By the Court.—This batch emanates from a challenge laid to the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service (16th Amendment) Rules, 2012 (16th Amendment Rules). The aforesaid 16th Amendment Rules are liable to be read in the context of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service (15th Amendment) Rules, 2012 (15th Amendment Rules) which came to be struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P., 2013(10) ADJ 21. Initially a challenge to the 16th Amendment Rules came to be raised before a learned Single Judge of the Court, who on 18 August 2015 proceeded to hold that since Rule 14(3) of the 15th Amendment Rules had already been struck down, the 16th Amendment Rules were rendered inoperative and could not be acted upon. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the challenge to the validity of the 16th Amendment Rules and directed the State respondents to prepare a fresh list of candidates in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (1981 Rules). The special appeals emanate from this judgment of the learned Single Judge. One of the objections which was taken to the judgment of the learned Single Judge aforementioned is that he had no jurisdiction, in light of the orders then prevailing of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, to either entertain, consider or rule upon a challenge relating to the validity of a statutory enactment or Rules framed thereunder. It was therefore, contended that the judgment had been rendered without jurisdiction and was liable to fall on this short ground alone. Faced with the aforesaid objection, various independent writ petitions came to be preferred which were connected with the special appeals. These writ petitions laid an independent and renewed challenge to the 16th Amendment Rules. We further note that the State has also filed appeals against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 18 August, 2015. Apart from the said challenge, there are two petitions which stand tagged with this group namely Writ Petition No. 23938 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 54416 of 2015 both of which challenge the validity of the Guidelines dated 11 February 2011 framed by the National Councill for Teacher Education (NCTE) in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (2009 Act). Before noticing the rival submissions which fall for consideration, it would be pertinent to briefly notice the background facts since the litigation itself has a history.

2. Primary schools in the State are administered and managed by the Board of Basic Education which stands constituted under the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (1972 Act). A “basic school” under the 1972 Act is defined to mean a school where instructions are imparted from Class I to VIII. A “junior basic school” is defined to mean a school where instructions from Class I to V are imparted. For the purposes of appointment of teachers, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 of the 1972 Act has framed the 1981 Rules. Since we are concerned with the issue of appointment of Assistant Teachers, we may only note the relevant part of Rule 8 which prescribed the academic qualifications liable to be possessed by a person to be considered for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The relevant part of Rule 8 as it originally stood is extracted herein below:

(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic School

A Bachelor’s Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized 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 recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto:

Provided that the essential qualification for a candidate who has p