IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 460 of 2009 Km. Sushma Pandey and others …….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition with a claim that they have done their Nursery Teacher’s Training Course (from hereinafter referred to as “NTT”) from an institute known as “Manav Bharti Teachers Training Institute”, Dehradun, which is recognised by the National Council for Teacher’s Education (N.C.T.E.), Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur, and therefore they are liable to be appointed as primary school teachers as they hold the required qualification. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had applied for the posts of primary school teachers in response to an advertisement. As per the qualification, which is given in U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School must have the following qualification : “ 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 Teachers Certificate, Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior Teacher’s Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training Course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto :” 2 It is not disputed that the petitioners have a graduation degree from the recognised university. The dispute is only regarding the second qualification, which is a teaching qualification. The petitioners are not having any of the qualification prescribed under the statute. They, however, claim that although they are not having the qualification as referred above, nonetheless they are having a qualification which is equivalent to that which has been prescribed. To strengthen this contention the petitioners have relied upon an order of the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Council, Allahabad dated 4.1.1986 (Annexure no. 14 of the writ petition), which states that the Certificate of Teaching in Nursery has been granted equivalence to that of B.T.C. The State, however, in its counter affidavit objects and states that the said Government Order pertains to a “Certificate of Teaching in Nursery” and the petitioners do not have a Certificate of Teaching in Nursery and, therefore, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the Certificate of Teaching is granted equivalence to that of B.T.C., it cannot be equated with Nursery Teachers Training Course (NTT), the qualification which the petitioners have. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Tiwari has then urged that there is in fact no difference between C.T. (Nursery) and NTT inasmuch as the course, the contents, the duration of the two courses are the same and NTT is recognised by a statutory body known as the National Council for Teacher’s Education. It is not for this Court to grant equivalence to education qualifications, as this aspect is within the realm of a policy decision. The law on this is well-settled. The principal case being State of Rajasthan and others 3 v. Lata Arun (AIR 2002 SC 2642). The power exclusively vests with the State Government and the State Government in its wisdom has chosen not to grant NTT certificate (which the present petitioners have) as equivalence to that of B.T.C. The writ petition, therefore, has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to make proper representation before the concerned authorities where the petitioners may state their case before the State authority. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 26.2.2010 Avneet