JUDGMENT : BUDI HABUNG , J. Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned Government Advocate for State respondent No. 1; Ms. N. Anju, learned Standing Counsel, APPSC, for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3; and Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, numbering 100, challenging the notification dated 28.10.2025 issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “APPSC”), whereby candidates possessing B.Ed. (Special)/B.Ed. (Special Education) were declared ineligible for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) under the Education Department. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 16.08.2025 inviting applications for filling up 111 posts of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) under the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the PGT Recruitment Rules, 2014, as well as the advertisement dated 16.08.2025, the prescribed educational qualification for the post of PGT was “ Second Class Master’s Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized university with B.Ed .” 4. The petitioners possess a Second Class Master’s Degree in the concerned subject along with B.Ed. (Special Education)/B.Ed. (Special). On the basis of the said qualifications, the petitioners submitted their applications, and admit cards were issued to them during the month of September, 2025. 5. Subsequently, the Public Service Commission, by letter dated 09.10.2025, wrote to the Commissioner, Education Department, seeking clarification as to whether candidates possessing B.Ed. (Special Education), B.Ed. (Special Education–Learning Disability), B.Ed. (Special Education – Hearing Impairment), and B.Ed. (Special) were eligible to apply for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). 6. In response thereto, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by letter dated 15.10.2025, clarified that, as per the PGT Recruitment Rules, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) is a Second Class Master’s Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized university with B.Ed. Hence, candidates possessing any other qualification would not be considered eligible for the posts. It was further clarified that the NCTE Regulations, 2014, notified on 12.11.2024, have laid down the minimum academic and professional qualifications for recruitment of teachers at the secondary/higher secondary and senior secondary levels, and B.Ed. Hence, candidates possessing any other qualification would not be considered eligible for the posts. It was further clarified that the NCTE Regulations, 2014, notified on 12.11.2024, have laid down the minimum academic and professional qualifications for recruitment of teachers at the secondary/higher secondary and senior secondary levels, and B.Ed. (Special Education) has not been recognized as an alternative teacher education qualification for teaching Classes IX to XII. Accordingly, only the general B.Ed. qualification is acceptable for the post in question. 7. Pursuant to the said clarification, the Commission issued the impugned notification dated 28.10.2025 clarifying that, other than candidates possessing a general B.Ed. degree, candidates possessing qualifications such as B.Ed. (Special Education), B.Ed. (Special), or any qualification other than a general B.Ed. would be treated as ineligible for the posts of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). It was further stated that if any candidate is found to possess B.Ed. (Special Education), B.Ed. (Special), or any other degree other than a general B.Ed. upon further verification, the Commission reserves the right to withhold their candidature at further stages of the examination. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court, by interim order dated 31.10.2025, permitted the petitioners, who had already been issued admit cards, to participate in the written examination for the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) Recruitment Test, 2025. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, after declaration of the written examination results, only two out of the 100 petitioners qualified for the viva voce/interview, which is scheduled to be held on 18.05.2026. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that once admit cards had been issued and the petitioners were permitted by this Court to participate in the written examination, the respondents could not change the eligibility criteria midway through the selection process. It is further submitted that similarly situated persons possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) were allowed to participate and were also appointed by the Department. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are also duly qualified and, therefore, ought to be allowed to participate in the further stages of the selection process. 10. Per contra, Ms. It is further submitted that similarly situated persons possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) were allowed to participate and were also appointed by the Department. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are also duly qualified and, therefore, ought to be allowed to participate in the further stages of the selection process. 10. Per contra, Ms. Anju, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APPSC, submits that both the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement specifically prescribed “Second Class Master’s Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized university with B.Ed.” as the essential qualification. It is submitted that the petitioners, admittedly, do not possess a general B.Ed. qualification. The issuance of admit cards to the petitioners was an inadvertent administrative error, which was subsequently corrected upon the discrepancy being noticed and upon clarification being received from the Education Department. It is contended that an administrative mistake cannot override the statutory Recruitment Rules. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors v. Lata Arun reported in (2002) 6 SCC 252 and Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors v. Kamini & Ors reported in (2007) 5 SCC 519 . 11. Mr. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Education Department, submits that B.Ed. (Special Education) is a specialized qualification intended for teaching children with special needs and is distinct from a general B.Ed., which is prescribed for teaching general students in Classes IX to XII. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that separate Recruitment Rules for candidates possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) are under consideration; however, under the existing Recruitment Rules governing the present recruitment, only candidates possessing a “Second Class Master’s Degree with general B.Ed.” are eligible. 12. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the Recruitment Rules governing the post of PGT prescribe the educational qualification as “Second Class Master’s Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized university with B.Ed.” The advertisement issued by the APPSC also reiterated the very same eligibility conditions. 13. The petitioners admittedly possess B.Ed. (Special)/B.Ed. (Special Education) and not a general B.Ed. qualification. Therefore, the petitioners did not fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria even at the time of submission of their applications. 13. The petitioners admittedly possess B.Ed. (Special)/B.Ed. (Special Education) and not a general B.Ed. qualification. Therefore, the petitioners did not fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria even at the time of submission of their applications. Merely because admit cards were inadvertently issued to the petitioners cannot confer any vested right upon them to claim participation in the selection process contrary to the Recruitment Rules. It is settled law that an administrative error or inadvertence on the part of the authority cannot override statutory provisions/Recruitment Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, nor can it confer eligibility where none existed. 14. The clarification issued by the Education Department dated 15.10.2025 clearly states that B.Ed. (Special Education) is not treated as an equivalent qualification to a general B.Ed. for teaching Classes IX to XII. Based on the said clarification, the Commission rightly issued the impugned notification dated 28.10.2025 declaring such candidate’s ineligible to participate in the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) Examination, 2025. 15. The contention of the petitioners that some candidates possessing similar qualifications were appointed earlier also does not support their case. Any appointment made contrary to the Recruitment Rules cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality or to seek parity based on a wrong action. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioners, not possessing the prescribed qualification of a general B.Ed., are not eligible for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) under the existing Recruitment Rules. The impugned notification dated 28.10.2025 issued by the Commission does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit. 17. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. 18. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.