MC 571/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. MR Pathak, learned standing counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties (writ petiti oners). 2. The applicants seek recall of the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.469/2011, whereby the process of recruitment of post graduate and gradu ate teachers and demonstrators of provincialised Higher Secondary/High Schools i n accordance with the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rule s, 2003 read with the provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in School) R egulation, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Regulation’) initiated through the advertisement dated 7th January 2011 and the Office Memorandum dated 4th Jan uary 2011 has been stayed. 3. The writ petitioners contended that since B. Ed. Degree is not incorpora ted under the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Rules’), such educational requirement for recru itment of teachers and demonstrators in provincialised Higher Secondary Schools and High Schools, could not have been stipulated by the recruiting authorities. 4. Appearing for the applicants, Mr. Pathak contends that education is incl uded at Entry 25 of the concurrent list of 7th Schedule of the Constitution and the Parliament enacted statutes are definitely applicable in the State. He furth er submits that under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, the National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE) has been constituted and it frame d Regulation, prescribing the qualification for appointment of teachers in schoo ls, established with aid or concurrence of the State or the Central Government. 5. It is pointed out by Mr. Pathak that under first schedule of the Regulat ion, 2003, the qualification of B.Ed. Degree has been prescribed as the minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and since the Regulations have been fr amed in exercise of statutory powers of the Central Government and the prescript ion aims to have better quality teachers, the qualification requirement prescrib ed by the advertisement is in public interest. The learned counsel further submi ts that the Regulation supersedes the provisions of the 2003 Rules to the extent , the State Rules are inconsistent with the Central Regulation. 6. However, Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the opposite parties (writ p etitioners) contends that since there is no requirement of a B. Ed. Degree presc ribed under the Rules, 2003, the recruiting authorities could not have prescribe d it as essential qualification, for appointment of teachers. Mr. Saikia also pr ays for time for the case to be argued on another date. 7. Having considered the submissions made and considering the need to impar t education through trained teachers to the students in the State, I am of the c onsidered opinion that the prescription of the B. Ed. Degree qualification serve s the cause of good quality education. It also appears that the Office Memorandu m dated 4th January 2011 issued by the by the Government strives to provide trai ned teachers at par with the rest of the country under the NCTE Regulation and c onsidering the beneficial effect on the targeted students, the balance must tilt towards the option for recruitment of trained teachers with requisite qualifica tion. Furthermore, since this requirement is in conformity with the NCTE Regulat ion, 2003 which is framed in exercise of statutory power, there may not be any j ustification to stall the process of recruitment on the basis of the advertiseme nt dated 7th January 2011 and the Office Memorandum dated 4th January 2011. 8. As regards the adjournment sought by the writ petitioners, the prayer wa s not made at the outset but only after arguments were advanced by both sides an d the Court indicated the nature of the order it intends to pass. Accordingly th e prayer made by Mr. Saikia is not found to be reasonable and the same is not be ing granted. 9. Considering all the above, the interim order passed by this Court in WP( C) No.469/2011 stands recalled. This Misc. Case stands allowed and disposed of a ccordingly.