Tara Kanwar & Anr vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 19 May, 2012

[Cites 180, Cited by 1826]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Tara Kanwar & Anr vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 19 May, 2012

Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas

                                             1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                                 JODHPUR

                                       :ORDER :


             1.     Surya Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
                    (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2180/2012)

             2.     Veera Ram & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
                    (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2205/2012)


             DATE OF ORDER :                       May   19th,   2012


                                       PRESENT

                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
                      _________________________________________

Reportable
             Mr.   Mr. P.S. Bhati/Mr. Kailash Khatri for the petitioners.
             Mr.   G.R. Punia, Addl. Advocate General with
             Mr.   Mahendra Choudhary, Dy. Govt. Counsel.
             Mr.   Kuldeep Mathur for the NCTE.
             Mr.   Rakesh Arora for the Board of Secondary Education.

             Advocates for petitioners in the writ petitions mentioned in
             the appended Schedule :

             Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Mr. Ashok Chhangani,
             Mr. R.S. Choudhary, Mr. T.S. Tanwar, Mr. Kailash Jangid,
             Mr. Rajesh Jangid, Mr. Rakesh Matoriya, Mr. V.N. Calla, Mr.
             Bharat Dewasi, Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Mr. A.R. Godara, Mr. Kan
             Singh Oad, Mr. S.S. Jodha, Mr. Vinod Choudhary, Mr. D.L.
             Rawla, Mr. Jog Singh, Mr. Amit Gaur, Mr. Rajesh Panwar,
             Mr. C.R. Choudhary, Mr. Ramdev Potaliya, Mr. M.S. Godara,
             Mr. O.P. Bishnoi, Mr. Shyam Khatri, Mr. Vijay Purohit, Mr.
             Vikram Singh, Mr. Anuj Sahlot, Mr. Nishant Motsara, Mr.
             Manish Dadhich, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Mr. D.L. Mothsara, Mr.
             B.S. Deora, Mr. V.K. Bhadu, Mr. B.L. Dudy, Mr. Vinit
             Sanadhya, Mr. R.C. Joshi, Mr. L.K. Ramdhari, Mr. Mahaveer
             Bishnoi, Mr. Girish Sankhla, Mr. J.D.S. Bhati, Mr. Sheetal
             Kumbhat, Mr. V.R. Choudhary, Mr. Shardul Bishnoi, Msw
             Pintu Pareek, Mr. B.K. Vyas, Mr. S.R. Choudhary, Mr. S.K.
             Punia, Mr. Awardan Charan, Mr. Ankur Mathur, Mr. Gopal
             Bose, Mr. S.K. Verma, Mr. Devesh Bohra, Mr. Ashwani
             Swami, Mr. B.L. Bishnoi, Mr. Manoj Purohit, Mr. Trilok Joshi,
             Mr. Sushil Kumar, Ms Aruna Negi, Mr. Gopal Acharya, Ms
                              2

Anjana Jawa, Mr. Narpat Singh, Mr. P.R. Mehta, Mr.
Deepesh Beniwal, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. P.S. Rathore, Mr.
Dwarkesh Vyas, Mr. Om Rajpurohit, Mr. Moti Singh, Mr.
R.D.S.S. Kharlia, Mr. N.R. Budhania, Mr. Mr. J.P. Swami, Mr.
P.S. Chundawat, Mr. Arjun Purohit, Mr. Deepak Nehra, Mr.
S.K. Verma, Mr. H.S. Choudhary, Mr. B.S. Tanwar, Mr. T.C.
Sharma, Mr. Vikas Binjariya, Mr. S.N. Goswami, Mr. M.L.
Khatri, Mr. N.A. Rajpurohit, Mr. Bharat Shrimali, Mr.
Mahendra Prajapat, Mr. R.R. Bishnoi, Mr. H.S. Inda, Mr. K.L.
Chauhan, Mr. Harish Purohit, Mr. K.L. Bishnoi, Mr. Kunal
Paliwal, Mr. T.R. Choudhary, Mr. S.R. Godara, Mr. Vishal
Jangid, Mr. Vishal Jangid, Mr. J.R. Bhardwaj, Ms Premlata
Gaur, Mr. Rohitesh Singh, Mr. Mahaveer Singh, Mr. D.L.R.
Vyas, Mr. M.P. Pareek, Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, Mr. S.S. Rathore,
Mr. Balvinder Singh, Mr. V.K. Sharma, Mr. K.R. Bhati, Mr.
Dishant Gaur, Mr. Parikshit Nayak, Mr. Laxman Bishnoi, Dr.
Vinay Chhipa, Mr. Surendra Bachmaliani, Mr. Ajay Vyas, Mr.
R. Bhatnagar, Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, Mr. S.S. Rathore and Mr.
Sukesh Bhati, Mr. J.R. Anjana, Mr. R.L. Baloch, Mr. Govind
Suthar.

BY THE COURT :

In the above writ petitions and the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule appended to this judgment, common dispute and question of law is involved with regard to seeking direction to the respondent State for considering the candidature of those candidates who possess academic degree of graduation with B.Ed and have cleared Phase-I of the Rajasthan TET for the level Classes I to V for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III of Level - I. Accordingly, all these writ petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order/judgment.

The Central Government enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act No.35 of 2009), in which, under Section 23 (1) it is provided that 3 minimum qualification shall be laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government. The Central Government authorised the National Council for Teacher Education ("the NCTE" hereinafter) to lay down the minimum qualification for appointment of Teachers. The NCTE, after authorization, laid down the qualifications for Teacher vide notification dated 23.08.2010 (which is subsequently amended vide notification dated 29.07.2011). In para 3 of the above notification those candidates possessing degree of graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification were also held eligible for appointment as Teacher Grade III for level - I for classes I to V up to 01.01.2012 along with the candidates possessing prescribed qualification provided they undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 months' special programme in the elementary education.

The State Government vide notification dated 11.05.2011 inserted the qualification for appointment of Teacher in Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996. The main contention of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that they are possessing the qualification of graduation degree with B.Ed. and they have cleared the RTET 2011, therefore, as per para 3 of the notification dated 23.08.2010 they are eligible to be appointed on the 4 posts of Teacher Grade-III; but, the said qualification has not been prescribed in the advertisements issued by the Zila Parishads of all the districts in the State although the said qualification is incorporated in para 3 of the notification issued by the NCTE.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as per the Government stand opportunity for appointment as Teacher Grade-III for the Level-I classes from class I to class V the candidates who possess B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification was available up to 01.01.2012 provided the candidates undergo, after appointment, NCTE recognized 6 months' special programme in elementary education, therefore, in the advertisement issued by all the Zila Parishads of Rajasthan for recruitment on 24.02.2012, after the date prescribed by the NCTE, the State Government is not treating all those candidates who are possessing B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. with TET for the posts of Teacher Grade-III for classes from I to V. As per the petitioners, the denial of consideration is unconstitutional act of the State because the delay in recruitment is caused due to inaction on the part of the State Government only so much so in the State of Rajasthan since the year 2006 no recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III took place and, now, after clubbing all 5 the vacancies occurring hitherto the State Government is going to make recruitment on 40000 posts of Teacher Grade-III through the Zila Parishad of each district of the State and, for that, on 11.05.2011 an amendment was made whereby the qualifications laid down by the NCTE in the notification dated 23.08.2010 and amendment notification dated 29.07.2011 are prescribed. In both the above notifications opportunity for all those candidates who possess B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification was available up to 01.01.2012, however, rider was incorporation that the candidates shall undergo, after appointment, NCTE recognized 6 months' special programme in elementary education; meaning thereby, after thorough discussion and due deliberation the NCTE itself granted an opportunity to all those candidates who are possessing B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualification with TET Level-I for appointment as Teacher for classes I to V, however, said opportunity was not granted by the State Government because the State Government did not publish the vacancies and commence recruitment process prior to 01.01.2012. It is urged by the petitioners that if one-time right or benefit is extended to class of qualified candidates by the NCTE, then, it was the duty of the State Government to grant the said opportunity to all those eligible candidates 6 who were given one-time opportunity to compete for appointment; but, in this case, the State Government is responsible for denial of the opportunity due to their own inaction. Therefore, the petitioners and like persons possessing the qualification of graduation with B.Ed. cannot be denied the opportunity to compete for appointment as Teacher Grade-II for class I to class V level.

Learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court that there is relaxation in age has been given in Rule 265 (x) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 by which a candidate would have been entitled in any year in which such recruitment was not held he/she shall be deemed to be within age-limit in the subsequent recruitment provided such relaxation shall not be for more than 3 years. It is very strange that on the one hand relaxation in age is given for the reason that no such recruitment took place due to inaction on the part of the State but no such relaxation is given to the candidates possessing qualification prescribed in para 3 of the notification dated 23.08.2010 to appear in the selection process for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III for class I to class V level in the present context. It is vehemently argued that on the one hand relaxation is given in age to compete but; at the same time, by denying 7 the opportunity on the basis of qualification the State Government is snatching the right of consideration for the reason that advertisement has been issued after 01.01.2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that once NCTE which is the expert body authorized under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to prescribe qualification under sub-section (1) of Section 23, then, obviously the fruits of said opportunity was to be given on or before 01.01.2012 by the State Government, therefore, candidates who were possessing degree of graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification with TET prior to 01.01.2012 are eligible for recruitment which is going to be held in pursuance of the advertisements issued on 24.02.2012 by the respondents. It is vehemently argued that for last six years no recruitment took place for the posts of Teacher Grade-III and this fact itself speaks that the State Government is playing game with the future of the qualified B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. candidates. On the one hand, the State Government gives permission for opening private B.Ed. colleges for acquiring the qualification and, on the other hand, for last six years no vacancy is advertised and, due to said reason, the qualified candidates did not get any opportunity for 8 recruitment. Now, new qualification has been laid down as per the Act of 2009 by the NCTE, in which, an opportunity was granted to the candidates possessing degree of graduation and B.Ed. with TET for appointment up to 01.01.2012 but, that, too, is denied to the candidates in the State of Rajasthan for the reason that no appointments are made by the State before 01.01.2012. Therefore, there is complete inaction and apathetic silence on the part of the State Government for providing opportunity to the qualified candidates for recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade- III for class I to class V level, therefore, it is a fit case to issue direction to the State Government to grant an opportunity to the candidates possessing degree of graduation with B.Ed. and TET in pursuance of advertisements issued on 24.02.2012 for appointment as Teacher Grade-III for classes I to V level.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submit that as per para 3 of the notification dated 23.08.2010, a decision was taken by the statutory expert body NCTE to grant eligibility to the candidates possessing degree of graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. and TET qualification for appointment on the post of teacher for teaching class I to V up to 01.01.2012, therefore, those qualification holders were allowed by the Board of 9 Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer to participate in the Rajasthan TET 2011 examination conducted by the Board for Level - I to teach students of Class I to V and, in pursuance of that, all eligible candidates including the petitioners appeared in the Rajasthan TET 2011 for Level - I also and declared successful. The State Government inserted the qualification prescribed by the NCTE by way of amendment in Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996. An opportunity was also given to the petitioners and other qualified eligible candidates to appear in the TET and acquire the said eligibility for appointment. The State Government now denied the opportunity to compete for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III on the ground that date 01.01.2012 provided in para 3 has expired. It is submitted that on the basis of legitimate expectation from the welfare State the petitioners are very much eligible to compete for the posts of Teacher Grade-III (Level - I) to teach students of classes I to V. The petitioners have placed on record the marks-sheet-cum- Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer in which they were declared successful in the Level-I TET.

Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble 10 Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kala Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 129, in which, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that higher qualification which is graduation with B.Ed. can be considered for appointment as Primary School Teacher Grade-III to teach students of class I to class V level. Therefore, all the writ petitions may be allowed and necessary direction may be issued to the respondents to treat the candidates eligible for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III for level I for primary classes on the basis of qualification of graduation with B.Ed. and TET.

Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. G.R. Punia, appearing on behalf of the State Government, vehemently argued that the Central Government enacted the Act known as Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, in which, as per Section 23 the Central Government authorized the NCTE to lay down the qualification for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III and while exercising the power under Section 23 (1) of the Act of 2009 the NCTE prescribed qualification by way of issuing notification on 23.08.2010 and the said notification was further amended on 29.07.2011.

It is contended on behalf of the State that in the notification dated 23.08.2010 it was specifically provided 11 that those candidates possessing qualification of B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification will also be eligible for appointment for class I to class V level up to 01.01.2012 provided they undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized special programme in elementary education; but, no recruitment after making available the relaxed provision up to 01.01.2012 has been made in the State of Rajasthan though candidates possessing above qualification were eligible for appointment up to 01.01.2012, therefore, after expiry of 01.01.2012 no such candidate is eligible to compete for appointment as Teacher Grade-III for Level-I. The State Government has amended the rules and prescribed the qualifiation under Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 vide notification dated 11.05.2011 and inserted all those qualifications as provided by the NCTE and, under the said qualification, one time relaxation was granted for appointment to the graduate with B.Ed. degree holders up to 01.01.2012. Therefore, in the recruitment process which is commenced vide advertisements issued on 24.02.2012 the petitioners are not eligible because they become ineligible after 01.01.2012, the date which is prescribed by the NCTE.

Learned Addl. Advocate General argued that due to subsistence of eligibility till 01.01.2012 the candidates 12 possessing B.A./B.Sc. or graduation with B.Ed. were granted opportunity to appear in the Rajasthan TET 2011 examination but mere passing the TET does not create any right to get eligibility for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III for Level - I meant for classes I to V because the said benefit was extended by the NCTE for appointment up to 01.01.2012; and, here, in this case, the State Government issued notification for recruitment on 24.02.2012, therefore, obviously the petitioners and those persons who were possessing graduation with B.Ed. qualification became ineligible after 01.01.2012 and as such there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that they are eligible for appointment.

While opposing the writ petitions on behalf of the State Government, learned Addl. Advocate General contended that the claim of the petitioners is totally unfounded because laying down specific criteria by the NCTE under the Act of 2009 for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III does not mean that the petitioners are being deprived of their any right. The State Government is under obligation to follow the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE and, in the notifications of the NCTE, relaxation was granted for appointment up to 01.01.2012 for the candidates possessing B.A./B.Sc. with B.Ed. and TET, 13 therefore, no case is made out in favour of the petitioners. It is further argued that so far as the upper age limit is concerned, the relaxation is available maximum up to 3 years in case recruitment process does not take place in the preceding years to enable the candidates in the event of crossing upper age limit to compete in the ensuing examination as per provision of law, therefore, it cannot be said that on the one hand age relaxation has been granted and, on the other hand, the State Government has snatched the right of consideration which is in violation of the constitutional right of the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State further argued that on 10.05.2012 clarification was sought from the NCTE for the grievance raised by the petitioners but it is specifically denied by the NCTE that in the light of the above notifications persons with B.Ed. were eligible only up to 01.01.2012 and, after that, they will not be eligible for class I to class V level. Therefore, all these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

In support of his arguments Mr. Punia invited attention of the Court towards judgments reported in 2005 WLC (UC) Raj. 138, Kailash Chandra Harijan & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2003) 3 SCC 548, Yogesh Kumar & Others Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Others for the purpose of 14 claim of the petitioners upon qualification and following judgments are cited for not interfering in the policy matters :

