Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shrawan Godara vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 May, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4089/2022

1. Shrawan Godara S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Village Keru, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Presta Kamediya D/o Madhu Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Jato Ka Bas, Village Mewra, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.).

3. Esha Vaishnav D/o Om Prakash Vaishnav, Aged About 20 Years, Kothar Mohalla, Shahpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.).

4. Hari Singh S/o Kheem Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Vpo Manasar Post Phalsund, Tehsil Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

5. Asha Devi Jat D/o Ajee Ram Jat W/o Late Shri Gambhir Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Village Peepalhera, Post Tighariya, Tehsil Hidoncity, District Karauli (Raj.).

6. Pooja Sharma D/o Ramawatar Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Village Ankeshpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.).

7. Heera Gurjar D/o Bhori Lal Gurjar W/o Late Shri Ramphool Gurjar, Aged About 29 Years, Village Rampura, Post Papad, Tehsil Jamva Ramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.).

8. Shivani Sharma D/o Lakshmi Kant Sharma, Aged About 21 Years, Village Husainpur, Post Mathusura, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan Bikaner.

4. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing No. 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002, Through Its Secretary.

                                                                  ----Respondents
                             Connected With



                                           (2 of 28)                   [CW-4089/2022]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2191/2022

1. Sanwarmal S/o Chhagan Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No. 07 Chak 15 Kld, Anandgarh, Tehsil Khajuwala, District Bikaner (Raj.).

2. Girdhari Lal Saini S/o Kishor Saini, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Gangaram Wali Dhani, Hanuman Nagar Chaukri, Sikar (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan Bikaner.

4. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing No. 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2803/2022

1. Navjot Kaur D/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 20 Years, Ward No. 01, 12 F Bada, Mirzewala, Post Mirzewala, District Shriganganagar (Raj.).

2. Parmveer Singh S/o Virender Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No 6, 8 Psd-B, Rawla Mandi, Tehsil Rawla, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

3. Pramod Kumar S/o Devilal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Chak 3 Sjm, Post 4 Kpd, Tehsil Rawla, District - Shriganganagar (Raj.)

4. Sunil Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No 09, 12F Bada Mirzewala, Vpo Mirzewala, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

5. Dalip Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ward No 9, 8Psd-B, Tehsil Rawla, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

6. Kiranpal Kaur D/o Bikar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo 8 Nna, Tehsil Padampur, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

7. Tajender Singh S/o Baldev Singh, Aged About 25 Years,

(3 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

R/o Village 7G Chhoti, 6 G II, Tehsil Shriganganagar, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

8. Rohitash Kumar S/o Ranveer Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Chak 15 Spm, Post Ganeshgarh, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

9. Anil Kumar S/o Prathavi Raj, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chak 7 Dol(B), Po Khober, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

10. Raj Kumar S/o Hansraj, Aged About 28 Years, R/o House No 41, Ward No 3, Gajsinghpur, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

11. Simran Bhawaniya D/o Daya Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No 11, Keshrisinghpur, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

12. Bharat Kumar S/o Sanjay Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No 4, Near Railway Colony, Keshrisinghpur, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

13. Hans Raj S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 34 Lnp, Post Ghamudwali, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

14. Manmohan Suthar S/o Sarvan Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No 06, Vpo Mirjewala, Tehsil Shriganganagar, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

15. Simranjeet Singh S/o Satpal Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No 5, Kesrisinghpur, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

16. Amandeep Singh S/o Panna Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 139 Hanuman Colony, 5-E Chhoti, Shriganganagar (Raj.)

17. Chintan Sharma S/o Yogender Sharma, Aged About 20 Years, R/o 48 B, Karanpur Road, Bharatnagar, Shriganganagar, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

18. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shyonarayan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No 05, Ganeshgarh, Po Dungarsinghpura, District Shriganaganagar (Raj.)

19. Devendra Kumar Sharma S/o Vinod Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Lohagarh Stadium, Jaswant Nagar, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

20. Ashok Bugaliya S/o Sukha Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kheri Leela, Via Gachchhipura, Tehsil- Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

(4 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

21. Bharat Yogi S/o Rajendra, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Raseri Ka Pura, Jatwara, Teshil And District Karauli (Raj.)

22. Gurjar Indra Ruparam D/o Ruparam Gurjar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Gurjaro Ka Bas, Village- Jhareli, Teshil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.)

