Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Khiraj on 14 December, 2022

Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 149/2022

1. Usha Kumari D/o Gauri Sahay Yadav, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Nangla Rudh Post Kankar Dopa, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Monu Kanwar Rathore, D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore,
Resident Of Village Tahnal Tehsil Shahpura District
Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. Anita Sharma, D/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Resident Of Village
Kherod Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk,rajasthan
4. Shoba Kumari Sharma, D/o Suresh Kumar Sharma,
Resident Of 135 Balaji Vihar Nangal Jesa Bohra Niwaru
Road Jhotwara, District Jaipur,rajasthan.
5. Sohan Lal Thalod, S/o Govind Ram Thalod, Resident Of
Sigrawat Kalla Tehsil, Didwana District Nagour, Rajasthan.
6. Pradeep Kumar Kumawat, S/o Goverdhan Lal Kumawat,
Resident Of 168, Sitarampuri Colony, Machda, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
7. Bhawar Lal Choudhary, S/o Heera Lal Choudhary,
Resident Of Chourupura, Post Lawa Tehsil Malpura,
District Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.) Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Tonk.
5. District Education Officer, (Elementary Education) Tonk.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara
7. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bhilwara
8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagour
9. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagour
10. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sikar.

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(2 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

11. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sikar
12. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar
13. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Alwar
14. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand
15. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Rajsamand
16. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hunumangarh
17. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hunumangarh
18. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore
19. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jalore
20. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur
21. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jaipur
22. Rehabilitation Council Of India, B-22, Qutub Istitutional
Area, New Delhi-110016 Through Secretary.
23. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan,
Wing 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002
Through Secretary
24. Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources Development
Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
25. Mularam S/o Girdhari Ram, Vpo Akora Tehsil Jayal District
Nagour,rajasthan.
26. Vinod Kumari D/o Jagdish Singh, Vpo Godia Wada
Ramgarh District Sikar,rajasthan.
27. Neeraj Joshi S/o Brij Raj Sharma, Aged About 35 Years,
Plot No, 7, Gautam Colony, Behind All India Radio
Bajariya Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
28. Ajay Kumar Yadav S/o Balwant Singh, Vpo Nangal
Khoriya Tehsil Behror District Alwar Rajasthan
29. Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Budha Ram Yadav, Nangal
Khoriya Behror District Alwar Rajasthan
30. Sandeep Kumar S/o Ramniwas Kumar, Village
Maharajawas Tehsil Behror District Alwar ,rajasthan.
31. Pawan Kumar Swami S/o Dulichand Swami, Ward No. 4
Behind Govt College Tehsil Suratgarh District
Shriganganagar,rajasthan.
32. Gurdas S/o Anataram, Vpo Nukhera Tehsil Sangariya
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(3 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

33. Priyanka Choudhary D/o Hemraj Choudhary, Parwati
Nagar Mahapura Chout Ka Barwara Sawai Madhopur
(Raj.)
34. Mohib Raza S/o Jamil Ahmed, Bhisti Mohalla Ward No. 8
Devli Tonk (Raj.)
35. Virendar Singh Rana S/o Shri Dhwaj Singh Rana, Tikari,
Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar (Raj.)
36. Satpal Khichar S/o Devendra Khicher, Bahiya Tehsil Rania
District Sirsa (Haryana)
37. Janak Raj S/o Ranveer Singh, Kumharia Sirsa, Tehsil
Nathusari Chopata Haryana.
38. Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Lalaram Yadav, Satpura Bavad
Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 86/2020
1. Mamta Jat D/o Shri Prakash Jat, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village Post Kunder, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk,
Rajasthan.
2. Dharmendra Choudhary S/o Shri Choutha Ram, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Dhandhaniya Bhayla, Tehsil
Balisar, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus

1. Rajni D/o Shri Tarachand, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 5/34,
Stps Colony, Prabhat Nagar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Elementary
Education And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education),
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Elementary Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
----Respondents