(1) (2011) 6 SCC p. 597, (2) 2010 (2) WLC (Raj.) p.220 (3) AIR 1993 SC p. 2285 (4) (2008) 3 SCC p. 512 and submits that there is power left with the State Government to prescribe qualification to maintain education standard in the State, therefore, these writ petitions may be dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE reiterated the stand taken by the State Government and submits that the issue of persons possessing graduation with B.Ed. qualification was considered to teach the class I to class V level and after due deliberation by the Council a decision was taken to allow the candidates possessing graduation with B.Ed. qualification as an eligible qualification for appointment as Teacher upto specified time period which is up to 01.01.2012 and this decision was taken as temporary measure. However, in order to ensure that persons with B.Ed. qualification are equipped and prepared to teach in class I to V it is provided that such persons after appointment shall have to undergo a six 15 month special course on elementary education which is expected to provide adequate orientation and preparedness to such teachers to teach in classes I to V. Therefore, one time relaxation was available for appointment up to 01.01.2012 and not thereafter. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners to consider them eligible even after 01.01.2012 is not tenable and, accordingly, these writ petitions may be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties I have perused entire record of the case and considered the arguments advanced by the parties for deciding this controversy.

It is admitted position of the case that post of Teacher Grade-III is governed under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 in which complete process of selection and eligibility qualifications are provided. Before 11.05.2011, B.A. B.Ed. qualification holders were entitled to be appointed as primary teachers or upper primary teachers but, after enactment of the Act of 2009, the Central Government authorized the NCTE being recognized authority to lay down the minimum qualification for the post of Teacher grade-III. The NCTE after due deliberation issued notification dated 23.08.2010 and subsequent amendment notification dated 29.07.2011 which are as 16 follows :

"NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2010 F.No.61-3/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S).-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of the Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) and in pursuance of the Notification No.S.O. 750(E) dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby lays down the following minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, with effect from the date of this Notification :-

1. Minimum Qualifications.-

(i) Classes I-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), Regulations 2002 OR 17 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.

(ii)    Classes VI-VIII

(a)     B.A./B.Sc and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education

(by whatever name known)

                                 OR

B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 - year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 - 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.El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed./BSc.Ed. 18

OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 - year B.Ed. (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. 2 Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education.-For the purposes 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), a course recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.

3. Training to be undergone.- A person -

(a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month special programme in Elementary Education.

(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. 4 Teacher appointed before the date of this Notification.-The following categories of teachers appointed for classes I to VIII prior to date of this Notification need not acquire 19 the minimum qualifications specified in Para (1) above:

(a) A teacher appointed on or after the 3rd September, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation.

Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B.Ed qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed (Special Education) or D.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6 - month special programme on elementary education.

(b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed qualification who has completed a 6-month Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE;

(C) A teacher appointed before the 3rd September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules. 5 Teacher appointed after the date of this Notification in certain cases.-Where an appropriate Government, or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time."

"NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION NOTIFICATION 20 New Delhi, the 29th July, 2011 F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE/N&S).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) and in pursuance of the Notification No.S.O. 750(E) dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby makes the following amendments to the Notification No.215 dated 25th August, 2010 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-III, Section-4, vide F.No.61-1/2011-NCTE (N&S), dated the 23rd August, 2010, laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher (hereby referred to as the Principal Notification), namely :-

(I) For sub-para (i) of para 1 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

1. Minimum Qualifications:-

(i) Classes I-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 21 Procedure), Regulations, 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) OR Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) 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 pourpose. (II) For sub-para (ii) of para 1 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted, namely :-

1 (ii) Classes VI - VIII

(a) Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Graduation with at 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor ion Education (B.Ed.) OR Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition 22 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.El.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 1-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. (III) For para 3 of the Principal Notification the following shall be substituted, namely:-

(i) Training to be undergone:-A person -

(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed.

qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V up to 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education;

(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.

(ii) Reservation Policy :

Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the candidates belonging to reserved categories, such as ST/ST/OBC/PH.

(IV) For para 5 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

5.(a) Teacher appointed after the date of this notification in certain cases:-Where an appropriate Government or local authority or a shool has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time).

(b)The minimum qualification norms referred to in this Notification apply to teachers of Languages, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, etc. In respect of teachers for Physical Education, the minimum qualification norms for Physical Education teachers referred to in NCTE Regulation dated 3rd November, 2001 (as amended from time to time) shall be applicable. For teachers of Art Education, Craft Education, Home Science, Work Education, etc. the existing eligibility norms 24 prescribed by the State Governments and other school managements shall be applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum qualifications in respect of such teachers."

Upon perusal of notification dated 23.08.2010, it will be revealed that in the first level of the Teachers, qualification of B.A./B.Sc. and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) was not prescribed but, later on, in the subsequent notification dated 29.07.2011 the said qualification was included within the minimum qualification for appointment as teacher for the first level classes from I to V. In the notification dated 23.08.2010, following para 3 was inserted :

"3.Training to be undergone.- A person -

(a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month special programme in Elementary Education.

(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."

Admittedly, the said qualification prescribed by the NCTE was not inserted in Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 till 11.05.2011. Thereafter, a notification was issued on 11.05.2011 whereby following qualifications were inserted under Rule 266 of the Rules of 25 1996 :

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

(a) General Education Level - (i) Classes I to V Qualifications as laid down by 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.

Level - (ii) Classes VI to VIII Qualifications as laid down by 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 Level - (i) Classes I to V Qualifications as laid down by 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 26 Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time.

Upon perusal of the above qualifications laid down under Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 for Level - i it is specifically provided that qualification as laid down by the NCTE under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time shall be applicable. The NCTE after due deliberations inserted para 3 in the notification dated 23.08.2010 but, unfortunately, the said qualification was not inserted in the Rules of 1996 till 11.05.2011, so also, no recruitment took place in the State of Rajasthan for the posts of Teacher Grade-III since the year 2006.

Further, after inserting the qualification laid down by the NCTE no process of selection commenced till 24.02.2012 and, during this period, due to apathetic 27 inaction on the part of the State Government in not making recruitment prior to 01.01.2012 all the candidates who were possessing graduation with B.Ed. and TET eligibility became ineligible. In my opinion, although on the one hand, it is found necessary by the NCTE to grant one opportunity to all those candidates who were possessing graduation with B.Ed. and TET eligibility to compete for the Level-I post of Teacher Grade-III by inserting para 3 in the notification but the doleful aspect of the matter is that the opportunity provided by the NCTE is snatched from those candidates in the State of Rajasthan who would have otherwise been eligible had it not been on account of the lethargic attitude for inaction on the part of the State Government for initiating the recruitment process. Therefore, an accrued right of those candidates who are possessing graduation with B.Ed. and TET eligibility, granted under para 3 of the notification dated 23.08.2010, cannot be washed away to waste by the State Government for their own lapses so as to thwart the decision of the NCTE taken after due deliberation.

The above position further gathers emphasis by the fact that on the one hand the State Government prescribed the qualification laid down by the NCTE in the Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 11.05.2011 under Rule 266 28 and granted an opportunity to appear in the Rajasthan TET 2011 for acquiring the eligibility for appointment as Teacher Grade-III Level-I to teach students of classes I to V; but, after acquring the said eligibility, now, the State Government is not allowing the fruits of their qualification acquired during the currency of the eligibility, therefore, once right is given to the candidates to acquire the qualification, then, obviously the said benefit cannot be refused by the State Government while saying that the date mentioned in the notification of the NCTE which is 01.01.2012 has expired. The State Government has failed to perform obligatory duty to conduct the examination before 01.01.2012 for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I therefore the stand taken by the State Government that the petitioners and like persons became ineligible is totally baseless and against the basic principles of law.