23. Puna Ram S/o Gebar Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vijay Nagar Naneu, Tehsil- Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

24. Arvind Chaudhary S/o Khem Singh Chaudhary, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Jaswant Nagar, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

25. Vikas Chaudhary S/o Ranveer Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Paradise Colony, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

26. Pooja Choudhary D/o Nanak Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Bhundel, District Nagaur (Raj.)

27. Vikas S/o Bhagirath Faroda, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Farod Ka Bas, Po Barni Khurad, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

28. Bhoma Ram S/o Hukama Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Buriyon Ka Tala, Vpo Lilasar, District Barmer (Raj.)

29. Jitendra Singh S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vpo Santruk, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

30. Gurjeevan Singh S/o Tarsem Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vpo Goluwala(Sihagam), Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

31. Harshit Agrawal S/o Mahesh Chand Gupta, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 31/19, Sector 3, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

32. Anurag Sharma S/o Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Plot No. 50, Shree Ji Nagar, Durgapura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

33. Manish Choudhary S/o Prhalad Choudhary, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ward No 4, Mahajno Ka Mohalla, Kereda Bujurg, Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.)

34. Abhisek Jadoun S/o Sanjeev Jadoun, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vpo Kanchanpur, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur (Raj.)

35. Deepika Sharma D/o Rupnarayan Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Behind Arun Motors, Somnath Nagar, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.)

(5 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

36. Gaurav S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Mitthi Sureran, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa (Haryana)

37. Rajani Sharma D/o Hanuman Sahay Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Plot No 125, Radhika Vihar, Agra Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur (Raj.)

38. Monika Gupta D/o Omishankar Gupta, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vallabh Nagar, Shyam Mandir Ke Pass, Nayi Mandi Road, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.)

39. Rajvardhan Singh Parmar S/o Hariom Singh Parmar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o New Adarsh Nagar, 220 Kv, Bari Road, Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.)

40. Atul Kumar S/o Nabab Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Vpo Kurka, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

41. Bhawani Singh S/o Hari Singh Bhati, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Gudu Vishnoiyan, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

42. Vishvjeet Singh Rathore S/o Mansingh Rathore, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No 1, Village Kairod, Post Kunder, Teshil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)

43. Ayush Jadon S/o Sanjeev Jadon, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vpo Kanchapur, Tehsil Bari, District Dhalpur (Raj.)

44. Saurabh Singh Bankavat S/o Rakesh Singh Bankavat, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Lakkhi Ka Nagla, Post Tasai, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj.)

45. Pankaj Kumar S/o Krishan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Hardyalpura, Ward No 07 , 15 Mor, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

46. Ram Nivas Garhwal S/o Kushla Ram Garhwal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Sundariya, Po Motlawas, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

47. Suman Chaudhary D/o Malu Ram C/o Dinesh Choudhary, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Dasana Khurd, Tehsil Didwana, District Naguar (Raj.)

48. Vandana Manda D/o Malu Ram C/o Ashok Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bandya Bera Ki Dhani, Minchawa, Mandabasni, Tehsil Diwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

49. Manoj Kumar S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Mandabasni, Tehsil Didwana , District Nagaur (Raj.)

(6 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

50. Rameshwar Manda S/o Shrawan Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vpo Manda Basni, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

51. Kamal Manda S/o Girdhari Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Manda Basni, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

52. Kuldeep Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Manohar Colony, New Bus Stand, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

53. Gaurav Sharma S/o Dhanesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No 4, Near Sbbj Bank, Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

54. Presta Kamediya D/o Madhu Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Jaton Ka Bas, Post Mevda, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

55. Kanhaiya Lal Banjara S/o Bheru Lal Banjara, Aged About 21 Years, R/o New Udaipur Road, Near Chungi Naka, Kapasan, District Chitorgarh (Raj.)

56. Jai Bhagwan S/o Daya Nand, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vpo Pathera, Tehsil Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh (Haryana)

57. Raju Choudhary S/o Ramkishar Choudhary, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Natwara, Tehsil Niwani, District Tonk (Raj.)

58. Rachana D/o Govind Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 110, Mandir Ke Pass, Nahara Chouth, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

59. Vinod Choudhary S/o Kailash Choudhary, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Sangrampura, Po Roopwas, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)

60. Suresh Gurjar S/o Badri Gurjar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bairwao Ka Mohalla, Kadeela Kadola, District Tonk (Raj.)