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(4 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 357/2020
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Barmer.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Bhanupriya Jat D/o Shri Bhanwara Ram, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Faroda Ki Dhani, Post Hathitala, Tehsil
And District Barmer, Rajasthan.
2. Goma Ram S/o Shri Khuma Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Village Dob Ki Beri, Kekar, Tehsil Sedwa, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
3. Deva Ram S/o Shri Kheema Ram, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village Pipli Beri, Bamarala, Tehsil Sedwa, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 477/2020
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Elementary
Education And Panchayati Raj, (Elementary Education),
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Elementary Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
----Appellants
Versus
Rajni D/o Shri Tarachand, Aged About 39 Years, R/o R5/34, Stps
Colony, Prabhar Nagar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 98/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(5 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Khiraj S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward
No. 6, Vpo Mirzewala, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan.
2. Anju Rani D/o Shri Shyam Sunder, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Ward No. 15, Dabli Bas Molvi, Dabli Rathan, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. Shankar Lal S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Ward No. 3, 2 H Bada, Moderan, Tehsil And District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
4. Jitendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Uma Ram Choudhary,
Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Bhadani Bas, Vpo
Palana, Tehsil And District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Rakesh Gedar S/o Shri Sukh Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Goluwala Niwadan, Tehsil Pilibanga, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 148/2022
1. Vinod Kumari D/o Jagdish Singh, Resident Of Vpo Godia
Wada Ramgarh District Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Neeraj Joshi S/o Brij Raj Sharma, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. 7, Gautam Colony, Behind All India
Radio Bajariya Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
3. Pawan Kumar Swami S/o Dulichand Swami, Resident Of
Ward No. 4 Behind Govt College Tehsil Suratgarh District
Shriganganagar, Rajasthan.
4. Virendar Singh Rana S/o Shri Dhwaj Singh Rana, Resident
Of Tikari, Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar (Raj.).
5. Satpal Khichar S/o Devender Khicher, Resident Of Bahiya
Tehsil Rania District Sirsa (Haryana).

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(6 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

6. Janak Raj S/o Ranvir Singh, Resident Of Kumharia Sirsa,
Tehsil Nathusari Chopata Haryana.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Tonk.
5. District Education Officer, (Elementary Education), Tonk.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara.
7. District Education Officer, Elementary Education)
Bhilwara.
8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur.
9. District Education Officer, Elementary Education) Nagour.
10. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sikar.
11. District Education Officer, Elementary Education) Sikar.
12. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar.
13. District Education Officer, Elementary Education) Alwar.
14. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand.
15. District Education Officer, Elementary Education)
Rajsamand.
16. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh.
17. District Education Officer, Elementary Education)
Hanumangarh.
18. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore.
19. District Education Officer, Elementary Education) Jalore.
20. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur.
21. District Education Officer, Elementary Education) Jaipur.
22. Rehabilitation Council Of India, B-22, Qutub Institutional
Area, New Delhi 110016 Through Secretary.
23. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan,
Wing 2,1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002
Through Secretary.

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(7 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

24. Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources Development
Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
25. Usha Kumari D/o Gauri Sahay Yadav, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Nangla Rudh Post Kankar Dopa Tehsil
Behror District Alwar, Rajasthan.
26. Mularam S/o Girdhari Ram, Resident Of Vpo Akora Tehsil
Jayal District Nagour, Rajasthan.
27. Monu Kanwar Rathore D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore,
Resident Of Village Tahnal Tehsil Shahpura District
Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
28. Ajay Kumar Yadav S/o Balwant Singh, Resident Of Vpo
Nangal Khoriya Tehsil Behror District Alwar, Rajasthan.
29. Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Budha Ram Yadav, Resident Of
Vpo Nangal Khoriya Tehsil Behror District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
30. Sandeep Kumar S/o Ramniwas Kumhar, Resident Of
Village Maharajawas Tehsil Behror District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
31. Anita Sharma D/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Resident Of Village
Kherod Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk, Rajasthan.
32. Shoba Kumari Sharma D/o Suresh Kumar Sharma,
Resident Of 135 Balaji Vihar Nangal Jesa Bohra Niwaru
Road Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
33. Sohan Lal Thalod S/o Govind Ram Thalod, Resident Of
Sigrawat Kalla Tehsil Didwana District Nagour, Rajasthan.
34. Pradeep Kumar Kumawat S/o Goverdhan Lal Kumawat,
Resident Of 168, Sitarampuri Colony, Machda, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
35. Gurdas S/o Anataram, Resident Of Vpo Nukhera Tehsil
Sangariya District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
36. Priyanka Choudhary D/o Hemraj Choudhary, Resident Of
Parwati Nagar Mahapura Chouth Ka Barwara Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.).
37. Mohib Raza S/o Jamil Ahmed, Resident Of Bhisti Mohalla
Ward No. 8 Devli Tonk (Raj.).
38. Bhawar Lal Choudhary S/o Heera Lal Choudhary, Resident
Of Chourupura, Post Lawa Tehsil Malpura District Tonk
(Raj.).

