Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties and the Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner has passed B.Ed. Examination in 1991. He submitted applications before the Secondary Education Service Commission, Azamgarh, in pursuance of the advertisement for BTC trained candidates for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary School but neither the fate of the application had not been communicated to him nor was called for interview. It is alleged that the B.Ed. training qualification of the petitioner is higher if not equivalent to BTC training.
3. The State Government has framed 'The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981 in exercise of power under Section 19 (1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (UP. Act No. 24 of 1972). These Rules are applicable to Basic Schools, Juniors Basic Schools and Nursery Schools run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education. Part III and IV of the Rules deal with the recruitment and qualification required for appointment of Teachers in Basic Schools. Rule 8 laying down essential qualification is as under :
'Rule 8. (2) The essential qualification of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in Sub-sections (iii) and (iv) of Clauses (h) of Rule 5 for the teaching Science, Mathematics, Craft or any language other than Hindi and Urdu shall as follows :
(i) A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto with Science, Mathematics, Craft or particular language as the case may be as one of the subject, and;
(ii) Training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teahcer's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto,'
4. It is averred that there is no provision under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 for equating the training qualification of BTC with the qualification and training of B.Ed., C.P.Ed., B.P.Ed. and D.P. Ed. for the appointment as Assistant Teacher.
5. The Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.) is a two years training imparted by the State of U.P. in 62 training centres known as District Institute of Education and Training (hereinafter referred to as the DIET). There are 100 seats allotted by the National Council for Teacher Education for each DIET. The total seats sanctioned by the National Council for Teacher Education is only 6200 for the trainees in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6. The short question in this application is (1) whether the qualifications of B.Ed., C.P.Ed, and B.P.Ed, D.P.Ed for Teachers training are equivalent and higher or compatible with the B.T.C. and (2) whether the respondents have committed any contempt in view of the subsequent decision in Yogesh Kumar and Anr. v. Government of N.T.C, Delhi and Ors., reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 453.
7. From the averments made by the petitioners in the contempt application it appears that none of the applicants having qualification other than B.T.C. have either undergone regular B.T.C. training course or have undergone special B.T.C. training course recognized by the State Government for treating them eligible and equivalent to B.T.C. qualification as per G.O. issued from time to time. It is also not the case of the applicants in the contempt application that sufficient number of B.T.C. candidates were not available for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools in pursuance of vacancies advertised in the notification. On the contrary the applicants possesses B.Ed. B.P.Ed and L.T. qualification and their candidature were not considered as they did not possess B.T.C. qualification which was advertised for the post.
