K.M. Joseph, J.

The issues raised in these appeals being common, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment.

2. Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner approached the court seeking the following reliefs:

“i. to declare the condition of obtaining two year Diploma in Elementary Education from the concerned Districts Institute of Education and Training of Uttarakhand only which excludes the two year Diploma in Elementary Education from the recognized institution of other States, in Government Elementary Education (Teachers) Service Rules 2012 as unreasonable, Arbitrary and contrary to notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by NCTE.

ii. to declare the act of respondents not inviting application vide advertisement dated 17.02.2016 from the candidates possessing two years elementary diploma course which is mandatory qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Class I to V), as Arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Uttarakhand Government to make necessary amendments in the Service Rule 2012 in accordance with the notification dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011 issued by NCTE.

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 17.02.2016 to the extent it debars the petitioner from participating in the ongoing selection process.

v. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the application form of the petitioner treating him as eligible candidate in pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.02.2016.”

3. The controversy in this case, which arises for our consideration, revolves around the appointment to the posts of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools in the State of Uttarakhand. The writ petitioner possesses two-year Diploma course in Elementary Teacher Education, which he obtained from the fourth respondent in the writ petition. The fourth respondent in the writ petition is located in New Delhi. Besides that, the writ petitioner has also obtained TET qualification.

4. On 17.02.2016, an Advertisement was issued by the Director, School Education, who is the second appellant in Special Appeal No. 173 of 2016, inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Assistant Teacher. The writ petitioner, considering himself to be qualified, made his application for the said post on 02.03.2016. It is, thereafter, that he filed the writ petition and it came before the learned Single Judge on 17.03.2016. After settling the pleadings, the matter was heard and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge took note of the qualifications of the writ petitioner and disposed of the writ petition as follows:

“22. The writ petition therefore succeeds. The advertisement dated 17.02.2016 is hereby quashed. A mandamus is hereby issued to the State Government to publish a fresh advertisement seeking applications from eligible candidates as required under the Right to Education Act and as mandated by NCTE in its notification, which may include B.Ed. candidates as well. The objection of the respondents that the relaxation which was applicable only till 31.03.2016 would prohibit the State Government from doing that is not proper inasmuch as since the recruitment drive in the present case had been initiated prior to 31.03.2016 and in any case in these vacancies, this relaxation can be given but only as a last chance for the B.Ed. candidates where they will be evaluated along with the candidates who have a Diploma in Elementary Education where candidates having a valid Diploma in Elementary Education have to be given a priority.

23. It is further made clear that in case any selections have been made so far on this basis, they shall automatically be set aside. It is further made clear that such candidates who had already applied in pursuance of the advertisement and were qualified on the date of the application shall be allowed