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(8 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

39. Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Lalaram Yadav, Resident Of
Satpura Bavad Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 150/2022
1. Gurdas S/o Anataram, R/o Vpo Nukhera Tehsil Sangariay
Dist. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Mularam S/o Girdhari Ram, R/o Vpo Akora Tehsil Jayal
Dist. Nagour, Rajasthan.
3. Ajay Kumar Yadav S/o Balwant Singh, R/o Vpo Nangal
Khoriya Tehsil Behror, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.
4. Sandeep Kumar S/o Ramniwas Kumar, R/o Village
Maharajawas Tehsil Behror, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Mohib Raza S/o Jamil Ahmed, R/o Bhisti Mohalla Ward No.
8 Devli Tonk, Rajasthan.
6. Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Lalaram Yadav, R/o Satpura
Bavad Tehsil Mundawar, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Tonk.
5. District Education Officer, (Elementary Education), Tonk.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara
7. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Bhilwara.
8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagour.
9. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagour.
10. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sikar.
11. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sikar.
12. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar.
13. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Alwar.
14. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand.

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(9 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

15. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Rajsamand.
16. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh.
17. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hanumangarh.
18. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore.
19. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jalore.
20. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur.
21. District Education Officer, Elementary, Jaipur.
22. Rehabilitation Council Of India, B-22, Qutab Institutional
Area, New Delhi-110016 Through Secretary.
23. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan,
Wing 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002
Through Secretary,
24. Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources Development
Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
25. Usha Kumari D/o Gauri Sahay Yadav, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Nangla Rudh Post Kankar Dopa, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
26. Monu Kanwar Rathore D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore,
R/o Village Tahnal Tehsil Shahpuyra District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
27. Anita Sharma D/o Mohan Lal Sharma, R/o Village Kherod
Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
28. Shoba Kumari Sharma D/o Suresh Kumar Sharma, R/o
135 Balaji Vihar Nangal Jesa Bohra Niwaru Road
Jhotwara, Dist. Jaipur, Rajasthan.
29. Sohan Lal Thalod S/o Govind Ram Thalod, R/o Of
Sigrawat Kalla Tehsil, Didwana, Dist. Nagaur, Rajasthan.
30. Pradeep Kumar Kumawat S/o Goverdhan Lal Kumawat, R/
o 168, Sitarampuri Colony, Machda, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
31. Bhawar Lal Choudhary S/o Heera Lal Choudhary, R/o
Chourupura, Post Lawa Tehsil Malpura, Dist. Tonk,
Rajasthan.
32. Vinod Kumari D/o Jagdish Singh, R/o Of Vpo Godia Wada
Ramgarh Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan.

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(10 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

33. Neeraj Joshi S/o Brij Raj Sharma, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Of Plot No. 7, Gautam Colony, Behind All India Radio
Bajariay Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
34. Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Budha Ram Yadav, R/o Nangal
Khoriya Behror, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.
35. Pawan Kumar Swami S/o Dulichand Swami, R/o Ward No.
4 Behind Govt College Tehsil Suratgarh, Dist.
Shriganganagar, Rajasthan.
36. Priyanka Choudhary D/o Hemraj Choudhary, R/o Parwati
Nagar Mahapura Chouth Ka Barwara Sawai Madhopur,
Rajasthan
37. Virendar Singh Rana S/o Shri Dhwaj Singh Rana, R/o
Tikari, Tehsil Kathumar, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.
38. Satpal Khichar S/o Devendra Khicher, R/o Bahiya Tehsil
Rania Dist. Sirsa, Haryana
39. Janak Raj S/o Ranveer Singh, R/o Kumharia Sirsa, Tehsil
Nathusari Chopata, Haryana.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 151/2022
1. Hansraj Yadav S/o Shri Dhanpat Singh, Aged About 45
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Nangal Khodiya, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Krishna Kumar Sirohiwal S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Bijorawas, Post
Nangal Khodia, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
3. Shankar Lal S/o Umrao Lal, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Pahari, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
4. Nirakar S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 33 Years, Resident
Of Village And Post Maharajwas, Tehsil Behror, District
Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Jagroop Singh, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Shivdansinghpura,
Post Khohar, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
6. Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Nimbhor, Post
Anantpura, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(11 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

7. Yogesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Prem Chand Yadav, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Gugadiya,
Post Basai, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
8. Ravi Prakash Yogi S/o Shri Prabhulal Yogi, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Ganesh Nagar,
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
9. Thandi Ram Meena S/o Shri Bharat Lal Meena, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Pooneta, Post
Mamdoli, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
10. Shankar Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Moti Lal Bairwa, Aged About
30 Years, Resident Of Mal Ki Dhani, Post Thali Tehsil
Chaksu, District Jaipur.
11. Yogesh Saini S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Saini, Aged About
25 Years, Resident Of 285, Saini Nivas, Opposite Police
Thana, Pisangan, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
12. Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramavtar Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Bhankari Tehsil Paota,
Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
13. Ishwar Chand S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of Astal, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
14. Arvind Kumar Tailor S/o Shri Anand Kumar Tailor, Aged
About 34 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Village Post
Nohta, Tonk, Rajasthan.
15. Mohan Singh S/o Shri Jeevan Singh, Aged About 37
Years, Resident Of Post Sanwalpura, Tehsil Shrimadhopur,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.
16. Prem Chand Verma S/o Shri Rewar Ram Verma, Aged
About 41 Years, Resident Of Village Maharajpura, Post
Barabharkol, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar (Raj.).
17. Yashomati D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar W/o Shri Prem
Chand Verma, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village
Maharajpura, Post Barabharkol, Tehsil Malakhera, District
Alwar, Rajasthan.
18. Manoj Kumar Gautam S/o Shri Chhitar Lal Gautam, Aged
About 35 Years, Resident Of Salpura Road, Kawai, Tehsil
Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.
19. Munshee Lal Yadav S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village-Gugariya, Post-Basai, Tehsil-Behror,
Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Appellants

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(12 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Tonk.
5. District Education Officer, (Elementary Education) Tonk.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara
7. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bhilwara
8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagour
9. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagour
10. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sikar.
11. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sikar
12. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar
13. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Alwar
14. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand
15. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Rajsamand
16. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hunumangarh
17. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hunumangarh
18. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore
19. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jalore
20. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur
21. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jaipur
22. Rehabilitation Council Of India, B-22, Qutub Istitutional
Area, New Delhi-110016 Through Secretary.
23. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan,
Wing 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002
Through Secretary
24. Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources Development
Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
25. Usha Kumari, Aged About 32 Years, Village Nangla Rudh
Post Kankar Dopa Tehsil Behror District Alwar, Rajasthan.

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(13 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

26. Mularam, Vpo Akora Tehsil Jayal District
Nagour,rajasthan.
27. Monu Kanwar Rathore D/o Bhanwar Singh Rathore,
Village Tahnal Tehsil Shahpura District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
28. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Vpo Nangal Khoriya Tehsil Behror
District Alwar Rajasthan
29. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Nangal Khoriya Behror District
Alwar Rajasthan
30. Sandeep Kumar, Village Maharajawas Tehsil Behror
District Alwar ,rajasthan.
31. Anita Sharma D/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Village Kherod
Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk, Rajasthan.
32. Shoba Kumari Sharma D/o Suresh Kumar Sharma, 135
Balaji Vihar Nangal Jesa Bohra Niwaru Road, Jhotwara,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
33. Sohan Lal Thalod S/o Govind Ram Thalod, Sigrawat Kalla
Tehsil Didwana District Nagour,rajasthan.
34. Pradeep Kumar Kumawat S/o Goverdhan Lal Kumawat,
168, Sitarampuri Colony, Machda, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
35. Gurdas, Vpo Nukhera Tehsil Sangariya District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
36. Priyanka Choudhary, Parwati Nagar Mahapura Chout Ka
Barwara Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
37. Mohib Raza, Bhisti Mohalla Ward No. 8 Devli Tonk (Raj.)
38. Bhawar Lal Choudhary S/o Heera Lal Choudhary,
Chourupura, Post Lawa Tehsil Malpura District Tonk,
Rajasthan.
39. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Satpura Bavad Tehsil Mundawar
District Alwar Rajasthan.
40. Vinod Kumari, Vpo Godia Wada Ramgarh District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
41. Neeraj Joshi, Aged About 35 Years, Plot No, 7, Gautam
Colony, Behind All India Radio Bajariya Sawai Madhopur
(Raj.)
42. Pawan Kumar Swami, Ward No. 4 Behind Govt College
Tehsil Suratgarh District Shriganganagar,rajasthan.
43. Virendar Singh Rana, Tikari, Tehsil Kathumar District
Alwar (Raj.)

