JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. The present intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge allowing Writ Appeal No. 45784 of 2014 filed by respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’). In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 19.08.2014 passed by appellant no. 1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (appellant no. 2) on the ground that the petitioner had passed T.E.T. Examination in Sanskrit language and not T.E.T. meant for teaching primary level classes. He therefore did not fulfill the eligibility prescribed for the post. In reaching to the said conclusion, reliance has been placed on the Government Order dated 15.10.2013. 2. The learned Single Judge has held that the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 does not place any such restriction. It merely requires that the candidate should have passed T.E.T. Examination. As the petitioner had duly cleared the T.E.T. Examination, though in Sanskrit language, he was held eligible for the post and accordingly, direction was issued to the appellants to issue appointment letter to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Government decided to fill up 10,000 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in primary schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad. In furtherance, it issued a Government Order dated 15.10.2013. It stipulated that the educational qualification required was graduation degree from a recognised degree college, two years BTC Course from authorised institution of the State Government and certificate of Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) meant for classes 1 to 5 i.e. primary level. The requirement of having T.E.T. certificate was an essential condition in view of the stipulations laid down in this behalf by the National Council for Teacher Education in exercise of its powers under Section 23 (1) of the Right to Education Act, 2009. The State Government, in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE, had issued Government Order dated 17.04.2013 disclosing the manner in which T.E.T. Examination would be held. The State Government, in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE, had issued Government Order dated 17.04.2013 disclosing the manner in which T.E.T. Examination would be held. According to it, T.E.T. Examination was held for four separate categories: (i) Primary Level (Classes I to V) (ii) Language Teacher - Primary Level (Classes I to V) (iii) Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII) (iv) Language Teacher - Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII) 4. In Para 2 of the said Government Order, the subjects in which candidates would be tested for T.E.T. certificate in a particular category, was specified. It reveals that a candidate who passes T.E.T. in any particular category can only teach students of that category. The candidates also had the option to appear in papers of all categories. The Guidelines issued by the State Government dated 17.04.2013 were kept in mind while taking decision to fill up 10,000 vacancies of primary teachers. This is evident from Clause 1.1 of the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 which specifically provided that the person should have passed T.E.T. meant for teaching Classes I to V. As such, the finding of learned Single Judge that there was no bar under the Government Order for a candidate possessing T.E.T. in Sanskrit language to be recruited for the post of primary teacher is manifestly incorrect. In other words, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that as per guidelines dated 17.04.2013 issued by the Government keeping in mind the notifications issued by NCTE from time to time, a candidate to be recruited for teaching primary classes from Standard I to V had to possess T.E.T. certificate of primary level and not the T.E.T. certificate of any other category. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 contains no such inhibition and the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the petitioner, who held T.E.T. certificate, though in Sanskrit Language, was fully qualified for teaching primary level classes i.e. Standard I to V. The Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2013 (10) ADJ 21 (DB) has held that NCTE Notifications prescribing eligibility have overriding effect and the same merely prescribes T.E.T. as eligibility criteria, without making any distinction between different types of T.E.T. Certificates. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. The main question, which thus arises for consideration, is whether the petitioner, on the strength of T.E.T. certificate in Sanskrit language, was eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary School in pursuance of advertisement issued in the year 2016 for filling up 10,000 vacancies. In other words, whether the test passed by the petitioner in Sanskrit language fulfilled the requirements of Teacher Eligibility Test prescribed for teachers for the Primary Schools. 