61. Shrawan Das S/o Pappu Das, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Bahi Ka Bas, Village Roodkali, Po Peethawas, Via Banar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

62. Gajanand Sharma S/o Shiv Ram Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bamanwas Chaugan, Po Dera, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar (Raj.)

63. Ankesh Kumar Sharma S/o Ghasee Lal Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Mahlooni, Po Badiyal Khurd, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.)

(7 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

64. Yetendra Kumar Upadhyay S/o Jitendra Kumar Upadhayay, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Adhyapak Colony, Kiri Bari, Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.)

65. Pradeep Gurjar S/o Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Near Railway Fatak, Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

66. Richa Koushik D/o Murli Dhar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No 10, Dablibas Pema, 14 Jrk B, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

67. Yogesh Kumar Verma S/o Manphool Verma, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ward No 7, Sarpanch Wali Gali, Paniwali, 14 Sdp, District Shriganganagar (Raj.)

68. Manphool S/o Shiv Lal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o 277, Dole Ke Rastepr, Roodkali, Po Peethawas, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

69. Hari Singh S/o Kheem Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Manasar, Tehsil Bhaniyana, Post Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)

70. Vikas Rakwal S/o Memraj Rakwal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Habibpur, Post Umri, Tehsil Gangpur, District Swaimadhopur (Raj.)

71. Ravi Bhati S/o Ganpat Lal Bhati, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Jaitaran, District Pali (Raj.)

72. Asha Devi Jat D/o Ajeeram Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Peepalheda, Post Tighriya, Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.)

73. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Satay Narayan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 4Jw, Jakhranwali, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

74. Pushpendra Singh S/o Jagdeesh Prasad, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Nagla Sogriya, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

75. Pooja Sharma D/o Ramwatar Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ankeshpura, Post Tuntoli, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

76. Rakesh Saini S/o Banwari Lal Saini, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Dhani Ganga Ram Wali, Hanuman Nagar Chokdi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.)

77. Aman Singh Kuntal S/o Dhara Singh Kuntal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kadgaon, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli (Raj.)

(8 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

78. Ramdhari Adhana S/o Maharaj Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Nagla Jaita, Post Maharawar, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

79. Moti Ram Gurjar S/o Panna Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Indira Colony, Vpo Nimod, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

80. Sanwar Mal S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 11 Village Bansa, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

81. Prabha Vaishnav D/o Shriram Vaishnav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 34, New Saraswati Nagar, Near Hp Gas Agency Jaitaran, District Pali (Raj.)

82. Heera Gurjar D/o Bhori Lal Gurjar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Rampura, Post Papad, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.)

83. Dipendra Singh Chauhan S/o Rajveer Singh Chauhan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Samoochi, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj.)

84. Sanwariya Lal Loda S/o Gheesa Lal Loda, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Devkheri, Post Tankawash, Teshsil Sawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)

85. Lalaram Gurjar S/o Meetha Lal Gurjar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Vpo Jodhpuriya, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk (Raj.)

86. Dinesh S/o Oma Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Roodkali, Po Peethawas, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

87. Dilkhush Choudhary S/o Shyoji Ram Choudhary, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Bhanoli, Post Balunda, District Tonk (Raj.)

88. Surbhi Kulshrestha D/o Jaiprakash Kulshrestha, Aged About 20 Years, R/o 3 Moti Colony, Chhabra, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran (Raj.)

89. Anoop Parashar S/o Pavan Kumar Parasar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Sunar Gali, Kot Para, Post Bari, District Dholpur (Raj.)

90. Santosh Kumar S/o Vijandar Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Chhokarwara Khurd, Po Chhokarwada Kalan, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

91. Dushyant Singh S/o Vidya Dhar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Jawharpura, Post Jakhora, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

(9 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

92. Narendra Gurjar S/o Shankar Lal Gurjar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vpo Jhilay, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk (Raj.)

93. Vikash Kumar Gurjar S/o Hanuman Prasad Gurjar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Vpo Bagdoli, Tehsil Bonli, District Swaimadhopur (Raj.)

94. Yogesh S/o Daya Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Vpo Azamwala, District Firozepur (Punjab)

95. Devika Choudhary D/o Daldev Ram Choudhary, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Kheriya Makara, Post Padukhurd, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur (Raj.)