(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 11:40:50 PM)
(14 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

44. Satpal Khichar, Bahiya Tehsil Rania District Sirsa
(Haryana)
45. Janak Raj, Kumharia Sirsa, Tehsil Nathusari Chopata
Haryana.
----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate
(through VC) with
Mr. Ashwinee Tarmon
Mr. Punit Singhvi
Mr. Himanshu Jain
Mr. Ankur Mathur
Mr. D.S. Sodha
Mr. Jinesh Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vinit R. Dave
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG
Mr. Rishi Soni
Mr. Dhairyaditya Rathore
Dr. Nupur Bhati
Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
Mr. Vivek Shrimali
Mr. Prateek Rohiwal
Mr. Kan Singh Oad

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Judgment

14th December, 2022
Per Hon'ble Ms. Rekha Borana, J.

The present are two sets of special appeals arising out two

bunch of writ petitions. First set of writ petitions is of the

petitioners whose writ petitions had been allowed at Principal

Seat, Jodhpur, leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.17833/2018 (Rajni Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) decided

on 09.12.2019. Other set of writ petitions are those filed by the

petitioners, which were dismissed by the Jaipur Bench of this

Court, the lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23192/2018

(15 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

(Usha Kumari & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) decided

on 20.01.2020.

The first set of special appeals (being SAW Nos.357/20,

477/20, & 98/21) have been preferred by the State against the

order whereby the writ petitions of the petitioners therein had

been allowed whereas the special appeals (SAW Nos.148/22,

149/22, 150/22 & 151/22) against the second set of writ petitions

which were dismissed, have been preferred by the petitioners

therein.

There is also a special appeal (SAW No.86/20) preferred by

the aggrieved persons/private respondents therein who were

aggrieved of the judgment passed by the Court at Jaipur Bench

while allowing the petitions.

As a common issue is involved in all the appeals, the appeals

filed at Jaipur Bench were directed to be tagged with the appeals

filed at Jodhpur and the same were ordered to be listed at

Jodhpur. All the eight appeals having been heard together and are

being decided by this Common judgment.

For the sake of convenience, the facts of D.B. Special Appeal

No.149/2022 (Usha Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) are

taken into consideration.

The issue in question is whether a person possessing

qualification of B.Ed. (General Education) coupled with one

year/two year diploma in Special Education would be entitled to be

considered for the recruitment in question. As per the

advertisement, the qualification required for Teacher Gr.III Level II

(16 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

in Special Education was graduation with atleast 50% marks and

1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) (Special Education). The case

of the petitioners before the writ Court was that they possess the

B.Ed. Degree in General Education and a diploma course in Special

Education therefore, the same be treated equivalent to B.Ed.

(Special Education). The said ground of the petitioners was

rejected by learned Single Judge at Jaipur Bench relying upon an

earlier judgment passed in the case of Sarita Sharma Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.20022/2012) decided on 22.02.2013.

