Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sher Singh And Ors vs Dinesh Singh And Ors on 27 April, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1464 / 2016
1. Sher Singh S/o Shri Murari Lal ,, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Kohrana, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan)
2. Satish Kumar S/o Shri Dilip Singh,, R/o Village Ramsar, Post
Pacheri Chhoti, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
3. Sudhir Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar,, R/o Ward No. 9,
Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.
4. Om Prakash Sharam S/o Shri Ram Dayal Sharma,, Aged About
26 Years, R/o VPO Nagal Jathwara, Tehsil Hindaun, Distt. Karauli.
5. Avinash Sharma S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma,, R/o 43 K,
Indra Colony, Ganesh Nagar, Chomu District Jaipur (raj.)
6. Mahendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Dayaram Yadav,, Aged About
32 Years, R/o VPO Pathredi, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur.
7. Raju Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh,, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Bilada, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dinesh Singh S/o Karan Singh, B/c Charan,, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Bhauji Ki Dhani, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar.
2. Rajendra Singh S/o Gahad Singh, Aged About 26 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o Khakoli, Via Phagalwa, Tehsil Dhodi, Distt. Sikar.
3. Sumer Dhariwal S/o Bhanwarlal Dhariwal,, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Dhani D.S.Pura, Ratan Nagar, Churu.
4. Vikram Singh S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o Balaji Ka Nada, Dharamshala Beri, Sikar.
5. Dharmendra Kumar Bhinchar S/o Shri Rahdeva Ram Bhinchar
B/c Jat,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Tarpura, Sikar.
6. Surendra Kumar S/o Awad Dan, Aged About 27 Years, B/c
Charan, R/o Nedwa, Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhwati, Distt. Sikar.
7. Mukesh Kumar S/o Hanuman Jyani, Aged About 26 Years, B/c
Jat, R/o P.O. Thandi, Tehsil Raisinghnagar,distt. Sriganganagar.
8. Mahendra Singh Darji S/o Bheru Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Arniyali, Tehsil Chhotimanna, Distt. Barmer.
(2 of 38)
[ SAW-1464/2016]
9. Ranjeet Singh S/o Hanumanram ,Aged About 38 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o Tarpura, Tehsil Sikar Dist. Sikar.
10. Manju W/o Mukesh Kumar, B/c Jat,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Gothada Bhukran Via Kudan, Distt. Sikar.
11. Mahendra Kumar S/o Kishore Kumar, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Gungara, Via Piprali, Distt. Sikar.
12. Manu Kanwar W/o Upendra Singh, B/c Rajput,, R/o Dakas,
Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, Distt. Sikar.
13. Ramesh Kumar Chahar S/o Bhinwa Ram, R/o
Chandrasinghpura, Post Jane, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, Distt. Sikar.
14. Chandan Singh Shekhawat S/o Raghuveer Singh, R/o Rok
Badi, Laxmangarh.
15. Suresh Rayal S/o Narayanram, R/o Bhawanipura (Thevadi)
Tehsil Deedwana, Distt. Nagaur.
16. Narpat Singh S/o Kailash Dan, R/o Dhani Charan Birmi, Tehsil
Malsisar, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
17. Mukesh Kumar S/o Angrej Singh, Aged About 22 Years, B/c
Jat, R/o Bharwana, Tehsil Bhdra Distt. Hanumangarh.
18. Sumitra Chabarwal D/o Bodu Ram Chabarwal,, R/o Lodsar,
Tehsil Sujangarh, Distt. Churu.
19. Vikram Singh Soda S/o Ramswarup Soda, Aged About 23 B/c
Balai, About 23 Years, R/o Chawara, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Dist.
Jhunjhunu.
20. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department
of Education,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
21. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,, State of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
22. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan,, Bikaner.
23. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan,, Ajmer Through
Secretary.
24. National Council for Teachers Education (wing II), Hans
Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Through Secretary.
...........Respondents
Connected With (3 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1489 / 2016
1. Manish Mohan Bohra S/o Hanuman Sahay Bohra,, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Amala, Post Bhangdoli, Tehsil Thanagazi, Distt. Alwar (Roll No. 102019481)
2. Kamlesh Kumar Patel S/o Ramlal Patel,, Aged About 23 Years, R/o V&P Kojawara, Tehsil Rishabhdeo, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.) (Roll No. 102021366)
3. Yogesh Akhadi S/o Natwar Lal Akhadi,, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Post Bhiluda, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 103016134)
4. Ganesh Lal Chaturvedi S/o Sh. Amba Lal Chaturvedi,, Aged About 28 Years, R/o VPO Dayli, Tehsil Sarada, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.) ( Roll No. 103018395)
5. Bhoopendra Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh,, Aged About 34 Years, V&P Abhorra, Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 128005403)
6. Gaurav Miglani S/o Shiv Kumar ,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Near L.B.S. School Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (raj.) (roll No. 115023328)
7. Rajanee Sharma D/o Prabhu Dayal Sharma,, Aged About 22 Years, V & P Katarwada, Post Badiyal Khurd, Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dausa (raj.) (roll No. 112012551)
8. Rekha Sharma D/o Dinesh Chand Sharma, W/o Yogesh Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, C/o Sheetal Prasad Sharma, Karamchari Colony, Behind New Mandi, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
----Appellants Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,, Govt. of Rajasthan , Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education,, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
.......Respondents
3. Hitesh Gamot S/o Ashok Kumar Gamot,, Aged About 24 Years, Vill. & Post Paloda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (raj.) (roll No. 103006504)
4. Hamendra Patidar S/o Jivatram Patidar, Aged About 27 Years, V&P Paloda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (raj.) (roll No. 103018440) (4 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
5. Kaushal Gaur S/o Laxminarayan Gaur,, Aged About 25 Years, V&P Pichuna, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (raj.) (roll No. 122003723)
6. Poonam Jain D/o Mahaveer Jain,, Aged About 22 Years, V&P Paloda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (raj.)
7. Chhotelal Sharma S/o Badri Narayan Sharma,, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Mahalooni, Post Badiyal Khurd, Via Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dausa (raj.)
8. Ajay Singh S/o Siyaram,, Aged About 24 Years, Village Subedar Pura, Post Seeloti, Tehsil & District Karauli (raj.)
9. Pushpendra Singh S/o Sahab Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V&P Nahida, Tehsil Mahwa, Distt. Dausa (raj.)
10. Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Babu Lal Sharma,, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Laxmi Vilash Near Katta Hospital, Baswa Road, Bandikui, Distt. Dausa (raj.) .............Performa Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1509 / 2016
1. Manoj Sen, Son of Shri Ratan Lal Sen, Aged About 22 Years, by Caste Sen, R/o VPO Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar
2. Rajkumar, Son of Shri Mahaveer Sihag, by Caste Jat, R/o Paniwali Jattan, Tehsil Sadul Sahar, District Ganganagar
3. Sanjay Tank, Son of Shri R P Tank, by Caste Tank, R/o VPO Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar
4. Sahi Ram Nai, Son of Shri Hazari Ram Nai, by Caste Nai, R/o VPO Ramsiosar, Chhajlalia, Tehsil Sardar Sahar, District Churu
5. Krishan Gopal Sharma, Son of Shri Ram Niwas Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident of Palthana Via Khodi Badi, District Sikar
----Appellants Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Elementry Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (5 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
4. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer Through Secretary
5. National Council for Teachers Education (Wing II) Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Through Secretary
6. Dinesh Singh S/o Karan Singh, B/c Charan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bhauji Ki Dhani, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Dist. Sikar
7. Rajendra Singh S/o Gahad Singh, B/c Rajput, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Khakoli, Via Phagalwa, Tehsil Dhodh, Distt. Sikar
8. Sumer Dhariwal S/o Bhanwarlal Dhariwal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani D.S. Pura, Ratan Nagar, Churu
9. Vikram Singh S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Balaji Ka Nada, Dharamshala Beri, Sikar
10. Dharmendra Kumar Bhinchar S/o Rahdeva Ram Bhinchar, B/c Jat, Aged About 30 Years, Tarpura, Sikar
11. Surendra Kumar S/o Awad Dan, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Charan, R/o Nedwa, Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, Distt. Sikar
12. Mukesh Kumar S/o Hanuman Jyani, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Jat, R/o P.O. Thandi, Tehsil Raisingnagar, Distt. Sriganganagar
13. Mahendra Singh Darji S/o Bheru Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Arniyali, Tehsil Chhotimanna, Distt. Barmer
14. Ranjeet Singh S/o Hanumanaram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Tarpura, Tehsil Sikar Dist. Sikar
15. Manju W/o Mukesh Kumar B/c Jat, Aged About 30 Years, Gothada Bhukran, Via Kudan, Dist. Sikar
16. Mahender Kumar, S/o Kishore Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gungara, Via Piprali, Dist. Sikar
17. Manu Kanwar, W/o Upendra Singh, B/c Rajput, Dakas, R/o Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, Dist. Sikar
18. Ramesh Kumar Chahar, S/o Bhinwa Ram, R/o Chandrasinghpura, Post Jana, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, Dist. Sikar
19. Chandan Singh Shekhawat, S/o Raghuveer Singh, Rok Badi, Laxmangarh
20. Suresh Rayal, S/o Narayanram, R/o Bhawanipura (Thevadi) Tehsil Deedwana, Dist. Nagaur (6 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
21. Narpat Singh, S/o Kailash Dan, Dhani Charan, Birmi, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu
22. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Angrej Singh, Aged About 22 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Bharwana, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh
23. Sumitra Chabarwal, D/o Bodu Ram Chabarwal, R/o Lodsar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dist. Churu
24. Vikram Singh Soda, S/o Ramswarup Soda,, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Balai, R/o Chawara, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Dist. Jhunjhunu
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1510 / 2016 Mahendra Gurjar S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Raghunathpura, Post Ranipura, Tehsil Uniyara, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. Dinesh Singh S/o Karan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Charan, R/o Bhauji Ki Dhani, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar
2. Rajendra Singh S/o Gahad Singh, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Kakoli, Via Phagalwa, Tehsil Dhodi, Distt. Sikar
3. Sumer Dhariwal S/o Bhanwarlal Dhariwal,, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani D.S. Pura, Ratan Nagar, Churu
4. Vikram Singh S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Balaji Ka Nada, Dharamshala, Beri, Sikar
5. Dharmendra Kumar Bhinchar S/o Shri Rahdeva Ram Bhinchar, by Caste Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Tarpura, Sikar
6. Surendra Kumar S/o Awad Dan, Aged About 27 Years, by Caste Charan, R/o Nedwa, Tehsil Ramgarh, Shekhawati, Distt. Sikar
7. Mukesh Kumar S/o Hanuman Jyani, Aged About 26 Years, by Caste Jat, P.O. Thandi, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Distt. Sriganganagar
8. Mahendra Singh Darji S/o Bheru Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Arniyali, Tehsil Chhotimanna, Distt. Barmer
9. Ranjeet Singh S/o Hanumanaram, Aged About 38 Years, by Caste Jat, R/o Tarpura, Tehsil Sikar, Dist. Sikar
10. Manju W/o Mukesh Kumar, by Caste Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gothada Bhukran Via Kudan, Distt. Sikar (7 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
11. Mahendra Kumar S/o Kishore Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, Gungara, Via Piprali, Distt. Sikar
12. Manu Kanwar W/o Upendra Singh, by Caste Rajput, R/o Dakas, Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, Distt. Sikar
13. Ramesh Kumar Chahar S/o Bhinwa Ram, R/o Chandrasinghpura, Post Jane, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, Distt. Sikar
14. Chandan Singh Shekhawat S/o Raghuveer Singh, R/o Rok Badi, Laxmangarh
15. Suresh Rayal S/o Narayanram, R/o Bhawanipura (Thevadi) Tehsil Deedwana, Distt. Nagaur
16. Narpat Singh S/o Kailash Dan, R/o Dhani Charan Birmi, Tehsil Malsisar, Distt. Jhunjhunu
17. Mukesh Kumar S/o Angrej Singh, Aged About 22 Years, by Caste Jat, R/o Bharwana, Tehsil Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh
18. Sumitra Chabarwal D/o Bodu Ram R/o Chabarwal, Lodsar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Distt. Churu
19. Vikram Singh Soda S/o Ramswarup Soda, Aged About 23 Years, by Caste Balai, R/o Chawara, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu
20. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
21. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
22. Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner
23. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer through Its Secretary, Ajmer
24. National Council for Teacher Education (Wing II) Through Secretary, Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Through Secretary
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1511 / 2016
1. Dharmendra Kumar Bhinchar S/o Rahdeva Ram Bhinchar B/c Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Tarpura, Sikar
2. Vikram Singh, S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Balaji Ka Nada, Dharamshala Beri Sikar (8 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
3. Surendra Kumar, S/o Awad Dan, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Charan, R/o Nedwa, Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, Dist. Sikar