96. Sahil S/o Prem Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No 04, 8Cdr, Post Kulchander, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

97. Panna Lal S/o Ruggi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Pidawali, Post Khohra, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

98. Esha Vaishnav D/o Om Prakash Vaishnav, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kothar Mohala, Shahpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

99. Rakesh S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Baniwalo Ka Bass, Jhalamaliya, Post Artiya Kalan, Pipad Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

100. Rajendra Godara S/o Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o 149, Godaron Ka Vas, Post Roodkali, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

101. Sawai Singh Rajpurohit S/o Kishor Singh Rajpurohit, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Dhaneshwar Nagar, Kolu Pabuji, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

102. Ajeet Sharma S/o Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vpo Lalpur, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur (Raj.)

103. Prem Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Taliya, Post Jajwa, District Barmer (Raj.)

104. Sawai Singh S/o Babu Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Sawaipura, Post Dhavi Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,

(10 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing No. 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4248/2022

1. Karamveer Singh S/o Dalel Singh Poonia, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Kalri, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

2. Rekha Kumari Meena D/o Banshi Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Uncha, Tehsil Jhazapur, District Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary), Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.

4. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing No. 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4858/2022

1. Kailash Chandra Vishnoi S/o Banshi Lal Vishnoi, Aged About 30 Years, Sanwal Nagar, Moolraj, Panchayat Samiti Lohawat, District Jodhpur.

2. Gulshan Prajapati S/o Harigovind Parjapati, Aged About 20 Years, Village Kherla Janetpur, Tehsil Wazeerpur, District Sawaimadhopur.

3. Pawan Vaishnav S/o Roopchand Vaishnav, Aged About 21 Years, Shivmandir, Gali No.1 Khari Ka Lamba, District Bhilwara.

4. Deepak Saini S/o Chet Ram Saini, Aged About 23 Years, Julaha Pada, Bhusawar, District Bharatpur.

(11 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

5. Sunil Bishnoi S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Village Jambheshwar Nagar, Jajiwal Bishnoiyan, Post Jajiwal Kallan, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Elementary Education And Panchayati Raj. Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan Wing No.2 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4875/2022

1. Jagdish Choudhary S/o Shri Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 25 Years, Village Khetsar, Post Dhadhaniya Bhayla, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

2. Choutha Ram S/o Shri Chutra Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Gram Godsar Post Dhadhaniya Bhayla, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

3. Mangi Lal S/o Shri Shambhu Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Gram Godsar Post Dhadhaniya Bhayla, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Elementary Education And Panchayati Raj. Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing No. 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002, Through Its Secretary.

                                                             ----Respondents





                                          (12 of 28)                [CW-4089/2022]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6273/2022

1. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Lodipura, Post Padampura, Tehsil Chirwa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

2. Sarita Kumari D/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Hamiri Khurd, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

3. Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Gowali, Post Khudania, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

4. Sunita Kumari D/o Shri Shyam Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Katrathal, Tehsil And District Sikar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. The Secretary, National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing No. 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6284/2022 Saurabh Ojha S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Ojha, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Brahmano Ki Sareri, Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing No. 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002 Through Its Secretary.

                                                                ----Respondents



                                          (13 of 28)                 [CW-4089/2022]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4460/2022

1. Somendra Kumar S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Lalita Mudiya, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

2. Pooja Kumari D/o Dev Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Lalita Mudiya, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

3. Brijesh Kumar S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Lalita Mudiya, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary Education Department, (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.

4. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing No. 2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Bishnoi.

Mr. Rakesh Arora.

Mr. Kailash Jangid.

Mr. H.R.Vishnoi.

Mr. Naresh Singh.

Mr. M.S.Shekhawat.

Mr. Anil Bishnoi.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S.Singhvi, Advocate General with Mr. K.S.Lodha.

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Deepak Chandak.

Mr. Vivek Shrimali.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

26/05/2022 The present bunch of 09 writ petitions give rise to same

issue, therefore, they are being decided by this common order,

(14 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

however, the facts of SBCWP No.4089/2022 : Shrawan Godara &

Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are illustratively taken into

consideration.

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

seeking declaration that they are eligible and entitled for

appointment as Teacher Gr.III Level I (General Education) on the

strength of their two years Diploma in Education (Special

Education) subject to undergo, after appointment, in NCTE

recognized six months special programme in elementary

education.

