JUDGMENT R. B. Misra, J.
1. In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the names of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools of rural area in District Mampuri run by the Board of Education, U.P., in view of the advertisement dated 5.1.1999.
2. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri P.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
3. It appears that an advertisement dated 5.1.1999, was published for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools under Basic Education Board, U.P., Allahabad, where the prescribed educational qualification and training was to be held by the candidate along with holding the Basic Teacher Certificate, Hindustani Teacher Certificate, Junior Teachers Certificate and Intermediate Education from U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board or any qualification recognised equivalent to such qualification by the State Government. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the 'Diploma in Education' from Intermediate Education Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. On the strength of such certificate the petitioners submitted application for being considered to the post of Assistant Teacher on the claim that the certificate of 'Diploma in Education' of the petitioners are equivalent to B.T.C. of Uttar Pradesh. According to the petitioners notification dated 16.3.1986 was issued by the Education Department of Uttar Pradesh whereby "Buniyadi- Prashikshan Patropadhi" of Madhya Pradesh was recognised equivalent to B.T.C. of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter on 2.4.1997 the Secretary, State of UP., Department of Basic Education wrote to the Sanchalak (Prashasan), Lok Shiksha, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal asking whether name of 'Buniyadi Prashikshan Patropadhi' has been changed as 'Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman-Patra' and by letter dated 5.4.1997 the State of Madhya Pradesh (Lok Shikshan) informed that the name of 'Buniyadi Prashikshan Patropadhi' has been changed as 'Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra Pariksha1 and again it was changed as 'Diploma in Education', however, on 11th August, 1997 the State Government only acknowledged the B.T.C., H.T.C., J.T.C., Certificate of teaching or any other training course recognised by the State Government as the required qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the Primary Schools under Basic Education Board in reference to the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and other equivalent certificates were de-recognised w.e.f., 11.8.1997.
4. According to the respondents, the certificate of the petitioners of 'Diploma in Education' is neither recognised nor required academic qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. The Bachelor's Degree of University with training certificate consisting of B.T.C., H.T.C., J.T.C., certificate of teaching or any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto, were taken he appropriate criteria by Notification No. 2196/15.5.1998-127-97, dated 9th July, 1998, whereas, learned Counsel for the petitioners while referring the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1987 SC 2027, (Suresh Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.) has stated that the petitioners' certificates since were recognised earlier, therefore, with this hope the petitioners obtained the certificate of "Diploma in Education" from Madhya Pradesh, therefore, at subsequent stage their certificates cannot be ignored by saying that the subsequent certificates obtained by the petitioners are not recognised certificates. However, the facts of the Suresh Pal (supra) were different from the facts of the present case.
5. Following submissions have been made on behalf of the respondents :
(a) At relevant time when B.T.C. trained candidates were not available in sufficient number then the State Government issued a Circular dated 16.3.1986 by which Buniyadi Prashikshan Pratropadhi (Regular) was acknowledged as equivalent to B.T.C. of State of U.P.
(b) The State of Madhya Pradesh changed the course and syllabus and name of certificate and for later certificates, e.g., 'Diploma in Education' or 'Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra', no recognition however was granted by the State of U.P.
(c) In the year 1993 National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (in short called 'Act 1993') came into existence, by which the Central Government directed that all the training courses should have been recognised by the National Council of Training and Education and correspondence course were not acknowledged by above 'Act 1993', correspondence course can only be, done if the candidate was having two years experience of an Assistant Teacher. The State Government issued a Government Order No. 2657(1)715.5.97, by which all the equivalence were withdrawn and the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher as indicated above.
(d) The petitioners are in possession of 'Diploma in Education' obtained by Correspondence, which has never been recognised by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(e) The criteria prescribed in earlier circular dated 16.3.1986 were superseded by Government Order dated 11th August, 1997, thereafter from 16.5.1998 'Rules' were amended, by which only those candidates could be considered who are graduate along with one of the Training Certificate, among B.T.C., H.T.C., J.T.C. and T.C., however the petitioners are lacking these qualifications.
(f) Before 16.5.1998 even several advertisements were published, however, the petitioners did not apply to the post of Assistant Teacher, the rules are not challenged.
6. In one Upendra Rai case reported in (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1340, the Division Bench of this Court held that if the certificate has been obtained before the commencement of training qualification then the petitioners should not be deprived of from being considered for the appointment but it has been made clear that the petitioners' certificate have never been recognised, therefore, this judgment is not applicable to the petitioners' case. However, the Sachiv, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad informed that against this judgment Special Leave Petition No. 12623 of 2000, Sachiv, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad v. Upendra Rai and Ors., has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which is pending consideration.
7. In reference to the judgment of Smt. Kiran Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1743, it was argued that this High Court cannot issue mandamus to the State Government to recognise a particular certificate for a post.