7. Indisputably, the vacancies notified by advertisement issued in different newspapers in October, 2013 were for filling up posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools imparting elementary education (Standard I to V). All the schools are covered within the definition of Section 2(n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 8. Section 23 of the Act stipulates that any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. In exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Act, the Central Government issued notification dated 31st March, 2010 authorizing the NCTE as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. 9. The NCTE issued a notification dated 23.10.2010 laying down the minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act. The minimum qualifications inter-alia provided for a pass certificate in the Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. A separate set of qualifications was prescribed for teachers for Classes I to V and Classes VI to VIII. The said notification was amended by a notification dated 29.07.2011 but the prescription regarding T.E.T. test remained the same. 10. On 11.02.2011, NCTE framed guidelines for Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the appropriate governments. In pursuance of the said guidelines, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 17th April, 2013 addressed to the Director, State Education Research and Training Board, U.P. Lucknow and Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allahabad emphasizing the need for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test. On 11.02.2011, NCTE framed guidelines for Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the appropriate governments. In pursuance of the said guidelines, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 17th April, 2013 addressed to the Director, State Education Research and Training Board, U.P. Lucknow and Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allahabad emphasizing the need for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test. It refers to a previous Government Order dated 25.09.2012 by which the State Government had required the aforesaid two Authorities to submit proposal for holding T.E.T. Examination. The guidelines on basis of which T.E.T. Examination was to be conducted, was enclosed with the Government Order dated 17th April, 2013. 11. The guidelines stipulated holding of T.E.T. Examination for four different categories, namely, (i) Primary Level (Classes I to V), (ii) Language Teacher - Primary Level (Classes I to V), (iii) Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII) and (iv) Language Teacher - Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII). The guidelines provided for different course structure and content of question papers for different categories, however, liberty was given to the candidates to appear in one or more categories, so as to attain eligibility for appointment as teacher in more than one category. 12. The petitioner had passed U.P. T.E.T. 2013 of Primary Level-Sanskrit language. Now, it is to be seen whether the said certificate fulfilled the pre-eligibility prescribed for participating in the selection for recruitment of Primary Teachers of Classes I to V. The T.E.T. Certificate possessed by the petitioner for Classes I to V was awarded to him on basis of the test held by Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allahabad in accordance with the guidelines contained in Government Order dated 17th April, 2013. The structure and content of the said test as per Government Order dated 17th April, 2013 was as follows: (i) Child Development and Pedagogy 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Comprehension 30 MCQs 30 Marks (iii) Grammar 30 MCQs 30 Marks (iv) Language Expression -- 60 Marks (MCQ is acronym for Multiple Choice Question) 13. The structure and content of the said test as per Government Order dated 17th April, 2013 was as follows: (i) Child Development and Pedagogy 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Comprehension 30 MCQs 30 Marks (iii) Grammar 30 MCQs 30 Marks (iv) Language Expression -- 60 Marks (MCQ is acronym for Multiple Choice Question) 13. In clear distinction of the structure and content of T.E.T. prescribed for teacher of Primary Level - Language (Standard I to V), the structure and content of T.E.T. for Primary Teacher (Standard I to V) was as follows: (i) Child Development and Pedagogy 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Language I 30 MCQs 30 Marks (iii) Language II 30 MCQs 30 Marks (iv) Mathematics 30 MCQs 30 Marks (v) Environmental Studies 30 MCQs 30 Marks 14. The guidelines prescribed by NCTE for holding T.E.T. for Classes I to V, in terms of the structure and content of the test is exactly similar to that prescribed by the State Government vide Government Order dated 17th April, 2013. 