8. The State Government had taken a policy decision in 1998 and Government Order dated 9.1.1998 was issued in public interest, providing that on account of shortage of B.T.C. candidates the candidates with B.Ed., L.T. C.P.Ed. or B.P.Ed. training certificates will also be eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools after undergoing B.T.C. training for six months which would equip them to teach children in Primary Schools. This training was to be known as Special B.T.C. training and was for' academic session 1997-98 to meet the shortage of B.T.C. trained candidates for filling up the posts of Assistant Teachers and was recognized as equivalent to B.T.C. training. Subsequent G.Os. have also issued for the same purpose, Relevant portion of Government Order dated 9.1.1998 is as under:
^^'kklukns'k la[;k 6339@15-5-97@547@97
Jh v[k.M izrki flag]
izeq[k lfpo]
mRrj izns'k 'kklu A
lsok esa]
funs'kd]
jkT; 'kSf{kdvuqla/kku vkSj izf'k{k.k ifj'kn] m-iz-] y[ku
f'k{kk 5 vuqHkkx y[kyfnukad 9 tuojh] 1998
fo'k; % m-iz- csfld f'k{kkifj'kn~ }kjk lapkfyr izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa lgk;d v/;kidksa ds O;oLFkk dslaca/k esa A
egksn;]
izf'k{k.k fo'k;d 'kklukns'kla[;k 911&15-5-97&18@93]fnukad 1-8-97 ,oa 'kklukns'k la[;k 5100&16-5-97&19@93]fnukad 2-9-97 ds lanHkZ esa rFkk f'k{kk funs'kd csfld ds v/nZ'kkldh; i= la[;kcs-f'k-@Mh bZ 4508@98] fnukad 23-10-97 dh vksjvkidk /;ku vkdf'kZr djrs gq, ;g dgus dk funsZ'k fn;k gS fd lEc?nfopkjksijkUr 'kklu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gsS fd mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kkifj'kn~ }kjk lapkfyr fo|ky;kas esa lgk;d v/;kidksa dh fjfDr;ksa gsrqch-Vh-lh- izf'kf{kr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vuqiyc/krk dks ns[krs gq, tufgr esalh-ih-,M-] Mh-ih-,M- ,oa ch-,M- izf'k{k.k izkIr vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks ch-Vh-lh-izf'k{k.k ysus dh lqfo/kk nh tk, mDr Js.kh esa izf'kf{kr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds iwoZvuqHko izf'k{k.k dks ns[krs gq;s ch-Vh-lh- izf'k{k.k dh vof/k dsoy 6 ekg j[khtk;sxh A rnqijkUr vkgqr izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ch-Vh-lh- lkekU;dkslZ esa izf'kf{kr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds led{k dk ekuk tk,xk vkSj ifj'knh;izkFkfed fo|ky; esa fjDr lgk;d v/;kid ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq tk,xk A ch-Vh-lh-izf'k{k.k gsrq mijksDr vgZrk izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lquus dh O;oLFkk orZekuf'k{kk l= 1997&98 ds fy, ch-Vh-lh- lkekU; izf'kf{kr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks miyC/kfjfDr;ksa dks Hkjus gsrq vuqiyC/krk ds n`f'V esa j[krs gq, dh tk jgh gS A
2& fof'k'V ch-Vh-lh-dkslZ funs'kd] jkT; 'kSf{kd vuqla/kku vkSj izf'k{k.k ifj'kn~ vko';d rF;ksadks fuEukafdr djrs gq, N% ekg dk lEiUu ,oa izf'k{k.k dk;Ze ftlds fcUnq esa i{kHkh 'kkfey gS rS;kj djk;k tk,xk ftlds vk/kkj ij p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lEcfU/krds fy, fu/kkZfjr ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa esa ;g izf'k{k.k miyC/kdjk;k tk,xk A
3& izos'k ijh{kk esa cSBus dhikorh N% ekg ds fof'k'V ch-Vh-lh- dkslZ gsrq lEcfU/kr e.My ds ,sls vH;FkhZvkosnu djus ds ik= gkasxs ftUgksaus lh-ih-,M-] ch-,M-@,y-Vh-] Mh-ih-,M-]lh-ih-,M- f'k{k.k dk;Z izns'k esa lapkfyr ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky;ksa rFkk jkT;ljdkj }kjk lapkfyr egkfo|ky;@izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky; }kjk laLFkkxr Nk= ds :i esamRrh.kZ fd;k gks rFkk ftudh vk; izf'k{k.k dk;Ze 'kq: gksus okys o'kZ esaigyh tqykbZ dks 18 o'kZ ls de rFkk 45 o'kZ ls vf/kd u gks ,oa ,slh 'kkjhfjdv{kerk u gks ftlls v/;;udk;Z ckf/kr gks] vk;q lhek esa fdlh izdkj dh NwV ns; ugksxh A**
9. In (1995) 1 UPLBEC 628, Virendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., it has been held that there; can be no comparison of equality between unequal and it is the prerogative of the authorities of decide the source of recruitment B.T.C. qualified Teachers for appointment to the post of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress in Junior Basic Schools controlled and run by the U.P, Board of Basic Education is a matter of policy decision and therefore, the decision to exclude persons already in employment from the field of consideration cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of any constitutional or legal right.