8. In JT 2000 (Suppl) 1 SC 85, L. Muthukumar and Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., the Supreme Court has held that mere passing of any examination is not enough. It must be coupled with proper training in a recognised institute in order to get meaningful and purposeful results. As such, they must receive appropriate and adequate training institute satisfying the prescribed norms. Since the correspondence course certificate has not been recognised and it has not been issued under the prescribed standard of education for the career of the children, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be considered for the appointment.
9. According to the respondents in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 2002 SC 2642, State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Lata Arun, by virtue of derecognition of any certificate the candidate cannot be held qualified for the appointment. It was held by the Supreme Court that prescribing eligibility qualification for admission to a course is policy matter to be considered by the Appropriate Authority. It is not for the Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority as in Lata Arun (supra) the writ petitioner by virtue of possessing de-recognised Madhyama Certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, was found not entitled for admission to the course of Mid-Wifery and Staff Nurse Course.
10. The case of Upendra Rai v. State of U.P. and Ors., has been referred to strength the argument of petitioners, the same was also referred by the respondents by saying that the case of Upendra Rai (supra) was decided on the basis of Suresh Pal (supra). However, the case of Suresh Pal (supra) has been distinguished in Lata Arun (supra), where the claimant for not having possession of a recognised qualification, as such the decision of Upendra Rai (supra) cannot be helpful to the petitioner in the present case rather it goes against them.
11. By notification dated 9th July, 1998 the academic qualifications were prescribed under Rule 8(1) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, enumerated as below :--
Post Academic qualifications
(i) Mistress of Nursery Schools Certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from a recognised training institution in Uttar Pradesh or any other training qualification recognised by the
(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools.
A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other Training Course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto :
Provided that the essential qualification for a candidate who has passed the required training course shall be the same which was prescribed for admission to the said training course.
12. In Rajendra Prashad v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448, it was held that the equivalence has to be decided by the University as it was not a matter of objective assessment and evaluation by the Court. In J. Ranga Swami v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 535, it was held by the Supreme Court that it was not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. Relying upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforestated cases, it was held that it is not for the Court to assess the comparative merits of B.T.C. (Correspondence) trained teachers and parity cannot be claimed with unemployed B.T.C. candidates., Trained candidates training them as equal would tantamount to treating unequals as equal. It may be observed that candidates appearing in B.T.C. (Correspondence) training examination were not required to attend theory and practical classes regularly, whereas, regular B.T.C. training candidates have to attend theory and practical classes regularly. The object of B.T.C. (Correspondence) course as pointed out earlier was to confer status of a trained teacher to an untrained teacher already in employment. In these circumstances exclusion of B.T.C. (Correspondence) trained teachers from the field of eligibility does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The advertisement confining the field of eligibility to unemployed B.T.C. trained candidates does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. In fact exclusion of B.T.C. (Correspondence) trained teachers from the field of eligibility for purposes of appointment to the posts of Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistress in Junior Basic Schools controlled and run by 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 as indicated in Virendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., (1995) 1 UPLBEC 628 : 1995 ( 1) ESC 462 (All).
13. The mere fact that a person holds a higher training qualification than what is required by the 'Rules' does not entitle him to be treated as qualified for teaching in Junior Basic School were 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., as observed in Hari Om v. State of U.P., (1998) 3 UPLBEC 2366.
14. The 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. These are, therefore, different courses. The State Government has formulated a policy that in case of nonavailability of B.T.C. qualification B.Ed, and L.T. qualification were considered but they will have to undergo short training of B.T.C., in view of Manoj Kumar Singh v. District Basic Education Officer, Bhadohi, (1999) 1 UPLBEC (Sum) 4.
15. The qualifications of B.Ed, and B.T.C. are for different types of qualifications and B.Ed., is neither higher nor lower than B.T.C. in view of B.Ed. Berozgar Sangh, Sonebhadra v. State of U.P., (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1774 : 1997 (2) ALR 737.
16. If the State Government allows any other qualification to be treated as a proper qualification whenever candidates with B.T.C. qualifications are not available in sufficient number, the same policy is to be applied throughout the State in every selection process in the light of the observations made in B.Ed. Berozgar Sangh, Sonebhadra v. State of U.P., (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1774 : 1997 (2) ALR 737.
17. The principle of estoppel is applicable only when a person acts upon a representation made by another person. The mere fact that earlier the State Government recognised the certificates relating to Basic Education Courses completed by the candidates from outside the U.P. does not amount to any representation to such candidates that if a candidate obtains the certificate his candidature shall be taken under consideration for selection to the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. The Government has by its order dated 11.8.1997, clearly indicated that certificates regarding the Basic training course obtained from outside the State of U.P. shall not be recognised. In the advertisement dated 17.8.1997, this aspect was also made clear. Petitioner cannot claim for a writ of mandamus for treating the certificates obtained from other State as valid in view of (Smt.) Kiran Kumari v. State of U.P., 1997 (3) ESC 1856 : 1997 (1) AWC 2.39 (NOC): (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1743 at 1746 (All).