Further, relief has been sought that the conditions prescribed

for minimum qualification for Teacher Gr.III Level I (General

Education) in advertisement dated 31/12/2021 (Annex.6) and

relevant condition of order dated 3/3/2022 (Annex.10) which

renders the petitioners ineligible for appointment as Teacher Gr.III

Level I (General Education) be declared illegal and contrary to law.

Consequential direction has been sought to the respondents not to

reject the candidature of the petitioners and to permit them to

participate in the selection process for Teacher Gr.III Level I

(General Education) pursuant to the advertisement dated

31/12/2021 and offer appointment to them, if they fall in merit.

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the

petitioners have to their credit Diploma in Education (Special

Education) ['D.Ed. (Spl.Ed.')], which diploma is recognized by the

Rehabilitation Council of India, and they have cleared Rajasthan

Eligibility Examination for Teacher ('REET').

The respondents issued an advertisement dated 31/12/2021

for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III Level I. Total posts

(15 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

have been bifurcated into General Education & Special Education.

The eligibility condition under clause (10) inter alia with reference

to Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the

Rules, 1996') and Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Fee &

Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ('the RTE Act') refer to the

notifications dated 23/8/2010 & 29/7/2011 and indicated the

requisite qualification, which inter alia included Senior Secondary

(or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and two years Diploma

in Education (Special Education), whereafter, in brackets it has

been put (For Special Teachers). Further, in the note 10.4 it has

been indicated that a candidate, who has passed D.Ed (Spl. Ed.),

after appointment, would be required to undergo 06 months

special training programme as provided by National Council for

Teacher Education ('NCTE').

Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners have applied

for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level I (General Education). The

respondents issued provisional merit list on 27/2/022 and

candidates two times the posts advertised were provisionally

selected for document verification, wherein, the petitioners were

selected and placed in merit in their respective categories.

Subsequent thereto, an order dated 3/3/2022 (Annex.10) was

issued by the respondents providing for guidelines for scrutiny of

eligibility pursuant to the advertisement dated 31/12/2021,

wherein, it was indicated that a candidate holding D.Ed. (Spl.Ed.),

if he has applied for General Education, he would not be eligible

for any category. Whereafter, on 8/3/2022 (Annex.11) the

candidates were required to upload their documents.

(16 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that

the action of the respondents in holding the petitioners having

D.Ed. (Spl.Ed.) as ineligible for General Teachers is not justified

and contrary to the notification dated 23/8/2010 (Annex.3) as

amended by notification dated 29/7/2011. It is submitted that

under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996, the qualification for Teacher in

General Education has been prescribed as laid down by NCTE

under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the RTE Act from time to

time and the candidates must have passed REET. The minimum

qualification as prescribed under the notification for Class I to V

inter alia provides the qualification held by the petitioners and that

it further provides the requirement for candidates like the

petitioners to undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized

special programme in elementary education. The petitioners are

prepared to undergo the requisite special programme and being

qualified in terms of the Rules as well as the notifications issued

by the NCTE, the action/decision of the respondents in denying

the said eligibility to the petitioners is not justified.

Reliance has been placed on Harsh Kumar & Anr. vs. State of

U.P. : Special Appeal Defective No.130/2014 decided on 5/2/2014

by Allahabad High Court.

Further submissions have been made that against the

decision in the case of Harsh Kumar (supra), when Special Leave

Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, counsel

appearing for NCTE, on instructions, supported the decision of

Division Bench of Allahabad High Court claiming that the judgment

rendered by the High Court is absolutely correct and does not

(17 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

warrant any interference, whereafter, the Special Leave Petition

was dismissed on 13/1/2015.

It is submitted that once the NCTE itself has categorically

conceded that the petitioners fulfill the eligibility conditions for

appointment as Teachers (General Education), there is no reason

for the respondents to deny the said eligibility to the petitioners

and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard

deserves to be set aside.

Further reliance has been placed on Ram Sharan Maurya &

Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : AIR 2021 SC 954 in support of the

contention that the NCTE is specifically empowered to determine

the qualification of the appointee.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners

have been vehemently opposed by learned Advocate General. It is

inter alia submitted that D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) is imparted in different

streams, inasmuch as a person who is to teach visually impaired

students is required to have D.Ed. in Visual Impairment (V.I.), one

who is to teach mentally retarded students is required to have

D.Ed. in Mental Retardation (M.R.) and one who is to teach

students suffering from hearing impairment, D.Ed. has to be in

Hearing Impairment (H.I.), which aspect is apparent from the

perusal of mark sheets produced by the petitioners showing their

Diploma certificates in different streams of Special Education.