4. Manju, W/o Mukesh Kumar, B/c Jat, Aged About 30 Years, Gothada Bhukran, Via Kudan, Dist. Sikar
----Appellants Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
4. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer Through Secretary
5. National Council for Teachers Education (Wing II) Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Through Secretary ............Respondents
6. Dinesh Singh, S/o Karan Singh, B/c Charan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bhauji Ki Dhani, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Dist. Sikar
7. Rajendra Singh, S/o Gahad Singh, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Khakoli, Via Phagalwa, Tehsil Dhodh, Dist. Sikar
8. Sumer Dhariwal, S/o Bhanwarlal Dhariwal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani D.S. Pura, Ratan Nagar, Churu
9. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Hanuman Jyani, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Jat, R/o P.O. Thandi, Tehsil Raisingnagar, Dist. Sriganganagar
10. Mahendra Singh Darji, S/o Bheru Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Arniyali, Tehsil Chhotimanna, Dist. Barmer
11. Ranjeet Singh S/o Hanumanaram Aged About 38 Years, by Caste Jat, R/o Tarpura, Tehsil Sikar Dist. Sikar
12. Mahender Kumar S/o Kishore Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gungara, Via Piprali, Dist. Sikar
13. Manu Kanwar W/o Upendra Singh B/c Rajput, R/o Dakas, Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, Dist. Sikar
14. Ramesh Kumar Chahar, S/o Bhinwa Ram, R/o Chandrasinghpura, Post Jana, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, Dist. Sikar (9 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
15. Chandan Singh Shekhawat S/o Raghuveer Singh, R/o Rok Badi, Laxmangarh
16. Suresh Rayal, S/o Narayanram, R/o Bhawanipura (Thevadi) Tehsil Deedwana, Dist. Nagaur
17. Narpat Singh S/o Kailash Dan, R/o Dhani Charan, Birmi, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu
18. Mukesh Kumar S/o Angrej Singh Aged About 22 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Bharwana, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh
19. Sumitra Chabarwal, D/o Bodu Ram Chabarwal, R/o Lodsar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dist. Churu
20. Vikram Singh Soda S/o Ramswarup Soda, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Balai, R/o Chawara, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Dist. Jhunjhunu
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1543 / 2016
1. Vinod Kumar Gaur S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Gaur, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Mukam Paroliya, Post Nipaniya, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran (Raj.)
2. Gopesh Kumar Upadhyaya S/o Shri Shivnarayan Upadhyaya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ramvilas Palace, Parshuram Colony, Karauli (Raj.)
3. Kapil Kumar Bhati S/o Shri Mangilal Bhati, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Purani Kachari Ke Pass, Chhipon Ka Bass, Bali, District Pali (Raj.)
4. Ganesharam Chiga S/o Shri Gumanaram Chiga, R/o Village Shekhasar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.)
5. Purkha Ram Maitha S/o Shri Magaram Maitha, R/o Village Sadhuna, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.)
6. Satyaveer Singh S/o Shri Sunder Lal, R/o Village & Post Jalawas, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.)
7. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, R/o Village & Post Gorir, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
8. Malkhan Singh Mali S/o Shri Babulal Mali, R/o Village Mamchari, Post Kalyani, Tehsil & District Karauli (Raj.).
9. Deepak Prasad Thakur S/o Shri Girija Shankar Thakur, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village & Post Badodiya, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (10 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
10. Udaram S/o Shri Kesharam, R/o Village & Post Satara, Tehsil & District Churu (Raj.)
11. Bhoopendra Singh S/o Shri Hardayal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o VPO Gagwana, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
12. Naresh Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Mool Shanker Joshi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o VPO Gagwana, Tehsil Gashi, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
13. Rakesh Kumar Patidar S/o Shri Nathulal Patidar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o VPO Madalda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.)
14. Manish Chaturvedi S/o Shri Shyam Kumar Chaturvedi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Near Tanta Hanuman Mandir, Foota Kot, Karauli (Raj.)
15. Savaram Choudhary S/o Shri Pomaram Choudhary, R/o Village Bali, Post Bali Tehsil Bali, District Pali
16. Dataram Swami S/o Shri Sitaram Swami, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Rooppura, Post Fatehpura (Khurd), Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)
17. Rakesh Patel S/o Kanaji Patel, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Mukam Post Sulai, Tehsil Khairwada, District Udaipur (Raj.)
18. Harish Meena S/o Shri Radheshyam Meena aged about 26 years resident of Forest Road, Godam Ki Talai, Jhalawar (Raj.)
19. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Ghasiram Barala resident of Purolia Post Nipaniya, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran (Raj.)
20. Pawan Swaroop Gaor S/o Shri Ramswarop Gaor aged, about 37 years resident of Nav Jeevan Academy School, Ismailpur Road, Ward 16, Khairthal, District Alwar (Raj.)
21. Rajesh Kumar Sewak S/o Shri Amritlal Sewak aged, about 35 years resident of Mukam Post Kokapur, Tehsil Sagwada, District Doongapur (Raj.)
22. Lakhan Lal S/o Shri Babulal aged about 31 years resident of Village Ramaspur, Post Hisamada, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
23. Ramesh Singh Rajpurohit son of Shri Khan Singh Rajpurohit, aged about 30 years, resident of Village Nanarvada, Post Bhawari, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.)
24. Salim Khan son of Safi Mohammad, aged about 32 years, resident of Indra Colony, Khariya Mithapur, Bilara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(11 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
25. Vijay Kumar son of Shri Manohar Lal, aged about 28 years, resident of 8BD, Tehsil Khajuwala, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Appellants Versus
1. The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner.
2. Convener, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher (REET)-2015, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
3. Rekha Sharma wife of Shri Kripa Shankar Sharma, aged about 29 years, resident of VPO Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur ......Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1609 / 2016 Rekha Kumari Sharma D/o Shri Ram Bharosi Lal Sharma, aged about 31 years, R/o 87, Rajendra Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.).
.....Appellant Versus
1. State of Rajasthan throug it's Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
Respondents
3. Ms. Renu Sharma D/o Ghanshyam Sharma W.o Shri Koshal Kumar Sharma, aged about 26 years, R/o Village & Post Muhi Via Gudakatla, Tehsil Baswa, District - Dausa (Raj.).