The judgments cited by the learned Addl. Advocate General rendered in the cases of Kailash Chandra Harijan and Yogesh Kumar's cases are not even applicable upon the facts of the present case because NCTE considered appropriate after due deliberation that one opportunity is required to be granted to all those candidates who are possessing B.A./B.Sc. with B.Ed. qualification and TET eligibility, therefore, for deciding the instant controversy 29 both the cited judgments are totally inapplicable.

With regard to other judgments cited by learned Addl. Advocate in support of the case of the respondent State that interference of the Court in policy matters would be struck by a lawful bar, in my opinion, those judgments are not applicable in the present case because the agency of the Central Government which is the expert body known as the NCTE decided to grant opportunity to B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualification with TET eligibility holders to get appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level - I for classes I to V; but, that right has not been made available by the State Government due to their inaction, therefore, the denial of opportunity envisaged after due deliberation by the NCTE as one time measure which was available prior to 01.01.2012 to the candidates possessing B.A./B.Sc. with B.Ed. and TET eligibility against the existing vacancies is totally unconstitutional and against the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

I am unable to accept the contention of the Addl. Advocate General that date viz., 01.01.2012 is expired therefore that right of consideration cannot be given to holders of the qualification because it is expected from the welfare State that fruits of certain provision inserted after due deliberation of the facts and circumstances should be 30 made available to the candidates who are possessing qualification as per para 3 of the notification dated 23.08.2010. The state Government, however, in a very casual manner, put forth childish plea that as per the notification the petitioners are not entitled after 01.01.2012 knowing well that no efforts have been made nor occasion is afforded to provide the opportunity envisaged by the statutory body after due deliberation in this State. The entire scenario only pricks the conscience of this Court that fruits of specific provision made available by the NCTE is snatched by the State Government by its own inaction and, now, they are denying the fruits of that measure which is prescribed by the NCTE after due deliberation.

In this case, the stand of the State Government is that after enactment of the Act of 2009 the expert body which is the NCTE was authorized to prescribe qualification for the post of Teacher Grade-III under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 2009 and State Government issued notification on 11.05.2011 whereby an amendment was made in Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 and qualification prescribed by the NCTE vide notification dated 23.08.2010 was inserted; meaning thereby, for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III there is complete process in the Rules of 1996 in Chapter-XII. Under Rule 263 of the Rules of 31 1996 there is provision for determination of the vacancies and vacancies occurred since 2006 were determined and communicated to the Zila Parishads district-wise for recruitment and, in pursuance of that, advertisements have been issued on 24.02.2012 by all the Zila Parishads of the State, in which, age relaxation has been granted as provided under sub-rule (X) of Rule 265, by which, those candidates who would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for direct recruitment in a year, in which, no such recruitment was held they were granted relaxation of 3 years; meaning thereby, the legislature has taken note of the fact that in the event of not filling in the vacancies in a particular year no candidate should be deprived to compete if he was otherwise eligible for the post of Teacher Grade- III. In this case, Admittedly 40000 vacancies are advertised which were determined in the year 2011 of the previous years since 2006 because for last 6 years no recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III took place in the State of Rajasthan.

Admittedly, as per the respondents themselves the candidates possessing graduation with B.Ed. and TET qualification were held entitled for appointment up to 01.01.2012; meaning thereby, all the petitioners and those candidates who were possessing graduation with B.Ed. and 32 TET were held eligible for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III Level - I to teach students of classes I to V; but, that right is not made available to the candidates only for the reason that date 01.01.2012 expired.

In the Rules there is power of relaxation in any of the rule under Rule 296. Rule 296 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under :

"Rule 296. "Power to relax rules."- The State Government on a reference by the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad concerned or on its own motion, in an exceptional case where the Administrative Department is satisfied that the operation of the rules relating to any provision for recruitment, if any, causes undue hardship or where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of these rules may with the concurrence of Department of Personnel, relax the relevant provisions of these rules to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner."

I have examined Rule 265 and Rule 296 in which power of relaxation is prescribed. In the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 issued by all the Zila Parishads age relaxation has been granted under sub-rule (X) of Rule 265 of the Rules of 1996, whereby, all those candidates who were eligible in last three years but crossed the age limit are held entitled to compete for recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III. Therefore, if such relaxation in age is provided under sub-rule (X) of Rule 265 by the State to the 33 candidates who become over-age for recruitment in pursuance of advertisements issued on 24.02.2012, but the State Government did not exsercise its power to grant eligibility to the candidates who are possessing qualification of graduation with B.Ed. and TET after 01.01.2012 under Rule 296 of the Rules of 1996, in which, the legislature while conferring power has cast duty upon the State Government in an exceptional case where the Administrative Department is satisfied that the operation of the rules relating to any provision for recruitment, if any, causes undue hardship or where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of these rules may with the concurrence of Department of Personnel, on its own motion, relax the relevant provisions of these rules to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. The case of the petitioners, therefore, falls under Rule 296 for the reasons that (i) case is an exceptional case, (ii) operation of the provision causes undue hardship, (iii) it is a case in which it is necessary or expedient to relax a provision of the rules, and (iv) it is necessary for dealing with the present case in just and equitable manner. Therefore, for the welfare of large 34 number of candidates it is duty of the State legislature to grant, as a one-time measure, an opportunity to those candidates who were held eligible by the NCTE itself for appointment up to 01.01.2012.

Admittedly, none of the candidates possessing graduation with B.Ed. and TET qualification was given opportunity for appointment inspite of clear provision inserted by the NCTE up to 01.01.2012. More so, after inserting the said qualification by amendment in the Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 11.05.2011, an opportunity was granted to candidates possessing graduation with B.Ed. qualification to appear in the TET examination by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer and they were given certificate after passing the said examination for Level

- I and Level - II, both. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that all those candidates who were possessing the qualification of graduation with B.Ed. and TET were held eligible by the NCTE for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III but the said benefit is not made available to those candidates by the State legislature because delay in recruitment is caused due to apathetic and indifferent attitude of the State authorities.

In my considered opinion, it is settled law that a particular vacancy arisen in a particular year should be filled 35 in in accordance with the existing rules. Here, in this case, 40000 vacancies were determined up to the year 2011 and, at that time, as per notification dated 23.08.2010, the qualification prescribed by the NCTE was inserted in Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, in which, para 3 was in existence whereby it was specifically provided that a candidate with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V up to 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education; but, the benefit of the said eligibility is not extended to any of the candidates possessing the said qualification for the reason that the vacancies are advertised on 24.02.2012. In my considered opinion, the right accrued to the candidates as per para 3 of the notification dated 23.08.2010 cannot be snatched merely on the ground that the process of selection for already determined vacancies commenced on 24.02.2012.

If such type of action of the State Government is countenanced, then, obviously the scope of selection will be 36 narrowed down and only those candidates will get opportunity for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade- III Level - I who are possessing qualifications other than the qualification possessed by the petitioners. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to expand the scope of opportunity to the candidates instead of narrowing down the scope of recruitment.

As per Articles 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the intention of the welfare State must be in favour of the larger number of citizens and it must not be restricted to class of persons. But, here, in this case, the State Government is snatching the right of consideration from the petitioners on hyper-technical ground, that too, due to their own inaction. The State Government is answerable for the reasons why the recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III is not made since 2006 and, now, if they are initiating the process of selection, then, how the State can curtail the right of consideration of those candidates who were held eligible by the NCTE for the simple reason that the State Government did not initiate the process of selection prior to the date 01.01.2012.