It is submitted that the Diploma courses undergone by the

petitioners do not impart education in general techniques of

teaching, which are required for training of General Education

Teachers.

(18 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

Submissions have been made that the claim made based on

the 06 months' bridge course is not tenable as the said bridge

course is for the purpose of upgrading teaching techniques for

specially abled persons. Submissions have also been made that till

date as the NCTE has not designed the bridge course of 06

months, the holders of D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) cannot make any claim for

consideration to the post of General Education Teacher.

Further submissions have been made that the category of

General Teachers and Special Teachers have been separately

categorized under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 with qualifications

as prescribed by NCTE, which Rule has not been challenged.

Learned Advocate General also emphasized that if the plea

as raised by the petitioners that by mere indication in the

notifications issued by the NCTE make them eligible for General

Education is accepted, then in that case, even those, who have

Diploma in General Education would be eligible for the posts

meant for Special Education and that even a candidate having

qualification in one stream of special education can claim

appointment in another stream, which will frustrate the very

purpose of recruitment for General Teachers and Special Teachers

in specific streams. It was emphasized that purposive

interpretation has to be given to the notifications issued by NCTE

so as to ensure that only those eligible for General Teacher and

Special Teacher, respectively, are recruited for the said posts.

Learned Advocate General also emphasized that after 2010

(after NCTE issued notification) the respondents have held 04

recruitments, wherein, neither any candidate having D.Ed. (Spl.

(19 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

Ed.) applied nor anyone was appointed and that the past practice

in this regard has to be followed/respected.

Submissions have also been made that Section 23 of the RTE

Act provides for qualifications for appointment and requires that

any person possessing such minimum qualification as laid down by

an academic authority, NCTE is alone eligible. As admittedly, the

qualification in this regard has to be seen on the last date of

application, the prescription made in the notification providing for

06 months bridge course after appointment falls foul of the said

provision and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard should not

be accepted.

Learned Advocate General referred to a Division Bench

Judgment in Rajendra Singh Chotiya & Anr. vs. NCTE & Ors. :

D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1853/2021 decided on 25/11/2021,

wherein, part of the NCTE notification making those holding B.Ed.

as eligible has been struck down by the Division Bench and it was

prayed that the petitions be dismissed.

Reliance has been placed on Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. vs.

Deokar's Distillery : (2003) 5 SCC 669, Amarjeet Singh & Ors. vs.

Devi Ratan & Ors. : (2010) 1 SCC 417, N.Kannadasan vs. Ajoy

Khose & Ors. : (2009) 7 SCC 1, Government (NCT of Delhi) vs.

Union of India & Ors. : (2018) 8 SCC 501, H. Suresh Nathan &

Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 584,

Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. : (2008)

2 SCC 254.

Learned counsel appearing for the NCTE, though did not file

any reply to the writ petitions, only made a statement indicating

that he has instructions to submit that in terms of the statement

(20 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harsh

Kumar (supra) by counsel for the NCTE on 26/11/2014, the

petitioners are eligible.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the

qualification, insofar as relevant, indicated in Rule 266 of the

Rules, 1996:

"Rule 266. Academic qualification - A recruit must possess minimum qualification as under:

(3) Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher (100%) by direct recruitment)

(a) General Education Qualifications as laid down by the Level - (i) Classes I to V National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009), from time to time.

(b) Special Education Qualifications as laid down by the Level (i) Classes I to V National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009), from time to time.

A perusal of the above would reveal that the Legislature in

the Rules has clearly bifurcated the post of Teacher (General

Education) and Teacher (Special Education) and has prescribed the

academic qualification as laid down by the NCTE under the

provisions of Section 23(1) of the RTE Act from time to time.

Providing of two different sub-cadres under the cadre Primary &

Upper Primary School Teacher as General Education and Special

Education under the provision by itself is significant and,

(21 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

therefore, the qualification prescribed in the notification,

apparently has to be read to the extent the same is meant for the

said post only.