4. Manoj Sharma S/o Shri Govind Prasad Sharma, aged about 26 years, R/o Baba Ramdev Mandir, Jodhpur Road, Merta City, P.O. Merta City, District - Nagaur (Raj.).
5. Kamal Kumar Dadhich S/o Shri Rama Kishan, Aged about 24 years R/o Ram Nagar Colony, Jetaran Chowki, P.o. Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.).
6. Rajendra Kumar Suthar S/o Shri Lila Ram, aged about 33 years, R/o V.P.O. Khodan Tehsil Garhi, District, Banswara (Raj.).
7. Veena Joshi D/o Jayanti Lai Joshi W/o Shri Subhash Joshi, aged about 31 years, R/o VPO - Lasada, Via Lohariya, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).
(12 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
8. Nisha Upadhyay D/o Shri Mahesh Chandra Upadhyay, aged about 25 years, R/o VPO Anjana, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).
9. Khushbu Pandya D/o Dinesh Chand Pandya, aged about 24 years, R/o Village & Post Saredi Chhoti, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).
10. Antima Soni D/o Sh. Madan Lal Son, aged 24 years, R/o Inside Branmpuri Mohalla, Jaitaran, Pali (Raj.)
11. Krishana Kumar Meena S/o Ram Lal Meena, aged 24 years, R/o Village Hingotiya, Tehsil Newai, Post Khandawat, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
12. Vimlesh Gurjar D/o Samay singh Gurjar, aged 25 years, R/o V&P Tighriya, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.)
13. Ravindra Singh Gurjar S/o Sh. Gopal Singh, aged 22 years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Animal Hospital, Gangapur City, 322201 District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
14. Mukeem Mohammed S/o Sageer Mohammed, aged 31 years, R/o Mirza Mohalla, Malarna Dungar, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
15. Puja Kumari D/o Shri Rajbeer Singh, aged 23 years, R/o Village Dhokal Nagar, Post Padmada Khurd, Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar (Raj.).
.............Performa Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10745 / 2016 Radha Sharma D/o Shri Ramawatar Sharma, W/o Shri Sanjay sharma, aged about 30 years, resident of Village & Post Bawari (Soda), Via Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
..........Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10872 / 2016 (13 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] Dinesh Kumar Kuldeep S/o Shri Sundar Lal Kuldeep, aged about 27 years, by caste Regar (SC), R/o Dhani Sedu Singh Ki, Post Badnagar, Via Paota, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Education Department Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10873 / 2016 Meenakshi Pareek D/o Shri Shankar Lal Pareek, aged about 27 years, R/o Bawan Ji Ka Mohalla, Manoharpur, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Education Department Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Deucation, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
.........Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10874 / 2016 Shankar Lal Beniwal S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Beniwal, aged about 31 years, by caste Regar (SC), R/o Village& Post Lakher, Via Manoharpur, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Education Department Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
......Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10875 / 2016 (14 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] Asha Pareek D/o Shri Shankar lal Pareek, aged about 28 years, R/o Bawan Ji ka Mohalla, Manoharpur, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Education Department Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11595 / 2016 Kush Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, aged about 36 years, resident of Village Mau, Tehsil Mundawar, Chandpur, Distt. Alwar (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11701 / 2016 Mahesh Kumar Beniwal S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Beniwal, aged about 24 years, by caste SC R/o Village & Post Lakher, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, (15 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] Education Department Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 12 / 2017 Arti Tiwari D/o Mahesh Tiwari Aged about 21 years, Resident of Shanti Kunj, Krishana Colony, Hindauncity, Distt. Karauli.
----Appellant Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, (Education) Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education of Raj. Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 49 / 2017
1. Bhawani Shankar Swarnakar S/o Shri Suresh Soni,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bhuranpura Jatan, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur
2. Kaluram Bunker S/o Shri Banshidhar Bunker,, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Ravpura, Tehsil Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur
3. Anil Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Gidania, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
4. Subhash S/o Shri Shishram,, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bari, Post Sari, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
5. Maniram S/o Shri Ram Krishan,, Aged About 24 Years, R/o VPO Jarora, Tehsil Meratacity, District Nagaur.
----Appellants Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Education,, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
4. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Secretary.
(16 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
5. National Council for Teachers Education, (Wing -II), Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Through Secretary.
6. Dinesh Singh S/o Shri Karan Singh, by Caste Charan, R/o Bhauji Ki Dhani, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar
7. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Gahad Singh, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Khakoli, Via Phaglawa, Tehsil Dhodh, District Sikar
8. Sumer Dhariwal S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Dhariwal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani D.S. Pura, Ratan Nagar, Churu
9. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, by Caste Jat, Balaji Ka Nada, Dharamshala Beri, Sikar
10. Dharmendra Kumar Bhinchar S/o Shri Rahdeva Ram Bhinchar, by Caste Jat, Aged About 30 Years, Tarpura, Sikar
11. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Awad Dan, Aged About 27 Years, by Caste Charan, R/o Nedwa, Tehsil Ramgarh, Shekhawati, District Sikar
12. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Hanuman Jyani, Aged About 26 Years, by Caste Jat, R/o P.O. Thandi, Tehsil Raisingnagar, District Sriganganagar
13. Mahendra Singh Darji S/o Shri Bheru Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Arniyali, Tehsil Chhotimanna, District Barmer
14. Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Hanumanaram, Aged About 38 Years, by Caste Jat, R/o Tarpura, Tehsil Sikar, District Sikar
15. Manju W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, by Caste Jat,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gothada Bhukran, Via Kudan, District Sikar
16. Mehendra Kumar S/o Shri Kishore Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gungara, Via Piprali, District. Sikar
17. Manu Kanwar W/o Shri Upendra Singh, by Caste Rajput, R/o Dakas, Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, District. Sikar
18. Ramesh Kumar Chahar S/o Shri Bhinwa Ram, R/o Chandrasinghpura, Post Jana, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District. Sikar
19. Chandan Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, R/o Rok Badi, Laxmangarh
20. Suresh Rayal, S/o Shri Narayanram, R/o Bhawanipura (Thevadi) Tehsil Deedwana, District. Nagaur (17 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
21. Narpat Singh S/o Shri Kailash Dan, R/o Dhani Charan, Birmi, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu
22. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Angrej Singh, Aged About 22 Years, by Caste Jat, R/o Bharwana, Tehsil Bhadra, District. Hanumangarh
23. Sumita Chbarwal D/o Bodu Ra, Chabarwal, R/o Lodsar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District. Churu
24. Vikram Singh Soda S/o Shri Ramswarup Soda, Aged About 23 Years, by Caste Balai, R/o Chawara, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District. Jhunjhunu
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Mr. Laxmikant (Malpura), Mr. Hari Krishan Sharma, Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma, Mr. Anoop Dhand, Mr. R.D. Meena, Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.M. Lodha, Advocate General Assisted By Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, Mr. Ashok Gaur, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ajay Chaoudhary, Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay for NCTE.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA JUDGMENT REPORTABLE Reserved on 19/04/2017 Pronounced on 27/04/2017 (18 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] Per Sanjeev Prakash Sharma,J.