When there is power left with the State under Rule 296 of the Rules of 1996 to relax any of the provisions of the Rules, then, obviously a proper decision was to be taken 37 to enlarge the scope of selection by granting opportunity to all the candidates who were declared eligible by the NCTE and who were allowed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer to appear and pass the TET examination even after possessing graduation with B.Ed. qualification. I am unable to understand why the State Government is not extending opportunity to the candidates possessing qualification of graduation with B.Ed. and TET for participating in the selection process for the posts of Teacher Grade-III Level - I to teach students of classes I to V when the NCTE itself gave opinion that as a one-time measure said opportunity should be given to the candidates possessing graduation with B.Ed. and TET with a rider that they shall acquire training after their appointment.

It is very important to observe that the NCTE has been authorized by the Central Government to prescribe the qualification but the NCTE cannot compel the State Government to strictly follow their opinion to apply the said qualification up to particular date because under Article 309 of the Constitution of India the State Government has power to frame service rules.

In the case of Chandra Kala Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2012) 3 SCC 129, recently Hon'ble Supreme Court made following adjudication in para 7 and 8 38 of the judgment while considering similar controversy :

"7. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has given a finding that the higher qualification is not the substitute for the qualification of Senior Secondary or Intermediate. In the instant case, we fail to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court to the extent that it does not consider higher qualification as equivalent to the qualification of passing Senior Secondary Examination even in respect of a candidate who was provisionally selected.

8. The word "equivalent" must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression "equivalent" one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that, after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also come into existence."

While considering the above adjudication, I once again applied my mind with reference to the present controversy. It emerges from the facts that the expert body which the NCTE expressly inserted para 3 in the notification dated 23.08.2010 and held that graduate with B.Ed. and TET can be treated equivalent and one-time opportunity should be given to them to participate in the selection process for appointment as Teacher Grade-III Level - I to teach students of classes I to V. Therefore, from any angle, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not treated eligible by the NCTE for appointment against the vacancies of Level

- I. More so, the NCTE after due deliberation 39 incorporated para 3 in the notification dated 23.08.2010 that those candidates possessing qualification of graduation with B.Ed. will be eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level - I and, at the time of issuance of notification dated 23.08.2010, it was felt necessary to provide one opportunity to those candidates. Therefore, obviously with a view to granting opportunity the date 01.01.2012 was inserted and it was expected from the State Government to make recruitment while providing opportunity to them; but, it was not provided by the State of Rajasthan even though with open eyes the NCTE held the above qualification holders eligible for appointment.

It is also worthwhile to observe that no restriction was imposed by the NCTE, therefore, obviously the power left with the State Government under Rule 296 of the Rules of 1996 to relax any of the provisions of the rules was to be exercised; but, it was not exercised though the same power was exercised in relation to relaxation in upper age-limit. Therefore, the action of the State Government in refusing all those candidates possessing graduation with B.Ed. to compete for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level - I to teach students of classes I to V is totally unfounded and contrary to the principle of legitimate expectation. The duty of the welfare State is not to curtail 40 the envisaged opportunity for the candidates but to enlarge the scope and opportunity in view of Articles 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

I have examined para 3 of the notification dated 23.08.2010 from all angles. It emerges from the language used by the NCTE that the date of 01.01.2012 is inserted to grant one opportunity to the candidates who are pursuing B.Ed. and not to put restriction upon the State Government because the NCTE is having jurisdiction to lay down the qualification under the Act of 2009 but cannot put restriction upon the State Government to declare any candidate ineligible for appointment. In these circumstances, the denial of opportunity to the petitioners holding the qualification of graduation with B.Ed. and who acquired TET qualification after issuance of notification dated 23.08.2010 and prior to 01.01.2012 is against the constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the above writ petitions as well as writ petitions enumerated in the Schedule appended to this judgment are hereby allowed. Respondent State is directed to grant one opportunity to all those candidates who acquired qualification of graduation with B.Ed. and TET qualification before 01.01.2012 in the selection process 41 commenced in pursuance of advertisements issued by the Zila Parishads of all the districts on 24.02.2012 for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III Level - I. There shall however be no order as to costs.

(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.

Ojha, a.

SCHEDULE APPENDED TO THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2180/2012 & S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2205/2012 43 SBCWP No. 2161/2012 CHANDRA BHAN DUDY & ANR. 1 Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE. PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3100/2012 PUNITA VYAS & ORS Vs. STATE 2 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3152/2012 TARA KANWAR & ANR Vs. STATE 3 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3156/2012 SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS Vs. 4 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3157/2012 NARENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. 5 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3158/2012 MANI RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 6 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3159/2012 JAI RAJ & ORS Vs. STATE 7 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3163/2012 ANIL TAILOR & ORS Vs. STATE 8 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3164/2012 DINESH KUMAR SEN Vs. STATE 9 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3165/2012 BEERAM RAM CHOUDHARY & 10 ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3166/2012 SHARVAN KUMAR PARNGI & ORS 11 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3167/2012 SUJAN DAN & ORS Vs. STATE 12 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3168/2012 SARITA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & 13 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3171/2012 MAHESH & ORS Vs. STATE 14 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3180/2012 RAJU RAM JAIPAL & ORS Vs. 15 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3181/2012 AMRIT PAL SINGH & ORS Vs. 16 STATE & ORS 17 SBCWP No. 3182/2012 RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS SBCWP No. 3183/2012 SAWAI RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & 18 ORS SBCWP No. 3187/2012 PRAKASH CHAND BARWAR Vs. 19 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

20 SBCWP No. 3188/2012 SHRAWAN Vs. STATE & ORS. SBCWP No. 3189/2012 VINITA KUMARI & ANR. Vs. STATE 21 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3191/2012 RAMESH PAREEK & ORS Vs. 22 STATE & ORS SBCWP No. 3195/2012 HAPU RAM @ ORS. Vs. STATE & 23 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3196/2012 SHAITAN RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 24 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3198/2012 PUKH RAJ & ORS. Vs. STATE & 25 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3199/2012 BHAGWAN SINGH & ORS Vs. 26 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2178/2012 DHARMENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE 27 (RURAL DEVE. PAN. RAJ.) & ORS 45 SBCWP No. 2179/2012 PRIYANKA SHARMA Vs. STATE 28 (RURAL DEVE. PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2205/2012 VEERA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & 29 ORS.

SBCWP No. 2875/2012 DINESH KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 30 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2876/2012 GULAB KANWAR CHUNDAWAT & 31 ORS Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2877/2012 OM PRAKASH BHADU & ORS Vs. 32 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2879/2012 LAXMAN SINGH RAJOT & ORS Vs. 33 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2895/2012 NIMBA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 34 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2988/2012 VEERAMA RAM GODARA & ORS. 35 Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3372/2012 BHANWAR LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 36 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3476/2012 VARSHA JAIN & ORS Vs. STATE 37 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3621/2012 MOHAN RAM Vs. STATE 38 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3691/2012 MEKA RAM KHOT & ANR. Vs. 39 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3701/2012 MALU RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF 40 RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3737/2012 SOHANLAL SUNAR Vs. STATE 41 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS 46 SBCWP No. 3748/2012 BHERULAL NAYAK & ORS. Vs. 42 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3760/2012 ARUN VYAS & ORS Vs. STATE 43 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3769/2012 KAMAL PRAKASH & ORS Vs. 44 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3776/2012 SHYAM SUNDER PRAJAPAT & 45 ANR Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3778/2012 BHARTI CHOUHAN & ANR Vs. 46 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3788/2012 NARAYAN LAL MEENA & ORS Vs. 47 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3789/2012 SURESH KUMAR MEENA & ORS 48 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3796/2012 MANGI LAL JOGI & ORS Vs. 49 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3798/2012 ANUSUYA DEVAL & ORS. Vs. 50 STATE (EDUCATION) & ANR.