15. The petitioner, who had passed T.E.T. meant for Classes I to V-Sanskrit language was, thus, not tested on the structure and content prescribed for T.E.T. for Classes I to V. The petitioner was not tested for Hindi language in contrast to his counter-parts, who appeared for T.E.T. I to V and had to answer questions of thirty marks in Hindi Language. Again, the petitioner was not tested for Mathematics nor for Environmental Studies, which was essential part of the structure and content of the test paper meant for students appearing for T.E.T. for Classes I to V. 16. As is the own case of the petitioner, the guidelines framed by NCTE were binding on the States while holding the T.E.T. The T.E.T. held by the State for Classes I to V was in consonance with the guidelines prescribed by NCTE in this behalf. The NCTE guidelines as well as the guidelines issued by the State Government vide Government Order dated 17th April, 2013 specifically gave an option to the candidates to appear in a specified category or in all the categories. However, the petitioner did not avail the said option and only qualified T.E.T. for Classes I to V in Sanskrit language. The NCTE guidelines as well as the guidelines issued by the State Government vide Government Order dated 17th April, 2013 specifically gave an option to the candidates to appear in a specified category or in all the categories. However, the petitioner did not avail the said option and only qualified T.E.T. for Classes I to V in Sanskrit language. He had the option to appear in T.E.T. Primary (Classes I to V) as well as T.E.T. for Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII) and Language- Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII). 17. It is pertinent to note that Government Order dated 15th October, 2013 vide Clause 1.1 specifically provided that the candidate should inter-alia possess T.E.T. Certificate for Classes I to V. The relevant part of the said clause is reproduced below: ^^1- vkosnu gsrq ik=rk ¼1½ 'kSf{kd vgZrk & lgk;d v/;kid ds inksa ij p;u@fu;qfDr gsrq ,sls vH;FkhZ ik= gksaxs] tks Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fo'ofo|ky; ls Lukrd dh mikf/k j[krs gksa] jkT; 'kSf{kd vuqla/kku ,oa Áf'k{k.k ifj"kn mRrj Áns'k }kjk vk;ksftr nks o"khZ; chŒVhŒlhŒ Áf'k{k.k] nks o"khZ; mnZw Áoh.krk chŒVhŒlhŒ Áf'k{k.k] fof'k"V chŒVhŒlhŒ Áf'k{k.k lQyrkiwoZd mRrhZ.k fd, gksa] mRrj Áns'k ljdkj vFkok Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk vk;ksftr d{kk 1 ls 5 gsrq v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk lQyrkiwoZd mRrhZ.k fd, gksaA** (Emphasis supplied) 18. Since all the posts advertised were for Primary Teachers for teaching Classes I to V and not teacher in Sanskrit language only and, therefore, the aforesaid stipulation was specifically embodied in Clause 1.1 of the Government Order dated 15th October, 2013. 19. It is noticeable that the structure and content of the tests were designed in a manner so as to test the teaching ability of a candidate to teach students of that category or subject. Thus, a teacher passing T.E.T. meant for Classes I to V was not tested nor eligible for recruitment as a teacher for Upper Primary Level i.e. Classes VI to VIII nor as a teacher for any specific language like Sanskrit, English or Urdu. Likewise, a candidate passing T.E.T. in any specific language would be eligible for consideration for appointment as a teacher of that language only. 20. Likewise, a candidate passing T.E.T. in any specific language would be eligible for consideration for appointment as a teacher of that language only. 20. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra), holding that the qualifications prescribed by NCTE are binding, though, reversed in appeal by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and Others, (2018) 12 SCC 595 still holds the field to the extent it lays down the above legal preposition. In fact, there is also no dispute about the said legal proposition, as arguments of both the sides rest on the said premise, though, giving a different interpretation to advance their respective submissions. 21. As already noted above, if we go by the stipulations prescribed by NCTE for holding T.E.T. for a person to become eligible for recruitment as Primary Teacher for Classes I to V, the T.E.T. Certificate possessed by the petitioner for Sanskrit language did not meet the specified requirements. 22. The learned Single Judge has overlooked Clause 1.1 of Government Order dated 15th October, 2013 in holding that the said Government Order did not prohibit a candidate seeking appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School to possess T.E.T. Certificate in Sanskrit language. In fact, when the said stipulation in Clause 1 of Government Order dated 15th October, 2013 is read with the guidelines issued by the State Government on 17th April, 2013 and the guidelines issued by NCTE dated 11.02.2011, the distinction between the two set of tests becomes amply clear. 23. In the result, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner, who was not having T.E.T. Certificate for teaching Classes I to V but T.E.T. Certificate in Sanskrit Language Primary Level, was not eligible for selection on the post of Primary Teacher in Junior Basic Schools in pursuance of the advertisement. 24. We, thus, find no illegality in the stand contained in the order of Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 19.08.2014, against which the writ petition was filed. 25. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. 26. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.