On the other hand, the writ petitions filed at Principal Seat at

Jodhpur were allowed relying upon an earlier judgment of this

Court in the case of Pritam Kumar Tak Vs. State of Rajasthan

& others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14481/2012) decided

on 26.08.2014. Both the judgments as passed in the cases of

Sarita Sharma as well as Pritam Kumar Tak were affirmed by the

Division Bench. Therefore, the appellants in the special appeals

filed by the petitioners submitted that the ratio as laid down in

Pritam Kumar Tak's case should be followed whereas the

appellants in the special appeals filed by the State as well as the

private respondents submitted that the ratio as laid down in Sarita

Sharma's case should be followed.

Before adverting into the issue in question, it would be

relevant to note the essential qualification as prescribed in the

advertisement for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level II (Special

Education). The qualification as prescribed for the Teachers

(Special Education) was as under :

(17 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

"U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk Lukrd rFkk ,d o"khZ; ch-,M- ¼fo'ks"k f'k{kk½ Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) (Special Education) rFkk vaxzsth ds v/;kid ds fy;s] vH;FkhZ dks oSdfYid fo"k; ds :i esa vaxzsth fo"k; ds lkFk Lukrd ;k lerqY; ijh{kk mRrh.kZ fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg, vkSj vkosfnr fo"k; lfgr [email protected] 60 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk mRrh.kZ fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg,A 9-2 v/;kid f'k{kk 'kkL= esa fMIyksek %& bl vf/klwpuk ds lanHkZ esa dsoy jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ¼,ulhVhbZ½ }kjk ekU;rk&izkIr v/;kid f'k{kk 'kkL= esa fMIyksek ikB~;Øe ekU; gksxkA f'k{kk 'kkL= esa fMIyksek ¼fo'ks"k f'k{kk½ ds fy, dsoy Hkkjrh; iquokZl ifj"kn~ ¼vkjlhvkbZ½ }kjk ekU;rk&izkIr ikB~;Øe ekU; gksxkA "

The case of the petitioners is that as provided in clause 9.2

of the advertisement, the qualifications as prescribed by the

National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE') would be

applicable for the Teachers in General Education whereas the

qualifications as prescribed by the Rehabilitation Council of India

('RCI') would be applicable for the Teachers in Special Education.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-

petitioners that the RCI, in unequivocal terms, vide various

communications, specified that B.Ed (General Education) coupled

with one year/two year diploma in Special Education would be

equivalent to B.Ed (Special Education). Therefore, the petitioners

being possessing B.Ed. (General Education) and a diploma in

Special Education should be held entitled for consideration for the

purposes of recruitment as Teachers (Special Education). The

thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants-

petitioners has been on clause 9.2 of the advertisement which

provides that the syllabus recognised by the RCI for diploma in

Special Education would only be considered. Learned counsel

submitted that said clause itself makes a stark distinction between

(18 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

the degree/diploma recognition by NCTE and diploma recognised

by the RCI. Meaning thereby, for the purposes of General

Education, the qualifications as provided by NCTE would prevail

but for the purposes of Special Education, the qualifications as

prescribed by the RCI would prevail and when the RCI has

affirmed that the qualification of the petitioners would be

equivalent to B.Ed. (Special Education), there is no reason why

the State should not consider the same.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as

the private respondents submitted that the NCTE is the only body

authorised to prescribe the qualifications for the Teachers of all

levels and the RCI is only the regulatory body constituted for

conducting all the educational programmes and courses in Special

Education. RCI is not the authority to prescribe the qualifications

for the purposes of recruitment as Teachers therefore, even if the

qualification of the petitioners have been termed to be equivalent

to B.Ed. (Special Education) by RCI, the same cannot be

considered for the purposes of recruitment as a specific

qualification has been prescribed by the NCTE for Teacher Gr.III

Level II B.Ed.(Special Education) and the State has no authority or

power to deviate from the qualifications/conditions as prescribed

by the NCTE.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

In the Indian Constitution, after the Right to Education being

included as a fundamental right, the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009') was

(19 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

enacted. Section 23 of the Act of 2009 provides for qualifications

for appointment and terms of conditions of service for teachers.

Section 23(1) of the Act provides as under :

"23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.-(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher."