10. In (1998) 3 UPLBEC 2366, Hari Om v. State of U.P., it has been held that the B.Ed, degree is not included in the qualifications mentioned for appointment to the post Assistant Masters of the Junior Basic Schools. In U.P. the education has been categories in three parts ; (i) Basic Education; (ii) Secondary Education, and (iii) Higher Education. The Basic Education is further categories in three parts (i) Nursery Schools (ii) Junior Basic Schools, and (iii) Senior Basic Schools. The qualification for teaching in Nursery Schools is certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from recognized Training Institution in Uttar Pradesh on any other Training qualification recognized by the State Government as equivalent thereto. The qualification for the post of Assistant Master is besides other qualification B.T.C, H.T.C. to J.T.C or any other training course recognized by the State Government equivalent thereto. For the senior basic schools for teaching Science, Mathematics (Craft) or other language other than Hindi additional qualification have been prescribed. B.Ed, degree has not been recognized by the State Government as equivalent to B.T.C., H.T.C. and J.T.C. The secondary education is imparted to the students of High School and Intermediate. The Teachers appointed to teach High School and Intermediate arc required to obtain B.Ed. Degree is one of the qualifications for their appointment. Both the said training qualifications arc meant for different purpose at difference educational level. A teacher, appointed to each students of Nursery School, is required to have a different training than a teacher who is to teach in Junior Basic Schools or Senior Basic Schools. Similarly a teacher who is to teach High School and Intermediate students is required to have a different training qualification. The mere fact that a person holds a higher training qualification that what is required by the Rules docs not entitle him to be treated as qualified for teaching in Junior Basic Schools where a different kind of training is required. It is in the backdrop of the understanding the psychology of the students, their behaviour, attitude and the capacity to understand the things thought to them; the qualification for appointment has been laid down. The course of study in B.T.C, H.T.C and J.T.C are different from that of BEd. Similarly, the Teachers who arc appointed to teach in Nursery Schools, their training qualification is certificate for Teaching Nursery. The candidates who have B.T.C, H.T.C. and J.T.C. shall not be eligible for appointment to each the students of Nursery Schools.
11. In (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1774, B.Ed. Berozgar Sangh, Sonebhadra v. State of U.P., it has been held that qualifications of B.Ed. and B.T.C are for different types of children and B.Ed, is neither higher nor lower than B.T.C It was further held that if the State Government allows any other qualification to be treated as a proper qualification whenever candidates with B.T.C. qualification arc not available in sufficient number, the same policy is to be applied throughout number, the same policy is to be applied throughout (he State in every selection process.
12. In (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1743 at 1740 (All)., Smt Kiran Kumari v. State of U.P., has been held that it is for the State Government to Recognize training courses for the purpose of academic qualification of the candidates. for for the State Government to recognize or de-recognize tire certificate obtained by the candidates regarding the training courses for teaching in Junior Basic Schools from other States.
13. In 2000 (I) E.S.C. 543, Upendra Rai v. State of U.P., it has been held that qualification prescribed under Rule 18 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981 is not repugnant to any prevision of the said NCTE Act. Therefore, in the present facts Article 254 of the Constitution of India is not violated by proscription of qualification either by the said Rules or by virtue of power granted to the Government under the said Rules and no grievance can be made against such prescription under Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1981 The aforesaid provision of Rule 8 clearly indicates that qualification recognized for the said purpose have been mentioned with an additional clause to include any other training course recognized by the State Government equivalent thereto. Therefore, Government Orders issued from time to time under the aforesaid Rule 8 cannot be assailed as superseding statutory Rule.
14. In (1999) 1 UPLBEC (Summary-4), Manoj Kumar Singh v. District Basic Education Officer, Bhadohi, it has been held that B.T.C. training for a period of two years relating to teaching of children B.Ed, and L.T. is a course of one year. They are, therefore, different course, State Government has formulated a policy that in case of non-availability of B.T.C. qualification B.Ed, and L.T. qualification may be considered by they will have to undergo short training of B.T.C.
15. In AIR. 1986 SC 1448, Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University, it has been held that equivalence is not matter of objective assessment and evaluation by the Courts.
16. In AIR 1980 SC 535, J. Ranga Swami v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, it was held by the Apex Court that it was not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts and asses the comparative merits of B.T.C. (correspondence) trained Teachers with other having different qualification.
17. From the aforesaid judgments following principle emerged :
(a) Equivalence is matter of objective assessment not to be assessed by the Court and exclusion for appointment of a particular qualification docs not violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(b) It is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts and assess the comparative merits with other having different qualifications.
(c) Those candidates who have qualification as advertised in the advertisements only are entitled to apply and have right to be considered for appointment. The candidates having qualifications other than advertised are ineligible, until and unless they have under gone special training provided by the State required for being equivalent and eligible for the post.
(d) The candidates having other qualification than prescribed in the advertisement cannot be given undue gain merely because they took a chance to apply against the advertisement will not ipso-facto make them eligible for the post. This would oust other eligible candidates having required qualification as advertised and prejudice their chance of appointment by ineligible candidates.
