Primary teacher eligibility turns on prescribed training qualifications, with B.Ed. and L.T. not treated as equivalent.

Bachelor of Education and L.T. qualifications were not treated as equivalent to the prescribed B.T.C. qualification for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. The relevant service rules required specific training for primary-level teaching, and the court accepted that such qualifications were meant for different teaching levels. The challenge based on Article 14 also failed because the separate treatment of teachers for hill areas was held to rest on a reasonable classification, given that those conditions were not comparable to those in the plains.

---

---

Issues: Whether holders of Bachelor of Education and L.T. qualifications were entitled to be treated as eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools and whether exclusion of such candidates violated Article 14.

Analysis: The relevant service rules prescribed specific qualifications for Junior Basic Schools. Bachelor of Education and L.T. were not shown to have been declared equivalent to B.T.C. by the State Government. The qualifications were treated as designed for different teaching levels, and the Court accepted that teaching primary school children requires a distinct training background. The different treatment of teachers for hill areas was held to rest on a reasonable classification because the conditions there were not comparable to those in the plains.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no right to be considered on the basis of B.Ed. or L.T. qualifications, and no violation of Article 14 was made out.

---