The authorities have taken decision in view of the mandatory command of NCTE Act, whereby and whereunder, the minimum educational qualification to hold the post of teacher from Class-I to Class-V is intermediate which is based upon the NCTE Rule. 22. However, the requisite qualification required was intermediate pass. 21. The authorities have taken decision in view of the mandatory command of NCTE Act, whereby and whereunder, the minimum educational qualification to hold the post of teacher from Class-I to Class-V is intermediate which is based upon the NCTE Rule. 22. It needs to refer that NCTE Rule is mandatory condition to be followed for the purpose of appointment of teacher as also the para teacher as per the provision of Section 23 of the Right to Education Act, 2009. 23. The aforesaid educational qualification does suggest that holding the intermediate certificate is the mandatory condition to work as a para teacher from Class-I to Class-V. 24. Admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner was not having the intermediate certificate at the time when he was appointed as para teacher. However, the Nodal Agency as has been appointed by the State, i.e., Jharkhand Education Project Council has taken decision as contained in letter no.JEPC/209 dated 30.01.2004, by which, it has been decided that all such candidates who have not possessing the intermediate certificate at the time of their appointment as para teacher, will have to obtain intermediate passed certificate within the period of 3 years from such policy decision w.e.f. 30.01.2004. 25. The petitioner/appellant has not produced the intermediate passed certificate within the period of three years which was completed on 30.01.2007. However, the petitioner has submitted the intermediate passed certificate sometime in the year, 2010. 26. In the aforesaid backdrop, the authorities have taken into consideration the aforesaid policy decision, has taken decision to rescind the contract of the petitioner who was allowed to work in pursuant of the said contract as para teacher. 27. The said order has been questioned on the ground of equity. There is no dispute that equity is required to be considered but the equity cannot be allowed to prevail upon the statutory provision, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shamsu Suhara Beevi Vrs. G. Alex, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 569 , wherein, at paragraph-11, it has been held as under:- “11. … … Grant of such a relief in the teeth of express provisions of the statute to the contrary is not permissible. On equitable considerations court cannot ignore or overlook the provisions of the statute. Equity must yield to law.” 28. G. Alex, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 569 , wherein, at paragraph-11, it has been held as under:- “11. … … Grant of such a relief in the teeth of express provisions of the statute to the contrary is not permissible. On equitable considerations court cannot ignore or overlook the provisions of the statute. Equity must yield to law.” 28. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Dhanwanti Devi, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 44 , wherein, at paragraph-11, it has been held as under:- “11. … ….It was, therefore, held in equity that the owner is entitled to interest on the principal amount of award from the date of taking possession unless the statute under which the land was acquired expresses its contrary intention. It is on this premise that the right to receive interest takes the place of right to retain possession and its enjoyment. It is equally settled law that equity operates where statute does not occupy the field. Conversely, when the statute occupies the field, the equity yields place to the statute.” 29. Further, on the ground of equity, if anybody will be allowed to hold the post, the same will allow to perpetuate the illegality, which is not permissible in the eye of law, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vrs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo, (2007) 15 SCC 129 , wherein, at paragraph-20, it has been held as under:- “20. It may be that some other persons similarly situated have been appointed. But Article 14 as is well known contains a positive concept. A writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court only when there exists a legal right in the writ petitioner and corresponding legal obligation in the State. Only because an illegality has been committed, the same cannot be directed to be perpetuated by a court of law.” 30. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [ (2013) 14 SCC 81 ] at paragraph-8, held as under:— “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [ (2013) 14 SCC 81 ] at paragraph-8, held as under:— “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible.” 31. The question of equity since is not allowed to be prevailed upon the statutory provision as per which in the present facts of the case, the minimum educational qualification for para teacher for Class-I to Class-V is the mandatory condition. 32. The writ petitioner/appellant since was not having the said educational qualification. However, the time was allowed for three years to get the said certificate but even during the said period, the certificate was not produced. 33. Therefore, the question would be that if the petitioner/appellant was lacking with the mandatory educational qualification, as has been provided under the required applicable Rule, then there cannot be any consideration, otherwise, if any consideration will be given to the petitioner as the ground is being made out that the intermediate certificate was produced in the year 2010 which suggests that the appellant/writ petitioner is seeking a relaxation of further three years. 34. 34. The relaxation is not available to be given by the Court exercising the power of Article 226 of the Constitution, reason being that if the relaxation to the petitioner then the question would be why not to the others. 35. The law is well settled in this regard, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803 . The relevant paragraphs, paragraph nos. 28 and 29 of the said judgment, are quoted hereunder as: "28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 29. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." 36. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid legal position and as per the discussion made so far as the factual aspect is concerned and coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge is of the view that if the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the mandatory command as per the rule possessing the intermediate passed certificate within three years which having not been produced and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has come out with the conclusive finding that there cannot be any extension in the said period. 37. This Court, therefore, is of the view that if the learned Single Judge has come to such conclusion, which according to the considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 38. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 39. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.