SBCWP No. 3810/2012 VIJAY SINGH RAIKA & ORS Vs. 51 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3828/2012 MADAN LAL BERWA & ORS. Vs. 52 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3872/2012 JOITA RAM PATEL & ORS. Vs. 53 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3882/2012 GANPAT LAL VISHNOI & ORS. Vs. 54 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3901/2012 GANPAT RAM MALI & ORS. Vs. 55 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3905/2012 CHANAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. 56 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3908/2012 ANDA RAM MEGHWAL & ORS. Vs. 57 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3939/2012 KAMLESH BUNKAR & ORS. Vs. 58 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3974/2012 HANUMAN PRASAD & ORS Vs. 59 STATE (EDUCATION) & ANR SBCWP No. 3976/2012 INDRAPAL & ORS Vs. STATE 60 (PAN. RAJ.) & ANR SBCWP No. 3978/2012 SUMAN PAYAL & ORS Vs. STATE 61 (PAN. RAJ.) & ANR SBCWP No. 3986/2012 BABU LAL MAKAD & ORS Vs. 62 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3987/2012 SUMAN & ORS Vs. STATE 63 (EDUCATION) & ANR SBCWP No. 3995/2012 SMT. INDIRA & ORS. Vs. STATE 64 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4014/2012 MANGESH KANWAR & ORS Vs. 65 STATE (EDUCATION) & ANR SBCWP No. 4018/2012 MAHESH KUMAR AMETA & ORS 66 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4055/2012 PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAW & 67 ORS Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ANR.

SBCWP No. 4057/2012 ANKITA POONIA & ORS Vs. 68 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ANR SBCWP No. 4063/2012 RAJENDRA KUMAR PARIHAR & 69 ORS Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4067/2012 RAM LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 70 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4089/2012 PRAKASH CHAND & ORS Vs. 71 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4091/2012 MS SALMA SAMEJA & ORS. Vs. 72 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4092/2012 JAI KISHAN SAHARAN & ORS. Vs. 73 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4093/2012 JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE 74 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4098/2012 DASHARATH KUMAR & ORS Vs. 75 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4101/2012 MAHADEV & ORS. Vs. STATE 76 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4131/2012 BHAJAN LAL BERWAL & ORS Vs. 77 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4141/2012 HETRAM BENIWAL & ORS Vs. 78 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2374/2012 MANOJ SONI & ORS. Vs. STATE 79 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2431/2012 JABAR SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE 80 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2647/2012 IMRAN B. KHAN Vs. STATE 81 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2692/2012 GANPAT RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 82 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2762/2012 ARJUN RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 83 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS 49 SBCWP No. 2761/2012 AMRIT KUMAR JAT & ORS. Vs. 84 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2789/2012 JOG SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE 85 (PAN. RAJ.) & ANR SBCWP No. 2800/2012 MINASH KUMAR RANGA & ORS 86 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2801/2012 SMT. KUSUMLATA & ORS Vs. 87 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2803/2012 RAM CHANDRA & ORS. Vs. STATE 88 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2807/2012 JYOTI SHARMA & ANR Vs. STATE 89 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2808/2012 KISHNA RAM MEGHWAL & ORS 90 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2809/2012 PURSHOTTAM KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 91 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2811/2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE 92 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2812/2012 VYANJANA SHARMA & ORS. Vs. 93 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ANR SBCWP No. 2813/2012 RAKESH SHARMA Vs. STATE 94 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2821/2012 PUNAMA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 95 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2822/2012 SURESH KUMAR PAREEK & ORS 96 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2824/2012 MAHAVEER RAM & ORS Vs. 97 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS 50 SBCWP No. 2825/2012 MADAN LAL SANKHLA & ORS Vs. 98 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2827/2012 RANCHHOD LAL MEGHWAL & 99 ORS. Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2828/2012 DUDARAM & ORS Vs. STATE 100 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2829/2012 KAMLA BISHNOI & ORS Vs. STATE 101 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2830/2012 RAJESH & ORS Vs. STATE 102 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2831/2012 SURENDRA SINGH UADAWAT & 103 ORS. Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS. SBCWP No. 2832/2012 NIMBA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 104 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2834/2012 TANERAW SINGH & ORS. Vs. 105 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2835/2012 VIKASH KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 106 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2836/2012 SOHAN LAL GARG & ORS Vs. 107 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2837/2012 JASWANT KANWAR & ORS. Vs. 108 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2838/2012 RAMAVATAR PRAJAPAT & ORS. 109 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2839/2012 PRAVEEN JANI & ORS. Vs. STATE 110 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2840/2012 KESHA RAM CHOUDHARY & ORS 111 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2841/2012 KANHAIYA LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE 112 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2842/2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE 113 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2843/2012 RAJENDRA YADAV & ORS Vs. 114 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3839/2012 SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS Vs. 115 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3843/2012 BAJRANG LAL & ANR Vs. STATE 116 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ANR SBCWP No. 2852/2012 HAPU RAM Vs. STATE 117 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2851/2012 SMT. KESARI & ORS Vs. STATE 118 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2853/2012 KAILASH DAS & ORS Vs. STATE 119 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2854/2012 HEMA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 120 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2862/2012 MOHD. AKHTAR BHATI & ORS Vs. 121 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2878/2012 SHANKER LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 122 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2880/2012 MANOHAR LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 123 & ORS SBCWP No. 2881/2012 CHENA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE & 124 ORS SBCWP No. 2883/2012 LEELAWATI SWAMI Vs. STATE 125 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2886/2012 POONAMA RAM & ANR. Vs. 126 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2887/2012 GOPI CHAND JANGID & ORS Vs. 127 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2888/2012 OM PRAKASH & ANR Vs. STATE 128 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2896/2012 DILEEP SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE 129 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2899/2012 VINOD KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 130 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3874/2012 PRAKASH & ORS Vs. STATE 131 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3875/2012 NARENDRA SUTHAR & ORS. Vs. 132 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3877/2012 REPUDAMAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. 133 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2910/2012 SURESH KUMAR & ORS Vs. 134 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2911/2012 KUMARI KANTA & ANR Vs. STATE 135 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2912/2012 SUNITA KATARA & ORS. Vs. 136 STATE (EDUCATION) & ANR.

SBCWP No. 2900/2012 MANOJ KUMAR CHAHAR & ORS. 137 Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2902/2012 ASHA RAM & ANR. Vs. STATE 138 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2909/2012 VIKRAM KASWAN & ORS. Vs. 139 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS 53 SBCWP No. 2935/2012 SMT. MANJU & ORS Vs. STATE 140 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2937/2012 DEVENG PATEL & ORS. Vs. 141 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2938/2012 RAYMAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. Vs. 142 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2944/2012 MOHD. YASIN & ORS. Vs. STATE 143 & ORS SBCWP No. 2918/2012 KHIYA RAM & ANR. Vs. STATE 144 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2932/2012 SATPAL DUDI & ORS. Vs. STATE 145 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2936/2012 TARA SALVI & ANR. Vs. STATE 146 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2915/2012 SURENDRA SINGH FAGERIYA & 147 ORS Vs. STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2916/2012 BHAGAT RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 148 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2917/2012 RAM NARAYAN Vs. STATE 149 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2922/2012 CHETAN RAM KARWASRA Vs. 150 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2923/2012 NEHA SHARMA & ORS Vs. STATE 151 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2925/2012 ASHOK KUMAR MEGHWAL & ORS 152 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ANR.