1. The DB Special Appeals (Writ) at Item No.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 16 arise out of the order dt.07/11/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge while the DB Special Appeals (Writ) at Item No.2, 7 and 15 arise out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dt.02/11/2016. Apart from above, the DB Civil Writ Petitions at Item No.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 have been referred by the learned Single Judge to the Division Bench in view of the pendency of the aforesaid DB Special Appeals (Writ) relating to the same question of law as well as with regard to the advertisement and conditions thereto issued by the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner dt.06/07/2016 and therefore, all the aforesaid cases have been heard together by this Court individually and are being decided by this common judgment since the issue raised in the said cases is germane.
2. Without adverting to facts relating to each appellant/petitioner, the admitted facts, which are relevant, are being noted for the purpose of disposal of all these cases in relation to the two judgments passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, 'Act of 2009') was brought into force after incorporation Article 21-A in the Constitution of India. In terms of sub-section 1 of Section 23 of the Act of 2009 and in pursuance of the notification dt.31/03/2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of India, the National Council (19 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] for Teachers Education (for short, 'NCTE') laid down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as Teacher for teaching Class I to VIII in a school referred to in Clause N of Section 2 of the Act of 2009 w.e.f. 23/08/2010.
4. The NCTE vide notification dt.29/07/2011 amended the said minimum qualification and for the purpose of the present cases, the amended qualifications laid down for Teachers for Class VI to VIII are as under:-
"2. Classes VI-VIII a. Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name/town) OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and I-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) OR Graduation with at least 45% marks and I year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.E.Ed).
OR Senior Secondary (or its Equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A/B.Sc.Ed or B.A.Ed/B.Sc.Ed.
OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and I-year B.Ed. (Special Education).
AND
(b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose."
5. The NCTE also issued guidelines for conducting Teachers Eligibility Test (for short, 'TET') vide letter dt. 11/02/2011 (20 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] circulating it to all the Secretaries, Commissioners of Education of the State Governments/Uts which provided the background and rationale for including the TET as a minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher as under:-
"1. It would bring national standards and benchmark of teacher quality in the recruitment process;
2. It would induce teacher education institutions and students from these institutions to further improve their performance standards;
3. It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality."
6. The foremost eligibility for appearing in TET was that the person, who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications and who is pursuing any of the Teachers' Education Courses as recognized by the NCTE, should be allowed to participate in the examination.
7. In terms of the guidelines issued by the NCTE, the Rajasthan Government, being the appropriate Government in terms of the notification dt.29/07/2011, issued an advertisement for conducting the TET by the nomenclature known as 'Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2015. The notification required the candidates to appear for the examination who were possessing the minimum qualification as noted above in the notification dt.29/07/2011 for the purpose of Class VI to VIII, which are as under:-
"A. Graduation and passed or appearing in final of 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
(21 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] OR B. Graduation with at least 50% marks and I year B.Ed. Passed or appearing in final year of 2-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.).
OR C. Graduation with at least 45% marks and I year B.Ed. Passed or appearing in final year of 2 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation issued from time to time in the regard.
OR D. Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and passed or appearing in final year of 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.E.Ed).
OR E. Senior secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and passed or appearing in final year of 4-year B.A/B.Sc.Ed or B.A.Ed/B.Sc.Ed.
OR F. Graduation with at least 50% marks and passed or appearing in I-year B.Ed. (Special Education)."
8. As per the said notification, all the Teachers of each subject would be required to have the minimum qualification as laid down by the NCTE notification dt.29/07/2011.
9. The scheme of examination for REET for the purpose of Class VI to VIII provided that total marks would be 150. The examination was divided into four Divisions. Division-I was regarding Child Development and Pedagogy bearing 30 multi- choice questions with 30 marks. Division-II related to language Paper-I which was to be of any language from Hindi, English, Sanskrit, Urdu, Sindhi, Punjabi, Gujrati. The language would be just medium of instructions for teaching as chosen from list of prescribed language options in the application form. It would consist of 30 multi-choice questions with maximum 30 marks.
(22 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
10. Division III was to be of language Paper-II which will be from among the prescribed options other than language-I. A candidate may choose anyone Language from the available Language options and was required to specify the same in the application form. The same would consist of 30 multi-choice questions with maximum 30 marks.
11. Division IV would be subjects divided into two Sections i.e. Section A and Section B. Section A would be for Teachers of subject Maths & Science and the questions would be in the subject of Maths & Science which would consist of 60 multi-choice type questions carrying 60 marks. Section B can be opted by Teachers having subject of Social Studies and the paper would be in the subject of Social Science consisting of 60 multi-choice questions having 60 marks in all. For teachers in other subjects than Maths, Science or Social Studies had the option of either opting for Section A of Division IV or Section B of the said Division. As per notes, level of multi-choice questions was to be based on the basis of the syllabus laid down by the State Government for Class VI to VIII. However, the level of difficulty was to be that of Class XII. The State Government laid down the minimum passing marks for REET Examination as 60% for other categories while for the candidates of Scheduled Tribes of the Scheduled Area, the minimum passing marks were laid down as 36%. A candidate could also improve his percentage which he had acquired earlier under the TET conducted by the State Government in 2001 or 2012.
(23 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
12. Having conducted the aforesaid Examination of REET-2015, the Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Teachers for Primary and Upper-Primary Schools for all the districts in Rajasthan by issuing a notification dt.06/07/2016 by the name of Rajasthan Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Direct Recruitment-2016. The last date for applying for the post was 1st August, 2016.
13. As per the advertisement, for candidates to be included in the merit list, a candidate was required to have obtained 60% marks as minimum passing marks in REET/RTET and would also be required to give his preference of the district. The merit was to be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in REET-2015 or RTAT-2011 or 2012 wherever the candidate has secured higher marks and the merit was to be prepared at the State level.