The respondents issued the advertisement (Annex.6) and

indicated the posts advertised as under:

2- xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= vUrxZr v/;kid ysoy&izFke] lkekU;

f"k{kk ,oa fo"ks'k f"k{kk ds fofHkUu inksa dk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gS %& inksa dh la[;k Ø-la- inuke fo"ks'k f"k{kk lkekU; f"k{kk ;ksx MR VI HI v/;kid] ysoy

izFke 11500 233 64 143 11940

A perusal of the posts advertised indicates that the name of

the post has been indicated as Teacher Level I and posts have

been bifurcated into General Education & Special Education, which

has further been bifurcated into the streams of Mental

Retardation, Visual Impairment & Hearing Impairment.

The NCTE qualification, in terms of Rule 266 of the Rules,

1996 have been prescribed in notifications dated 23/8/2010 &

29/7/2011, which insofar as relevant, reads as under:

"1. Minimum Qualifications.-

(i) Classes I to V

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulation, 2002.

or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 - year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 - year Diploma in Education (Special Education) AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

(22 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education .- For the purpose of this Notification, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education), course recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.

3. Training to be undergone.- A person

(a) ..........

(b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme in Elementary Education."

A perusal of the posts advertised and the minimum

qualification as prescribed by the NCTE would reveal that while the

posts have been specifically bifurcated in General Education &

Special Education with further streams in terms of Rule 266 of the

Rules, 1996, the minimum qualification indicated in NCTE

notification is seemingly common for both the posts.

The petitioners seek to emphasize that as the qualification

held by them i.e two years Diploma in Education (Special

Education) has been indicated as one of the alternate

qualifications without any restriction as to General

Education/Special Education, by a plain reading of the notification

the petitioners after undergoing an NCTE recognized 6 months

special programme, after appointment, are eligible.

It is an admitted fact that NCTE has not prescribed any

separate qualifications for Teacher (Special Education) other than

those prescribed by the above notification. Therefore, in case the

argument of the petitioners regarding plain reading of the

notification for qualification purposes for the post of General

Teacher is to be read, in that case for Special Teachers, even

those, who have not done Diploma in Education (Special

(23 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

Education) would also be qualified for the said posts and besides

that as the qualification as prescribed by NCTE does not restrict

those holding Diploma in Special Education in a specific stream i.e.

either Visual Impairment or Mental Retardation or Hearing

Impairment, all those holding Diploma in any of the streams would

be eligible for all the three streams, which cannot be the intention

insofar as the notification prescribing the qualification for the posts

is concerned.

As such, the interpretation as canvassed by the petitioners,

requiring plain reading of the notification, if similarly read for the

posts of Teachers (Special Education), will lead to the

consequences, wholly undesirable.

Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the qualification as

prescribed in the notification has to be read only for the particular

post for which the eligibility has been created i.e. those holding

Diploma in Education (Special Education) would be eligible as per

their stream for the post of Teacher (Special Education) and those

holding qualification other than Diploma in Special Education

would be eligible for the post of Teacher (General Education). In

fact, the sum & substance is that the qualification prescribed by

the NCTE vide its notifications is common for respective

recruitments i.e. qua Teacher (General Education) and Teacher

(Special Education) and, therefore, the same has to be applied to

the extent as applicable to the recruitment/post.

The fact that Teachers having D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) in any

particular stream would be confined to the said stream, also

essentially is based on logic and not on the basis of any restriction

in the notification relied on by the petitioners for claiming

(24 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

eligibility for the post of Teachers with Diploma in Special

Education or General Education.

It would also be relevant to quote by way of an example the

semester wise training being imparted for Diploma in Special

Education (Hearing Impairment), which reads as under:

Semester - I

 Subject                Theory                    AREA                 Practical
  Code
T01        Introduction to Disabilities             I      Teaching Practice
TO5        Education of Children with              III     Skill Development         (Indian
           Hearing Impairment                              Sign Language)
T06        Language                      and       IV      Audiology
           Communication
T07        Fundamentals of Hearing,                IV      Audiology (VIVA)
           Hearing     Impairment  &
           Audiological Management

Semester - II

 Subject                Theory                    AREA                 Practical
  Code
T02        Educational Pshychology                  I      Teaching Practice
TO8        Fundamentals of Speech and              II      Communication Options
           Speech Teaching
                                                   III     Skill Development
                                                   IV      Speech and Language
                                                   IV      Speech       and        Language
                                                           (VIVA)