SBCWP No. 2926/2012 DEVENDRA SINGH & ORS. Vs. 153 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS 54 SBCWP No. 2927/2012 SHARWAN KUMAR 154 PHOOLPHAGAR & ORS Vs. STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2929/2012 MOHAMMAD FAROOKH & ORS Vs. 155 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2933/2012 KAMAL NARESH & ORS. Vs. 156 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2941/2012 HEM SINGH SOLANKI & ORS Vs. 157 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2957/2012 IKRAM KHAN & ORS Vs. STATE 158 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2962/2012 RATANLAL MEENA & ORS Vs. 159 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2963/2012 JYOTI DUTTA & ORS. Vs. STATE 160 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2965/2012 RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Vs. 161 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2966/2012 INDU OJHA & ORS. Vs. STATE 162 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2967/2012 AJA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 163 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2969/2012 IDAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE 164 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2970/2012 SHARMILA RANI Vs. STATE 165 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2971/2012 MAHAVEER & ORS. Vs. STATE 166 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2972/2012 RAM LAL BISHNOI & ORS. Vs. 167 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2973/2012 HEERA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 168 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2974/2012 RADHA KISHAN & ORS Vs. STATE 169 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2976/2012 SUKH RAM LABANA & ORS Vs. 170 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2977/2012 BHOMA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 171 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2978/2012 NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY 172 & ORS Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2979/2012 CHAUTHA RAM VISHNOI & ORS 173 Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2980/2012 ANITA SEERVI & ORS Vs. STATE 174 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2981/2012 JITENDRA KUMAR PARIHAR & 175 ORS Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2982/2012 BHANWAR SINGH BHATI & ORS 176 Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2983/2012 LALITA SWAMI & ORS. Vs. STATE 177 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2984/2012 RAMSWAROOP & ORS. Vs. STATE 178 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2985/2012 BHOPAL SINGH MEENA & ORS. 179 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2986/2012 ARJUN LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 180 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 2989/2012 SUKH RAM VISHNOI & ORS. Vs. 181 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2990/2012 GAJE SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE 182 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2991/2012 SANTOSH KUMAR LOMAROR & 183 ORS Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2993/2012 OM PRAKASH DUDI & ORS Vs. 184 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2994/2012 KISHORE SINGH RAO & ORS. Vs. 185 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3001/2012 RANJEET KUMAR & ANR Vs. 186 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3009/2012 REKHA KHANT Vs. STATE (PAN. 187 RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3011/2012 ARVINDER KAUR & ORS. Vs. 188 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3012/2012 PRERNA & ORS Vs. STATE 189 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3013/2012 RAM RATAN & ORS Vs. STATE 190 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3014/2012 RAM LAL BANJARA & ORS Vs. 191 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3019/2012 SHARMILA BISHNOI & ORS Vs. 192 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3020/2012 BIRBAL RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 193 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3026/2012 GOPAL SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 194 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3035/2012 HARICHAND RAM BISHNOI & 195 ORS. Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS. 57 SBCWP No. 3036/2012 RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE 196 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3045/2012 YAMINI BHARTI & ORS Vs. STATE 197 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3046/2012 SMT. GEETA BISHNOI Vs. STATE 198 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3047/2012 POOJA MEENA Vs. STATE 199 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3050/2012 BRIJ RAJ CHARAN & ORS Vs. 200 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3051/2012 MONIKA VYAS & ORS. Vs. STATE 201 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3052/2012 BHARAT PRAKASH SHARMA & 202 ORS Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3053/2012 BADRI NARAYAN & ORS Vs. 203 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3054/2012 BUDHA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 204 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3055/2012 PREM PRAKASH & ORS Vs. 205 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3056/2012 CHANDAN SINGH & ORS Vs. 206 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3058/2012 JOGA RAM INKHIYA & ORS Vs. 207 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3059/2012 RAMESH KUMAR & ORS Vs. 208 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3060/2012 HARI SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 209 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3061/2012 PRAVEEN KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 210 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3063/2012 MANCHHA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 211 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3064/2012 MANISH GUPTA & ORS. Vs. 212 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3065/2012 VIJAY PAL & ORS Vs. STATE 213 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3066/2012 SHANKAR LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 214 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3067/2012 SANTOSH & ORS Vs. STATE 215 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3073/2012 RAJU RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 216 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3075/2012 ASHA & ORS Vs. STATE 217 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3076/2012 MONIKA BAGRA & ORS Vs. STATE 218 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3078/2012 REKHA CHOUHAN & ORS Vs. 219 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3079/2012 SURESH MARU & ORS Vs. STATE 220 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3082/2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 221 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3083/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. 222 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3084/2012 REKHA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 223 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS 59 SBCWP No. 3092/2012 MAHENDRA JAKHAR & ORS Vs. 224 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3093/2012 JEEVAT RAM KATARA & ORS Vs. 225 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3097/2012 RAJESHWARI CHOUHAN & ANR 226 Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3098/2012 ARUNA VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. 227 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3081/2012 KESHAR GAR & ORS Vs. STATE 228 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3144/2012 GOPI LAL VISHNOI & ORS Vs. 229 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3104/2012 VISHNU KINJA & ORS Vs. STATE 230 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3106/2012 ARVIND KUMAR ARHA & ORS Vs. 231 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3108/2012 BHAGWAN SINGH & ORS Vs. 232 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3112/2012 GOUTAM SHARMA & ORS. Vs. 233 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3113/2012 PREETI KALWANI & ORS Vs. 234 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3115/2012 BIRENDRA SINGH & ANR Vs. 235 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3117/2012 CHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS Vs. 236 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3118/2012 SATRAM BISHNOI & ORS. Vs. 237 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3119/2012 HARI RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 238 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3120/2012 RAJA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 239 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3121/2012 ANITA RATHORE & ORS Vs. 240 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3124/2012 MEENAKSHI SWAMI & ORS Vs. 241 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3125/2012 PAPPULAL & ORS Vs. STATE 242 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3127/2012 MITHOO SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 243 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3128/2012 BALWAN SINGH PUNIA & ORS Vs. 244 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3130/2012 ANIRUDH Vs. STATE 245 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3133/2012 BANNA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE OF 246 RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3134/2012 KAILASH CHAUDHARY & ORS Vs. 247 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3135/2012 PRAMENDER KUMAR & ORS Vs. 248 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3138/2012 PRAKASH CHANDRA VAISHANV & 249 ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3142/2012 BHAGWATI DAS VAISHANV & 250 ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3143/2012 DOONGARA RAM & ORS. Vs. 251 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3145/2012 SHYAM SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE 252 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3146/2012 SHER SINGH GOUD & ORS Vs. 253 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3148/2012 DINESH KUMAR MEHLA & ORS 254 Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3184/2012 NAVITA SWAMI & ANR Vs. STATE 255 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3185/2012 RITU SWAMI & ANR Vs. STATE 256 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3186/2012 ASHISH ACHARYA Vs. STATE 257 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3193/2012 CHANDRA PAL SINGH & ANR Vs. 258 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3202/2012 RAJENDRA PRASAD BHADU & 259 ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3200/2012 SMT. KALPANA SHARMA & ORS. 260 Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3208/2012 PEER CHAND KASNIYA & ORS. 261 Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3210/2012 DEEWAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. 262 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3212/2012 MS. AKANSHA CHOUDHARY & 263 ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3213/2012 SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. 264 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3214/2012 BHANWARA RAM Vs. STATE & 265 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3219/2012 RAMKISHORE CHOUDHARY & 266 ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3220/2012 MEGHA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & 267 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3221/2012 KRISHNA KANWAR & ANR. Vs. 268 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3227/2012 RAVINDRA KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 269 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3228/2012 SHOBHA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 270 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3252/2012 MANGE LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 271 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3280/2012 LAL CHAND GOSWAMI & ORS Vs. 272 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3217/2012 SURESH PATEL Vs. STATE & 273 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3201/2012 UGAM KANWAR Vs. STATE & 274 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3203/2012 MAHAVIR SINGH @ ORS. Vs. 275 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3204/2012 SHARWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE & 276 ORS SBCWP No. 3205/2012 BHANWAR LAL & ANR. Vs. STATE 277 & ORS SBCWP No. 3209/2012 KIRAN KUMARI @ ORS. Vs. 278 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3211/2012 SUMER SINGH POONIA Vs. 279 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3216/2012 NAND KISHORE & ORS. Vs. 280 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3222/2012 NANK CHAND & ORS. Vs. STATE 281 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3223/2012 RANJANA SISODIYA & ORS. Vs. 282 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3230/2012 MOHAN LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & 283 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3231/2012 RAM GOPAL SAINI Vs. STATE & 284 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3237/2012 MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS. Vs. 285 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3238/2012 BHUPENDRA KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 286 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3239/2012 LALIT SINGH PARMAR & ORS. Vs. 287 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3240/2012 HEERA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & 288 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3241/2012 CHANDRA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 289 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3242/2012 NAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE 290 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3243/2012 KAMAL KISHORE DEVARA & ORS. 291 Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3244/2012 RAM DAS MEGHWAL & ORS. Vs. 292 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3282/2012 SHRAWAN RAM & ORS. Vs. 293 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3323/2012 SUMAN PRAJAPAT & ORS Vs. 294 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3305/2012 PRAVEEN KUMAR & ORS Vs. 295 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3306/2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 296 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3310/2012 MUKHRAM DUDI & ORS Vs. 297 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3311/2012 INDRAJ KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 298 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3312/2012 KRISHNA KUMAR & ORS Vs. 299 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3313/2012 HANS RAJ SINGH & ORS Vs. 300 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3316/2012 DINESH POONIA & ANR Vs. 301 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3318/2012 MAHAVIR PRASAD & ORS Vs. 302 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3319/2012 CHUNI LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 303 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3320/2012 VINOD KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 304 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3321/2012 DEVI SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 305 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3322/2012 OM PRAKASH & ORS Vs. STATE 306 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3327/2012 MANGILAL POONIA & ORS Vs. 307 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3329/2012 MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS Vs. 308 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3330/2012 RAM NARAYAN KUMHAR & ORS 309 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3337/2012 YESHPAL SINGH CHOUHAN & 310 ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3339/2012 MANA RAM CHOUDHARY & ORS 311 Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3342/2012 OM PRAKASH MEENA & ORS Vs. 312 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3344/2012 ANSHU TAK & ORS Vs. STATE 313 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3336/2012 KHIMA RAM RABARI & ORS Vs. 314 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3307/2012 VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE (RURAL 315 DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3314/2012 PRABHU RAM GODARA & ORS 316 Vs. STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3324/2012 BHOPAL SINGH JHALA & ORS Vs. 317 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3325/2012 PINKI SHEKHAWAT & ORS Vs. 318 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3326/2012 JASSA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE OF 319 RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3328/2012 MAMTA DEVI & ORS Vs. STATE 320 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3331/2012 GOPAL LAL LABANA & ORS Vs. 321 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3332/2012 SHOBH SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 322 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3333/2012 JYOTI CHOUDHARY & ORS Vs. 323 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3334/2012 NARENDRA KUMAR SONAWAT & 324 ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3335/2012 RUPA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE OF 325 RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3338/2012 SMT. IMARTA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. 326 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3340/2012 POONAM KANSARA & ORS Vs. 327 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3341/2012 DINESH KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 328 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3343/2012 LALIT NATH YOGI & ORS. Vs. 329 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3345/2012 MEENA KUMARI & ORS Vs. STATE 330 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3346/2012 KAILASH CHANDRA KHATEEK & 331 ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3347/2012 MAMTA DEVI & ORS Vs. STATE 332 OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3349/2012 ROOP LAL DENDOR & ORS Vs. 333 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3350/2012 DHARAMPAL & ORS Vs. STATE & 334 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3393/2012 ARJUN SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 335 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2359/2012 SHANKAR LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 336 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3351/2012 HANSRAJ & ORS. Vs. STATE 337 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