14. As per note to Para 6.2 of the advertisement, which relates to the applicants who applied for the post for Class VI to VIII (Level-2), it was mentioned that for Level-2, a candidate, who applies for a particular subject, must have been eligible in that subject for REET. Alongwith the advertisement, the division of the posts available in the various subjects for Level-2 was mentioned and for the subject of English there were as many as 4940 posts while for the other subjects, the number of posts were very few in number (927 posts for Maths & Science and 100 posts for Hindi). The other posts advertised were for subject Teachers in the various subjects. Thus, the litigation ensued claiming for eligibility for appointment as Teachers in English subject for Level-2 i.e. (24 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] Class VI to VIII.
15. In the first batch of petitions, the petitioners were of two categories, one who possessed English as a subject at B.Ed. Level and has also obtained for English as one of the language paper in REET-2015 but did not want those candidates to be considered for being considered for appointment as Teachers in the subject of English who did not possess the subject of English either at level of the B.Ed. Examination or those who had not opted English as subject in both papers i.e. language-1 and language-2.
16. The other batch of candidates are those who did not possess teaching subject of English in B.Ed. qualification nor had English in graduation but had opted for English as a language in REET Examination. There is another batch of candidates who did not have B.Ed. with English but had English in Graduation and also opted for English in REET Examination. Another batch of candidates are those who had B.Ed. With English as a teaching subject and also Graduate with English as an optional subject but they did not opt for English as a language for REET-2015. All these sets of candidates in the aforesaid appeals/petitions before us are claiming that they alone should be allowed to participate for selection excluding the others.
17. The learned Single Judge in the decision dt.02/11/2016, while dealing with the note to advertisement as quoted above, held that one who has to become a Teacher of English language must undertake part of the examination qua English language and since the petitioners in REET-2015 have not opted to undertake (25 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] subject of English language, they cannot be recruited as Teachers of English language. While deciding the other batch of petitions, the learned Single Judge vide order dt.07/11/2016, while examining the question whether the candidates who are not having English language as a teaching subject in B.Ed. can be held or determined as eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.II (Level-2) for teaching subject of English to the students of Class VI to VIII, held as under:-
"Consequently, the present writ petitions are disposed of by concluding as under:-
(i). A language teacher must pass part of the paper of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher (REET) of the subject which he or she intend to teach.
(ii). A candidate having Basic School Teacher Course (BSTC) should have undertaken paper of that language in Graduation (Bachelor of Arts).
(iii). A candidate who has passed Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) must have subject of a particular language as a teaching subject in B.Ed. which he intend to teach.
In view of above, it is ordered that the State Government shall follow above conclusions as directions, while recruiting language teachers Gr.III (Level-II) for upper primary stage in pursuance of advertisement (Annx.43) dated 06.07.2016 called, Rajasthan Primary Upper Primary School Teacher Direct Recruitment, 2016. "
18. All the petitioners, who filed writ petitions as well as others who have been affected by the orders impugned of the learned Single Judge dt.02/11/2016 and 07/11/2016, are before us.
19. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record including the orders impugned.
(26 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
20. In the case of State of Orissa & anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty:
(2011) 3 SCC 436, it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:-
"29. Education is the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young persons in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. Education connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. The excellence of instruction provided by an educational institution mainly depends directly on the excellence of the teaching staff. Therefore, unless they themselves possess a good academic record/minimum qualifications prescribed as an eligibility, it is beyond imagination of anyone that standard of education can be maintained/enhanced.
"18....We have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress".
"30....Democracy depends for its very life on a high standard of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of 'learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be maintained at all costs".
33. In view of the above, it is evident that education is necessary to develop the personality of a person as a whole and in totality as it provides the process of training and acquiring the knowledge, skills, developing mind and character by formal schooling. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a high academic standard and academic discipline along with academic rigour for the progress of a nation. Democracy depends for its own survival on a high standard of vocational and professional education. Paucity of funds cannot be a ground for the State not to provide quality education to its future citizens. It is for this reason that in order to maintain the standard of education the State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools to ensure the smooth running of the institution so that the standard of teaching may not suffer for want of funds.
34. Article 21A has been added by amending our Constitution with a view to facilitate the children to get proper and good quality education. However, the quality of education would depend on various factors but the (27 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] most relevant of them is excellence of teaching staff. In view thereof, quality of teaching staff cannot be compromised. The selection of the most suitable persons is essential in order to maintain excellence and the standard of teaching in the institution. It is not permissible for the State that while controlling the education it may impinge the standard of education. It is, in fact, for this reason that norms of admission in institutions have to be adhered to strictly. Admissions in mid academic sessions are not permitted to maintain the excellence of education.
59. The rule of law inhibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. Procedural fairness is an implied mandatory requirement to protect against arbitrary action where Statute confers wide power coupled with wide discretion on an authority. If the procedure adopted by an authority offends the fundamental fairness or established ethos or shocks the conscience, the order stands vitiated. The decision making process remains bad."
21. In the state of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & ors.: (2010) 13 SCC 203, it has been held by the Apex Court as under:-
"14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire issue that arises in this matter for our consideration. The directive principle contained in Article 45 has made a provision for free and compulsory education for all children upto the age of 14 years within 10 years of promulgation of the Constitution of India but the nation could not achieve this goal even after 50 years of adoption of the provision. The task of providing education to all children in this age group gained momentum after National Policy of Education (NPE) was announced in 1986. It was felt that though the Government of India in partnership with State Governments had made strenuous efforts to fulfill the mandate and though significant improvements were seen in various educational indicators, the ultimate goal of (28 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] providing universal and quality education still remained unfulfilled. In order to fulfill that goal, it was felt that an explicit provision should be made in the Part of the Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights. Right to Education is now a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21A. It commands that :
"21-A. Right to education.- The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.
15. The State as at present is under the constitutional obligation to provide education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The State by virtue of Article 21A is bound to provide free education, create necessary infrastructure and effective machinery for the proper implementation of the right and meet total expenditure of the schools to that extent. Right to Education guaranteed by Article 21A could remain illusory in the absence of State taking adequate steps to have required number of schools manned by efficient and qualified teachers.