Meaning thereby, the minimum qualifications for teachers are

to be laid down by an academic authority authorised by the

Central Government. The Central Government vide its notification,

authorised NCTE to be the said academic authority. The NCTE, in

exercise of its powers, issued notification dated 23.08.2010 and

further notification dated 29.07.2011 prescribing the minimum

qualifications for appointment of teachers. Therefore, in view of

the provisions of Act of 2009, the NCTE having authorised by the

Central Government vide gazette notification, is the only authority

to prescribe the qualifications for the teachers. The RCI is a body

constituted vide the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 ('the

Act of 1992') for the purposes of regulating and monitoring the

training of rehabilitation professionals and personnel, promoting

research in rehabilitation and special education, the maintenance

of a Central Rehabilitation Register and for matters connected

therewith or incidental thereto.

Admittedly, the RCI has not been constituted in terms of Act

of 2009 and is not the body authorised by the Central Government

in terms of Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009. The powers conferred

(20 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

upon the RCI in terms of Section 29 of the Act of 1992 are as

follows :

"29. Power to make regulations.--The Council may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, make, by notification, regulations generally to carry out the purposes of this Act, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for-

(a) the management of the property of the Council;

(b) the maintenance and audit of the accounts of the Council;

(c) the resignation of members of the Council;

(d) the powers and duties of the Chairperson;

(e) the rules of procedure in the transaction of business under sub-section (3) of section 4;

(f) the function of the Executive Committee and other committees, constituted under section 7;

(g) the powers and duties of the Member-Secretary under sub-section (1) of section 8;

(h) the qualifications, appointment, powers and duties of, and procedure to be followed by, Inspectors and Visitors;

(i) the courses and period of study of of training, to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in any University or any institution for grant of recognised rehabilitation qualification;

(j) the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for study or training of the rehabilitation professionals;

(k) the conduct of examinations, qualifications of examiners, and the condition of the admission to such examinations;

(l) the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics to be observed by rehabilitation professionals under sub-section (1) of section 21;

(m) the particulars to be stated, and proof of qualifications to be given, in application for registration under this Act;

(n) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which an appeal maybe preferred under sub-section (1) of section 22;

(o) the fees to be paid on applications and appeals under this Act;

(p) any other manner which is to be, or may be, prescribed."

A bare perusal of above power clarifies that it does not

comprise of any authority or jurisdiction to prescribe qualifications

for the teachers in Special Education.

In Sarita Sharma's case (supra), dealing with the said

issue, it was observed by learned Single Judge as under :

(21 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

" If the provision of the Act of 1992 and its objects are looked into, it is for the purpose of recognition of the qualification granted by the University, etc. for rehabilitation professionals and the Institutions. The further duty is to enroll them, thus purpose of the Act is to recognize the Institutions providing education for rehabilitation profession and to their degrees and further right is to enroll professionals. In view of above, to work as rehabilitation professional, one is to possess qualification from a recognized institution and the degree apart from enrollment with RCI. The petitioner has wrongly taken it to be an authority of the RCI to provide minimum qualification to the post of teacher. It is, no doubt true that Section 2(a) defines rehabilitation professionals and it includes even Special Teachers for Education and Training of Handicapped Persons but it cannot mean an authority in favour of RCI to provide minimum qualification for appointment to any post. Section 13 of the Act of 1992 caste a restriction to practice as rehabilitation professional unless enrolled but again it may be a bar to practice as rehabilitation professional but cannot mean authority to provide educational qualification for the post of teacher. The RCI provided minimum qualification for appointment of Special Education Teacher but it is not given as to under what provision, the RCI can provide minimum qualification for appointment to the post of teacher. In any case, even if it is presumed that RCI is having authority to provide qualification for the post of Teacher, the question for my consideration would be as to whether it can operate in violation of Section 23 of the Act of 2009. The perusal of Section 23 of the Act of 2009 reveals that Central Government alone can authorize an academic authority to provide minimum qualification. The RCI has not been authorized by the Central Government for the aforesaid purpose but authorization is in favour of NCTE.

In view of the aforesaid, authority to provide minimum qualification is now with the NCTE and not with any other authority. The issue aforesaid was dealt with and decided by this Court in the case of Vikas Kumar Agarwal (supra) where even the State Government was not held competent to provide conditions for appointment other than what has been provided by the NCTE. The ratio and analogy drawn therein applies to the issue raised by the petitioner herein. In the background aforesaid, if any qualification is

(22 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

prescribed by the RCI, it cannot be taken for appointment of Special Teacher the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level - II) under the Act of 2009 and if it is applied then would be in conflict with the Notification of NCTE. It is for the reason that different exists in the qualification prescribed by the different authorities."