Semester - III

 Subject                Theory                    AREA                 Practical
  Code
T03        Education in the emerging              P01      Practical Area - I (Teaching
           Indian society & School                         Practice)
           Administration
TO9        Curriculum strategies and              P02      Practical Area     -    II
           Adaptations of Lessons for                      (Communication Options)
           Children    with    Hearing
           Impairment
T011       Content & Methodology             of   P03      Practical Area - III (Skill
           Teaching    Science               &             Development)
           Mathematics
T012       Content & methodology of               P04      Practical   Area         -    IV
           Teaching Social Science                         (Psychology)

Semester - IV

 Subject               Theory                 Practical                Practical
  Code                                          Code
T04        Inclusive    Education      for        P01      Practical Area - I (Teaching



                                           (25 of 28)                 [CW-4089/2022]


         Children with disabilities                    Practice)
T10      Family, Community and the           P03       Practical Area - III (CBR)
         children   with   hearing
         impairment.
                                             P04       Practical   Area   -         IV
                                                       (Audiology & Speech)
                                             P05       Practical Area - V (Full Time
                                                       Teaching Practice)
                                             P06       Practical Area - I (Teaching
                                                       Practice Final Session VIVA)
                                             P02       Practical    Area    -     II
                                                       (Individulaised     Teaching
                                                       VIVA)
                                             P07       Practical Area - III    (CBR
                                                       Activities VIVA)

In the same manner specific training is imparted for other

two streams i.e. M.R. & V.I.

The above training being imparted to the candidates of D.Ed.

(Spl. Ed.) clearly reveals that the entire emphasis is on preparing

them for teaching the specially abled students.

The above aspect gains great significance once it has been

pointed out by the respondent - State that so called special

programme in elementary education recognized by the NCTE

required to be undergone after appointment by Teachers holding

D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) has not even been prescribed by the NCTE, which

deficiency essentially would be fatal, as even after appointment, if

at all the same is granted, there would be no bridge course

available to be undergone by the candidates with D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.).

So far as the judgment in the case of Harsh Kumar (supra) is

concerned, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court essentially

was concerned with the qualification prescribed for the special

drive initiated by the Government for BTC qualified candidates,

wherein, those with D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) were held ineligible. Wherein,

the Division Bench held that once the qualification has been

(26 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

prescribed by the NCTE, the same would necessarily be binding

and it is not for the State to exclude from the zone of eligibility the

candidates, who are otherwise qualified in terms of the notification

dated 23/8/2010 as amended by notification dated 29/7/2011.

However, the aspect in terms of the recruitment Rules prescribed

therein i.e. where the post of Teacher (Special Education) was

separately indicated and/or the anomaly which is likely to arise in

case plain interpretation is given to the notification making all

those holding the qualification eligible for all the posts has not

been considered. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present

case, wherein, besides the fact that the Rules prescribe for

separate posts and the advertisement also indicates recruitment

for General Teacher & Special Teacher separately and the fact that

part of the qualification prescribing six months special

programme, being not available, having not been considered, the

said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present

case.

Further, the submission made by learned counsel appearing

for the NCTE with reference to the submissions made before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26/11/2014 that the judgment of the

Allahabad High Court do not call for any interference and,

therefore, the candidates with Diploma in Special Education would

be eligible for General Education is too general a statement

without adverting to/examining the issue as raised by the State in

its submissions. Further, the aspect of not designing of the 6

months' bridge course has also not been denied.

As the plain reading of the notification, as submitted by

learned counsel for the petitioners would lead to a strange

(27 of 28) [CW-4089/2022]

situation, as noticed hereinbefore, the notification has to be given

a purposive interpretation as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of N.Kannadasan (supra), wherein, under the

heading 'Purposive interpretation', it was laid down as under:

"55. Construction of a statute, as is well known, must subserve the tests of justice and reason. It is a well- settled principle of law that in a given case with a view to give complete and effective meaning to a statutory provision, some words can be read into; some words can be subtracted. Provisions of a statue can be read down (although sparingly and rarely)."

In the case of Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (supra), again the

Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the theory of purposive

interpretation has gained importance where the courts have to

interpret the provision in a purposive manner so as to give effect

to its true intention.

The submission made by learned Advocate General that the

provision of the notification providing for bridge course, after

appointment, falls foul of the provision of Section 23(1) of the RTE

Act cannot be considered in response to the plea raised by the

petitioners without there being any foundation in this regard

and/or challenge laid by way of a cross case. This is besides the

fact that the jurisdiction with regard to examination of the validity