16. Before teachers are allowed to teach the children, they are required to receive appropriate and adequate training from a duly recognized training institute. It has been observed by this Court:
"14.....Allowing ill-trained teachers coming out of derecognized or unrecognized institutes or licensing them to teach the children of impressionable age, contrary to the norms prescribed, will be detrimental to the interest of the nation itself in the sense that in the process of building a great nation, teachers and educational institutions also play vital role. In cases like these, interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to larger public interest" (See L. Muthukumar Vs. State of T.N. SCC p.626, para 14.).
Such is the importance of proper training to the teachers before they are allowed to teach the children of impressionable age.
33. In our considered view the State Government cannot make any distinction between the degrees obtained from the existing institutions prior to the Act coming into force but received recognition after the commencement of the Act and the degrees obtained from the recognized institutions after the Act coming into force. It is not shown how such a classification is based on an intelligible differentia and on a rational consideration and further how it bears a nexus to the purpose and object thereof. The impugned action of the State results in the classification or division of members of a homogeneous (29 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] group and subjecting them to differential treatment without any rhyme or reason."
22. Right to Education Act was enacted with the sole purpose to provide uniform education to all the children upto the age of 14 years in the State. The very purpose of incorporating an additional condition of passing TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government of the State, was to provide a benchmark which the prospective Teachers must achieve before they can be appointed on their respective post. While such a benchmark is necessitated for the purposes of uniformity and minimum standard of education in the State, the requirement of having B.Ed. or BSTC qualification has not been done away with. For a Teacher to be appointed in a particular subject, he is expected to have knowledge of that subject and must have studies it extensively so that he may be able to give back to the student what he has learnt. At the same time, he must also have knowledge and training to teach that subject. Thus, the pedagogy i.e. an art or science of teaching education instructional methods have to be essentially engrained in him before he embarks upon the noble profession of teaching.
23. The question, which arises, is whether one can ignore the marks obtained in the B.Ed. or in the Graduation and simply prepare a merit on the basis of the TET marks which may be called by any name like in Rajasthan, it being named as TET earlier and REET now. From the guidelines and rationale enumerated for the TET by NCTE, as noted above, it is apparent that the TET examination is to bring national standards and (30 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] benchmark of teaching quality in recruitment process. It is for the purpose to improve their performance, standards and indicate the emphasis for qualified teachers. However, the purpose, sought to be achieved under the present advertisement, is of appointing Teachers in various subjects and in language in particular. The purpose, sought to be achieved, would have a nexus only when the selection is based in a manner which achieves the purpose that is to get the best Teachers in that subject.
24. From the perusal of the advertisement and the criteria laid down for preparation of merit, it is apparent that there is no reference to the educational qualification of an individual or to the training which the individual may have received in the subject for which appointments are sought to be made as per note the only requirement is that the candidate should be eligible for that subject in REET which is wholly vague as all those who appeared for REET were eligible irrespective of the subject they may have in Graduation of B. Ed. or BSTC.
25. Thus, a candidate, who did not have any of the subject in his Graduation or a candidate, who has never studied language as a teaching subject in B.Ed./BSTC but has secured very high marks/percentage at the TET/REET, would be given preference for appointment. He would also march over a candidate; (a) who has subject of English as an optional subject in Graduation and may have secured high marks in Graduation in English and or (b) who has one of it as a teaching subject in B.Ed./BSTC and may have secured high marks therein but may have only attained a (31 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] minimum benchmark in the TET or REET as the case may be. Thus, we find that the criteria of selection laid down under the advertisement does not seek to achieve the purpose sought for and preparation of merit on the basis of REET examination would have no nexus to achieve the purpose of selection of the best qualified candidate.
26. Adverting to the direction issued in the two writ petitions, we find that in first writ bunch, the order 02/11/2016 reads as under:
"The arguments raised at the outset is liable to be rejected, as is evident teacher for social studies will give option to solve part of paper, qua social studies and not mathematics & science and vice-versa. Holding of R.E.E.T. Examination, 2015 is to evaluate the skill and expertise of the candidate, qua a particular subject. Hence, caliber of the candidate is to be tested in the particular subject. therefore, qua social studies teachers their knowledge for social studies is to be tested and not for mathematics and science or otherwise.
Advertisement (Annexure-10) for recruitment of teachers, thus, specifically states as under :-
^^fo'ks"k uksV& v/;kid f}rh; ysoy ds fy, vH;FkhZ ftl fo"k; gsrq vkosnu dj jgk gS ml fo"k; esa jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk ¼RTET/REET½esa ik= gksuk vko';d gSA"
Therefore, one who has to become a teacher of English Language must undertake part of the examination, qua English 9 CWP 9827/2016 & 3 Ors. language. Since the petitioners in the R.E.E.T. Examination, 2015 have not opted to undertake subject of English Language, they cannot be recruited as teachers of English Language.
Having said so in the clear terms that one who has to become a teacher of a particular language must undertake eligibility test in that subject, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the present writ petitions and the same are, hereby, dismissed.
Upon dismissal of main petitions, the stay applications, filed therewith do not survive and the same are also dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected files. "
(32 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
27. While is second bunch, the order dated 07/11/2016 reads as under:-
"Consequently, the present writ petitions are disposed of by concluding as under:-
(i). A language teacher must pass part of the paper of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher (REET) of the subject which he or she intend to teach.
(ii). A candidate having Basic School Teacher Course (BSTC) should have undertaken paper of that language in Graduation (Bachelor of Arts).
(iii). A candidate who has passed Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) must have subject of a particular language as a teaching subject in B.Ed. which he intend to teach.
In view of above, it is ordered that the State Government shall follow above conclusions as directions, while recruiting language teachers Gr.III (Level-II) for upper primary stage in pursuance of advertisement (Annx.43) dated 06.07.2016 called, Rajasthan Primary Upper Primary School Teacher Direct Recruitment, 2016. "
28. Before we examine its legality, we note the law relating to scope of judicial legislation has been crystallized in various judgments as noted below:-
29. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma & anr.: 2015(6) SCC 716 has held as under:-
"12. In State of U.P. V/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. This Court has made following observations, in para 10, as to power and scope of the High Court in issuance of directions to the legislature;
"10. Within our Constitution, we have specifically demarcated the ambit of power and the boundaries of the three organs of the society by laying down the principles of separation of powers, which is being adhered to for carrying out democratic functioning of the country. So far as the legislation is concerned, (33 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] the exclusive domain is with the legislature. Subordinate legislations are framed by the executive by exercising the delegated power conferred by the statute. Which is the rule-making power. The judiciary has been vested with the power to interpret the aforesaid legislations and to give effect to them since the parameters of the jurisdiction of both the organs are earmarked. Therefore, it is always appropriate for each of the organs to function within its domain. It is inappropriate for the courts to issue a mandate to legislate an Act and also to make a subordinate legislation in a particular manner. In this particular case, the High Court has directed the subordinate legislation to substitute wordings in a particular manner, thereby assuming to itself the role of a supervisory authority, which according to us, is not a power vested in the High Court."