18. The 'Rule 8' of the Rules contemplates that it is for the State Government to recognise other training courses for the purpose of academic qualification of the candidates. It is for the State Government to recognise or de-recognise the certificates obtained by the candidates regarding the training courses for teaching in Junior Basic Schools from other States. In case the Government finds that large number of candidates are available who have already taken training courses provided by the institutions in the State of U.P., it can limit to the training courses taken by a candidate within the State of U.P. [(Smt.) Kiran Kumari v State of U.P., 1997(3) ESC 1856 : 1997 (1) AWC 239 (NOC): (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1743 at 1745 (All)].
19. The qualification prescribed under 'Rule 8' of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 is not repugnant to any provision of the said NCTE Act. Therefore, in the present facts Article 254 of the Constitution of India is not violated by prescription 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 a prescription under 'Rule 8' of the said Rules of 1981. The aforesaid provision of 'Rule 8' clearly indicates that qualification recognised for the said purpose have been mentioned with an additional clause to include any other training course recognised by the State Government equivalent thereto. Therefore, Government Orders issued from time-to-time under the aforesaid Rule prescribing such training course, in exercise of power under the aforesaid 'Rule 8', cannot be assailed as superseding statutory Rule in view of Upendra Rai v. State of U.P., 2000 (1) ESC 543 : (200) 1 UPLBEC 235 at 239, 240 (All).
20. If the University granting such degrees is recognised in one State, such degree is to be recognised in other State, but, with regard to training courses for different levels of education, policy is required to fix a standard and to follow it. In such subjects, the Courts are not in a position to substitute its view in place of the decision taken by any Appropriate Authority under a particular State Government. It is admitted position that for different levels of education different types of training courses are felt to be required for their teachers. In such subjects, the Courts of law are not in a position to prescribe a qualification or direct an authority to accept a particular qualification as a proper one. Under similar circumstances in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28243 of 1996, Nirmal Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P., when the candidates having B.Ed, qualification claimed to be treated equally for the purpose of appointment against posts requiring B.T.C. qualification, it was held on 29.10.1996 that in such subjects, 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. [Upendra Rai v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 UPLBEC 235 at 240].
21. In view of (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2211, Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., this Court (D.B.) has approved the refusal of the writ petitioner for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher and to obtain the B.T.C. Training Course required in an advertisement issued in pursuance of the Government Order dated 9.1.1998, whereby, it was provided that only those candidates, who had obtained C.P.Ed., B.P.Ed./L.T., D.P.Ed., B.Ed. Degrees certificates from within the State of Uttar Pradesh would alone be qualified to apply to the said post of Assistant Teachers and the writ petitioners by virtue of possession of B.Ed. Degree from the State of Madhya Pradesh (not from any College/University within the State of Uttar Pradesh) challenged the restrictions imposed through Government Order dated 9.1.1998 on the ground that ignoring their claim was discriminatory and arbitrary as the B.Ed. Degree of the writ petitioners obtained from the State of Madhya Pradesh was recognised under the N.C.T.E. Act. This Court (D.B.) has noticed that the provisions of G.O. dated 9.1.1998 was upheld in another Writ Petition No. 29107 of 1999, (Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.), decided on 19.7.1999 approving the contentions of the State Government that the said G.O. dated 9.1.1998 is to impart condensed training. The policy decision of the State Government in respect of imparting condensed training of B.T.C. only those candidates, who were covered under the said Government Order dated 9.1.1998 and the policy decision of the State Government was not said to be interferred with when challenged in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in a case of English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 550. The Court also approved the restrictions imposed by the Government Order dated 9.1.1998, which only allowed the degree holders of the State of Uttar Pradesh and such restrictions imposed by the said Government Order was said to be not violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
22. In view of the above observations, it has now become clear that the certificate of 'Diploma in Education' as held by the petitioners are not recognised by the State Government for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Schools and could not be treated required certificate and declaring equivalence in respect of a certificate is a prerogative of State Government as a policy decision and it is not a matter of objection, assessment and evaluation by the Court. The Court is also not to consider the relevance of the qualification prescribed for the various posts. Once the qualification and eligibility criteria was prescribed by the department of basic education, the same qualifications and eligibility are to be possessed by the candidates aspiring the selection to the post of Assistant Teacher and the Court, in any case, has not to issue a mandamus to recognise certain certificates possessed by a candidate and prescribing of any qualifications to a particular post by the State Government is not repugnant to the Article 254 of the Constitution, more so, when 'Rule 8' of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 does not suffer from any irregularity. From this point of view the training certificate and qualifications prescribed by the State Government cannot be assailed of. In these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
23. In view of the above observations, writ petition is dismissed.