(e) There can be no comparison of equality between unequals and it is the prerogative of the authorities to decide the source of recruitment. It is a matter of policy decision as the course of studies of different educational degrees and certificates are of different level formulated and for different object and purpose.
(f) Different qualifications are neither higher nor lower for the purpose of recruitment from the persons having particular qualification as per advertisement. It is for the State to allow any other qualification to be treated as proper qualification and same policy is to be applied throughout State in every selection process.
(g) It is for the State to recognize other training courses for the purpose of academic qualification of the candidates and recognize or de-recognize certificates obtained by the candidates regarding training courses for teaching in Junior Basic Schools.
(h) According to Rule 8 training courses recognized by the State Government can be treated equivalent to any other training course under gone by a candidate if it is in consonance with the Government Orders issued from time to time and cannot be assailed as superseding statutory Rule. The qualification prescribed under Rule 8 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 is not repugnant to any provision of the said N.C.T.E. Act and is not hit by Article 254 of the Constitution of India and does n6t suffer from any illegality.
(i) B.T.C. is a certificate of training for a period of two years relating to teaching of children of Primary Schools, B.Ed. and L.T. is a degree course of one year for teaching children above than Primary Schools. They are, therefore, different level of courses. The policy of the Government that in case of non-availability of B.T.C. qualification B.Ed. and L.T. qualification may be considered but they will have to undergo short training of B.T.C. cannot be assailed and mandamus cannot be issued to give appointment to the applicants as there is qualitative difference between B.T.C./B.Ed./L.T. and B.P.Ed, qualification.
18. In another judgment of the Apex Court In re : P.M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., it has been held that equity cannot override written law. Since trained teachers certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in Primary Classes, B.Ed. degree teachers cannot be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in Primary School. Paragraphs 10 and 13 relevant for the controversy in the present case arc quoted below.
'Para 10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed, qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed., candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of appellants, it is pointed out before us that trained Teachers certificate is given to Teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed, degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. B.Ed., degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to beholding qualification suitable for appointment as Teachers in Primary Schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed, qualification is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for post of primary Teachers as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed, qualification can also be prescribed for primary Teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. Candidates, for the present vacancies advertised as eligible.
Para 13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law. The Division Bench forgot that in extending relief on equity to B.Ed. Candidates who were unqualified and yet allowed to compete and seek appointments contrary to the terms of the advertisement it is not redressing the injustice caused to the appellants who were TTC candidates and would have secured a better position in the rank list to get appointment against the available vacancies had B.Ed. Candidates been excluded from the selections. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is illegal, inequitable and patently Unjust. The TTC candidates before us as appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the learned Single Judge restored.'
19. Similarly the question of appointment of candidates possessing qualifications like B.Ed. etc. as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools where eligibility of TTC (Teachers Training Certificate) qualification (same as B.T.C. training in U.P.) was advertised came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3879 of 2001, Yogesh Kumar and Ors. v. Government of N.T.C., Delhi and Ors., reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 453, arising out of judgment and order dated 9.2.2001 of Delhi High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 6798 of 2002. The Apex Court settled this controversy holding that B.Ed. qualification though is a well recognized qualification in the field of teaching and education but candidates having B.Ed, and other such training qualifications arc not eligible to apply for the post in pursuance of advertisement as those qualifications were not prescribed, in the advertisement and further that those candidates who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the filed of selection. The Apex Court concluded that teacher training imparted to teachers for B.Ed, course equips them for teaching higher classes, whereas B.T.C. training is imparted or teaching small children at primary level and the B.Ed, and B.T.C. training arc different and not comparable or compatible. Paragraphs 5 and 8 of the judgment arc relevant which squarely apply to the question in hands. For ready reference they are being quoted below :
'Para 5. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the above two arguments in great detail. In our considered opinion, it has rightly come to the conclusion that B.Ed. qualification, although a well recognized qualification in the field of teaching and education-being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the B.Ed, candidate, who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the filed of selection. We also find that theHigh Court rightly came to the conclusion that teacher training imparted to Teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to Teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed, degree. Merely because primary Teachers can also can promotion to the post of Teachers to teach higher classes and for which B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with B.Ed, degree qualification and latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former.