13. This Court has time and again held that no court can issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law."
30. The Supreme Court, in the case of BABITA LILA AND ANOTHER V/S UNION OF INDIA 2016(9) SCC 647 wherein, after adverting to the precedential law, held as under:-
"62. Viewed in this context, in our estimate, the notification issued under Section 11 of the Act cannot be conceded an overriding effect over the scheme of the statute designating the appellate forums more particularly in absence of any order, circular, notification of any authority thereunder to that effect. The Deputy Director of Income Tax for that matter, as the framework of the Act would reveal, has not been acknowledged to be the appellate forum from any order or the decision of the assessing officer/I.T.O., notwithstanding several other provisions with regard to conferment of various powers and assignments of duties on the said office. In the teeth of such mindful and unequivocal module of the Act, recognition of the Deputy Director of Income Tax to be a forum to whom an appeal would ordinarily lie from any decision or action of the assessing officer/income tax officer would not only be inferential but would also amount to unwarranted judicial legislation by extrinsic additions and doing violence to the language of the law framed. On the contrary, acceptance of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as the forum to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from an order/decision of the assessing officer/I.T.O., (34 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] would neither be inconsistent with nor repugnant to any other provision of the Act and certainly not incompatible with the legislative scheme thereof. Mere silence in Section 246 of the Act about any decision or order other than those enumerated in sub-section (1) thereof as appealable /decision to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), does not ipso fact spell legislative prohibition in that regard and in our comprehension instead signifies an affirmative dispensation.
64. More recently this Court amongst others in Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited and Others (2015) 9 SCC 209 had propounded that when the legislative intention is absolutely clear and simple and any omission inter alia either in conferment of power or in the ambit or expanse of any expression used is deliberate and not accidental, filling up of the lacuna as perceived by a judicial interpretative process is impermissible. This was in reiteration of the proposition in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2015) 3 SCC 353 to the effect that casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court in situations where omissions otherwise noticed in a statute or in a provision thereof had been a conscious legislative intendment."
31. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & anr.: 1989(4) SCC 187; Bal Ram Bali & anr. Vs. Union of India: 2007(6) SCC 805; Municipal Committee, Patiala Vs. Model Town Resident's Assn. & ors.: 2007(8) SCC 669 following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/S. Narinder Chand Hem RaJ & ors. Vs. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh & ors:; 1971(2) SCC 747 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:-
"The power to impose a tax is undoubtedly a legislative power. That power can be exercised by the Legislature directly or subject to certain conditions, the Legislature may delegate that power to some other authority. But the exercise of that power, whether by the Legislature or by (35 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] its delegate is an exercise of a legislative power. The fact that the power was delegated to the executive does not convert that power into an executive or administrative power. No Court can issue a mandate to a Legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly no court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact."
32. Similarly, in the case of Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & anr. (supra), it was held as under:-
"There can be no doubt that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which he has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority."
33. In the judgment relied upon by learned counsel in the case of Binod Vikash Manch & anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors, decided on 06th November, 2003, the Jharkhand High Court issued certain directions to the respondent State in that case as under:-
"We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to ensure that, only those who possess the qualification in the particular subject as indicated are selected and appointed to teach the particular subject. As an illustration, only a teacher who has the requisite qualification in terms of the Rules and who has studied the English language upto the qualification level, should be appointed as a teacher in English. The same will be the position regarding the other subjects. The authorities must also consider the need for introducing English as a subject for these selection tests taking into consideration the fact that the language is our window to acquisition of advanced knowledge making us competent to complete with the rest of the world in all fields of human activity."
(36 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016]
34. Within our Constitution, we have specifically demarcated the ambit of power and boundaries of the three organs of the society by laying down principles of separation of powers which have to be adhered for carrying out democratic functioning of the country. Subordinate legislations are framed by the executive by exercising the delegated powers conferred by the statute which is the rule making power. Thus, it is inappropriate for the Courts to issue a mandate to the State of its authorities to act in a particular fashion and manner. We are afraid that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge would amount to legislate as to how the appointments should be made and what should be the qualification for the post of Teacher in the subjects and what should be the minimum qualification for appointment of a Teacher in a particular subject. However, suffice it to state that the decision to incorporate the marks obtained at various levels to treat a particular individual as eligible for appointment as a Teacher in a particular subject, would solely rest with the Government who may frame rules thereto and this Court cannot embark upon such an exercise.
35. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, as noted above, is limited to as to how the merit is to be prepared. We find that as per the advertisement, which requires a candidate to have a particular minimum educational qualification and also to have REET eligibility, has decided to prepare merit only on the basis of the marks obtained in the REET which has resulted in (37 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] causing ambiguity, confusion and administrative chaotic situation where a candidate may be able to secure appointment as a Teacher in a particular subject, even though he may not have studied that subject at all. Such cannot be the purpose of selection and we, therefore, hold that the advertisement condition of preparation of merit itself being vague and contrary to the purpose sought to be achieved, deserves to be set aside and we accordingly do so. It may also be noted that a subject Teacher of level-2 is also entitled for further promotion under the relevant educational service rules in that subject to the level of Teacher Gr. II in order to teach higher classes. If a candidate enters on the lower post, even without having the minimum qualifications in that subject, would amount to resulting in a chaotic situation.
36. The selection on the basis of the condition laid down in the advertisement, therefore, is held to be bad in law and the said criteria is declared as invalid with further directions to the authority to re-advertise the vacancies by preparing a valid criteria of merit for appointment of Teachers for level-2 i.e. for subject Teachers for Classes from VI to VIII afresh keeping in mind the purpose of selection of Teachers in a particular subject.
37. All the candidates, who had already applied, need not have to apply again and would be treated as eligible for the purpose of selection which may be conducted now on the basis of criteria of merit which the authorities may lay down to achieve the purpose. The exercise may now be done within a period of four months. Other candidates, who may have become eligible during the (38 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] intervening period, may also apply.
38. All the above appeals/petitions stand disposed of with the observations/directions as indicated above. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J. Raghu