R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) COULD service of petitioners, who are assistant teachers in Urdu in Junior High School, have been terminated because they had better qualifications or were more qualified than the minimum provided in rules is the interesting question that arises for consideration in this petition. Admittedly petitioners, except petitioner No. 6 who is Intermediate with Urdu, are not only Intermediate with Urdu, the minimum required under rules for being appointed as assistant teacher in Junior High School but are graduates and have Master's degree in Urdu to their credit. None of them are trained. But due to non -availability of trained teachers this condition was relaxed. Advertisement was issued inviting applications both from trained and untrained candidates Petitioners applied. They got through in written test. They were interviewed by Selection Committee. And after selection were appointed in September, 1985. In January 1986 dispute about their qualification arose. They were required to produce their High School and Intermediate certificates with Urdu as one of the subjects, certificate of training and all other certificates detail of which was mentioned in their application. This was complied. But services were terminated as they did not fulfill minimum qualification mentioned in order issued on 20th December, 1985.
(2.) COPY of this order has been filed with counter -Affidavit. It is a letter from Urdu Advisor to Director of Education. The paragraph which deals with untrained teachers and is relevant, it is mentioned that all those teachers who did not possess minimum qualifications as laid down by government or were more qualified for which there is no direction in the order, were not entitled to continue and their services should be dispensed with. In paragraph 5 of counter -affidavit it has been explained that since selection procedure for Assistant teacher of basic school provided that candidates with L.T. shall be considered only if candidates with CT/BTC/JTC/HTC were not available it was clear that persons with higher qualifications were not eligible for appointment as Assistant teacher in basic school. And since petitioners were graduates they possessed higher qualification than the minimum, therefore, they were not eligible. Better or higher qualifications make a person ineligible for a post with lesser qualification is a prosecution which is against all norms and rationality Construction of 1973 G.O. by Urdu Advisor relating to selection of teachers in Basic schools referred to in paragraph 5 of counter -affidavit is ingenious. Protection to lesser qualified or with minimum qualification against danger of ousting with higher qualification has bean confused as ineligibility. Consideration of a candidates with L.T. in case of non -availability of C.T. or B.T.C., trained does not render a person with L.T. as ineligible. Minimum qualification does not and cannot exclude maximum if intermediate is the qualification for a post then a person with B.A. or M.A. cannot be debarred from applying. He may be screened out as sufficient number of persons with minimum qualifications are available on 1973 Government order but not otherwise. Therefore, the Direction to terminate services of petitioner was wholly illegal. Apart from it how could order issued in December 1985 affect the selection of petitioner which was held in September, 1985 and was otherwise valid. If rule of preference or protection was to be applied then it should have been before written test. Once interview etc. was held and petitioners were selected they acquired right to continue till their services were terminated in accordance with rules. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders terminating services of petitioners are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.;