Para 8. 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 B.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. It is open to there 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 (C.A. 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 nature 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. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed., qualification can also be prescribed for primary Teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed, candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible. In our view, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was- full justified in coming to the conclusion that the authorities from selection and appointment as primary Teachers rightly excluded B.Ed, candidates.'
20. The applicants have not taken special B.T.C. training. Further qualification of B.Ed, was not prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Teachers and the applicants have no right to be . considered for appointment, as they does not have B.T.C. qualification required and advertised for the post. The applicants ought not to have applied for the post being ineligible. The applicants cannot be given undue gain in field of selection on the basis of qualification and training other than required and advertised for the post. Merely because the applicants took a chance to apply it will ipso-facto not make them eligible for the post as this would oust other eligible candidates having B.T.C. qualification.
21. There can be no comparison of equality between unequal and it is the prerogative of the authorities to decide the source of recruitment B.T.C. qualified Teachers for appointment to the post of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress in Junior Basic Schools controlled and run by the U.P. Board of Basic Education is a matter of policy decision and therefore, the decision to exclude persons already in employment from the field of consideration cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of any constitutional or legal right. This view has been affirmed in (1995) 1 UPLBEC 628, Virendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P.
22. From the G.Os, it appears that the authorities were well aware of shortage of candidates having B.T.C. qualifications and they took remedial measure and have chosen not to deviate from the source of recruitment from B.T.C. candidates, but to give special B.T.C. training to candidates possessing other teaching training qualification to overcome the shortage of B.T.C. qualified candidates. The B.Ed., B.P. Ed., C.P.Ed, and L.T. qualifications cannot be treated as higher qualification at par to B.T.C. due to their different nature and object of training. The B.Ed, qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher does not confer any right of appointment on the candidates. Thus, those candidates who have not undergone six months special training of B.T.C. as per Government Notification dated 9.1.1998 are not eligible as the training course undergone by the applicant have not been recognized by the State Government as equivalent to B.T.C. training as per Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rule, 1981. The mere fact that a person holds a higher training qualification that what is required by the Rules does not entitle him to be treated as qualified for teaching in Junior Basic School where a different kind of training is required. The course of studies by B.T.C, H.T.C. and J.T.C. are different from that of B.Ed.
23. Now it is settled position of law that for imparting different levels of. educations, different types of training courses are required for the Teachers. It does not appear to reason or justice for the Courts to prescribe a qualification or direct an authority to accept a particular qualification as a proper one,. It is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts and assess the comparative merits with other having different qualification. I am supported in my view by the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28243 of 1996, Nirmal Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P., decided on 29.10.1996, in which it has been held that when the candidates having B.Ed, qualification claimed to be treated equally for the purpose of appointment against posts requiring B.T.C. qualification then the Courts of law will be reluctant to express its view as to whether B.Ed, is equivalent to B.T.C. or being a superior qualification is required to be treated as sufficient qualification for such posts.
24. If the Government has taken decision for recruitment from candidates possessing B.T.C. qualification, then candidates having other qualification are not eligible to apply against the qualifications advertised for the post. The candidates having other qualifications than B.T.C. in such circumstances have to undergo special B.T.C. training course which would equip them for teaching children of primary classes. It is not open to the Court to choose the feeding cadre or qualification for appointment to a particular post or to allow or recognize any other qualification to be equivalent and proper qualification for the post. Considering the situation it is open to the Government to make appointment after the vacancy remains unfilled after selection by making fresh advertisement in that Region. The applicants have not stated anywhere that after the selection the post had remained unfilled because of the non-availability of the candidates possessing B.T.C. qualified candidates. The advertisement had been made notifying the vacancies for those persons who possess the qualification as required under Rule 8 of 1981 Rules. They on the basis of the advertisement are not entitled to apply for selection to the posts on the assumption that sufficient number of candidates are not available for appointment to the posts advertised.
25. The petitioners cannot assail the advertisement on the ground that they are eligible even though qualification prescribed and advertised for the post is different. Moreover the posts in pursuance of the advertisement under which he applied has also been filled up and the selection process is over.
26. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the applicants could not have applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in pursuance of advertisement and were ineligible for the post. The authorities have rightly not considered the petitioners having different qualification than advertised for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools as the judgments aforesaid impose a legal bar to their appointment. For the reasons stated above the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order to costs.