By the Court.—Both these special appeals arise from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 14 November 2013 by which the petitions filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution have been dismissed.

2. The appellants claim that all of them have acquired the qualification of a Diploma in Education (Special Education) (DEd) and have successfully cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and are eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools. On 15 October 2013, the State Government issued a Government Order in regard to the selection/appointment of Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad as part of a special drive for the recruitment of ten thousand teachers. The minimum educational qualifications prescribed in the Government Order for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, are :

(i) A Bachelor’s Degree from a University established by law in India;

(ii) A two years BTC Training or a two years BTC Training (Urdu) or a Special BTC Training; and

(iii) The passing of any Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the State Government or by the Central Government.

3. The appellants challenged the Government Order dated 15 October 2013 as well as an advertisement that was issued by the District Basic Education Officer in terms of the said Government Order and sought a mandamus permitting them to apply for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools.

4. The contention of the appellants was that in view of notifications that were issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on 23 August 2010 and 29 July 2011, the minimum qualifications have been prescribed by the NCTE for appointment of Assistant Teachers in primary schools for Classes I to V. Consequently, it was submitted that in view of the notifications which have been issued by the NCTE under the legislation enacted by Parliament, the qualifications, as prescribed therein must prevail and, hence, it was not open to the State Government to exclude persons, such as the appellants who hold the Diploma in Education (Special Education), which is otherwise recognized as an eligible qualification for appointment as Assistant Teachers in primary schools for teaching Classes I to V. In this regard, reliance was placed on a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (6) ADJ 310 (FB), in which it was held that the notification dated 23 August 2010 of the NCTE would have an overriding effect and could not have been ignored.

5. The learned Single Judge declined to accept the contention and by the judgment which is called in question in this appeal, held that the advertisement in question was in pursuance of a special drive that was initiated by the State Government for the recruitment of BTC qualified teachers who could not be given appointments as Assistant Teachers despite having completed the training, whether before or after 23 August 2010, on account of the fact that after the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short ‘the Act of 2009’), and the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE in its notification dated 23 August 2010 it was mandatory to pass the TET. Hence, according to the learned Single Judge, since a special drive was initiated for filling up the ten thousand vacant posts with a view to adjust such BTC qualified candidates who could not be recruited for want of TET qualification, the appellants could have no legitimate grievance. According to the learned Single Judge, the appellants could not be treated at par with candidates who are BTC qualified and for whom the special drive was initiated and there was no unreasonableness on the part of the Government in prescribing the qualification as set out in the Government Order which was challenged.

6. Assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it has been urged on behalf