As noted earlier, the above view of the learned Single Judge

was affirmed by the Division Bench and holds good till date. So far

as the view taken in Pritam Kumar Tak's case is concerned, the

same would not apply to the facts of the present case as the issue

therein was related to qualifications for the post of Teacher Gr.III

Level I (Special Education) wherein the qualification prescribed

included a diploma in Special Education. The dispute was only

regarding one year and two year diploma in Special Education.

It is relevant to note that for Teacher Gr.III Level I, the

qualifications as prescribed by the NCTE itself includes a diploma

certificate in Special Education therefore, the candidates

possessing a Diploma in Special Education were found to be

eligible for the said post as the advertisement itself did not

prescribe the specific period of diploma. Consequently, both one

year diploma holders as well as two year diploma holders were

declared to be held eligible for appointment by the Court. In view

of above distinction, it can be safely concluded that the ratio as

laid down in Pritam Kumar Tak's case (supra) would not apply

to the present case and rather there is no conflict between the

ratio of Pritam Kumar Tak and Sarita Sharma's case as tried to

be portrayed by learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners.

(23 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

Sarita Sharma's case was specifically related to the Teacher

Gr.III Level II (Special Education) and the issued involved therein

was the issue akin as involved in the present matter. The

Judgment of Sarita Sharma being affirmed by the Division Bench

would definitely apply to the present matter and this Court is

bound to follow the same.

So far as other judgments cited by learned counsel for the

appellants-petitioners are concerned, all of them pertain to the

recruitment qua Teacher Gr.III Level I (Special Education) and

have been decided relying upon Pritam Kumar Tak's case (supra).

As observed above, Pritam Kumar Tak's ratio would not be

applicable in the present matter as the same is clearly

distinguishable.

So far as clause 9.2 is concerned, the same specifies that the

syllabus prescribed for diploma certificate/degree recognised by

the RCI for the purposes of special education would only be

applicable and cannot be read to mean that the qualifications itself

would be prescribed by the RCI. The only intent of the clause

which can be concluded is that a diploma/degree in special

education which is recognised by the RCI would only be termed to

be a valid diploma/degree. There can be no quarrel over the said

proposition. RCI is definitely the authority to recognise the

diploma courses as well as the degree courses pertaining to

Special Education and therefore, the degrees or certificates

issued/recognised by the RCI could only be considered for the

purposes of appointment. But by virtue of said authority, it cannot

be concluded that RCI is authorised to prescribe qualification itself.

(24 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

As observed in the preceding paras, NCTE is the only authority

authorised to prescribe the qualifications and the State is bound to

follow the same.

Admittedly, the NCTE has prescribed B.Ed. (Special

Education) qualification for Teacher Gr.III Level II (Special

Education) and Diploma (Special Education) for Teacher Gr.III

Level I (Special Education). As held in Sarita Sharma's case

(supra), providing two different qualifications for two different

level of Teachers is with a specific intent and the NCTE being the

final authority to provide the same, the same cannot be disputed.

Moreover, the validity of notifications dated 23.08.2010 and

19.07.2011, whereby the NCTE had provided for the said

qualifications was challenged in past and the said challenge was

rejected by the Division Bench of this Court. Meaning thereby, the

qualifications as prescribed are valid in eyes of law and cannot be

questioned/disputed now.

In view of above observations, we are of the specific opinion

that the judgment as passed in the case of Usha Kumari is

perfectly in consonance with law and therefore, deserves to be

affirmed.

Resultantly,

(i) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.357/2020, 477/2020, 98/2021

and 86/2020 are hereby allowed. The common impugned order

dated 09.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition Nos.16488/2018, 17833/2018 and 16619/2018 is set

aside.

(25 of 25) [SAW-149/2022]

(ii) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.148/2022, 149/2022, 150/2022

and 151/2022 are hereby dismissed and the impugned order

dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.23192/2018 is affirmed.

                                   (REKHA BORANA),J                                     (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ


                                    24-31/vij/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)