338 SBCWP No. 3357/2012 PUJA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3358/2012 NANDRAM & ORS Vs. STATE & 339 ORS.

340 SBCWP No. 3359/2012 OM PRAKASH & ORS. Vs. STATE SBCWP No. 3362/2012 BHAGIRATH KARWASRA & ORS 341 Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3366/2012 RAKESH & ORS Vs. STATE 342 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3368/2012 RAM KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE & 343 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3369/2012 GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS Vs. 344 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3370/2012 SHANKAR LAL JAKHAR & ORS Vs. 345 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3379/2012 PRABHUDAYAL GODARA & ORS 346 Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3380/2012 RAJESH KUMAR BIJARANIYA & 347 ORS Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3381/2012 NAND KISHORE & ORS Vs. STATE 348 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3386/2012 GOPAL GIRI & ORS Vs. STATE & 349 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3387/2012 AMRIT LAL NANOMA & ORS Vs. 350 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3388/2012 KISHAN LAL MEENA & ORS Vs. 351 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3390/2012 NARENDRA PANWAR & ORS. Vs. 352 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3391/2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 353 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3401/2012 REKHA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 354 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3405/2012 DEEPNANDINI & ANR Vs. STATE 355 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3410/2012 KISHAN GOPAL & ORS Vs. STATE 356 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3411/2012 HINGLAJ SINGH & ORS. Vs. 357 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3412/2012 ALPANA NAGOURI & ORS Vs. 358 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3413/2012 RAJARAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 359 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3414/2012 MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE 360 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3415/2012 ANIL KUMAR MEENA & ORS Vs. 361 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3418/2012 NARSINGA RAM KARWASRA & 362 ORS. Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS. SBCWP No. 3420/2012 LALIT KUMAR DAVE & ORS Vs. 363 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3421/2012 HARCHARAN SINGH & ORS Vs. 364 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3422/2012 TARUN KUMAR TRIVEDI & ORS 365 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3423/2012 BHANWAR LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 366 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3424/2012 RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE 367 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3425/2012 RAJENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. 368 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3426/2012 JAS RAJ CHOUDHARY & ORS Vs. 369 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3427/2012 RAJESH KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE 370 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3429/2012 BINDU & ORS Vs. STATE 371 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3430/2012 NAGA RAM & ANR Vs. STATE 372 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3431/2012 KULDEEP KUMAR & ORS Vs. 373 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3432/2012 RAMESH CHANDRA MEENA & 374 ORS Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3433/2012 ARVIND KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 375 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3434/2012 BALBIR SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 376 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3435/2012 SUNIL KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 377 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3436/2012 KAMAL KISHORE PARGAR & ORS 378 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3437/2012 SARWAN KUMAR YADAV Vs. 379 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3438/2012 PRAVEEN KUMAR SWAMI & ORS 380 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3439/2012 YASHWANTI DEVI & ORS Vs. 381 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3440/2012 ANITA BAI MEENA Vs. STATE 382 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3441/2012 GURDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE 383 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3442/2012 GURPREET KAUR & ORS Vs. 384 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3443/2012 SADEEK MOHAMMAD & ORS Vs. 385 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3445/2012 MANOJ KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 386 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3446/2012 VINOD KUMAR PUNIYA & ORS Vs. 387 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3447/2012 RAMESH KUMAR SUTHAR & ORS 388 & ORS Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS. SBCWP No. 3448/2012 SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS Vs. 389 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3428/2012 JYOTI GIRDHAR Vs. STATE (PAN. 390 RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3449/2012 MS. KRISHNA BHAKAR & ORS Vs. 391 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3452/2012 SHAILINI VYAS & ORS. Vs. STATE 392 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3454/2012 POONAMA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 393 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3456/2012 DALPAT PURI & ORS Vs. STATE 394 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3457/2012 ASHOK KUMAR RAWAT & ORS. 395 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3458/2012 MANMOHAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. 396 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3459/2012 GAYATRI CHOUHAN Vs. STATE 397 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3464/2012 MISS REKHA PANWAR & ORS Vs. 398 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3465/2012 MOTA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 399 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3467/2012 SHYAM SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 400 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3469/2012 SAROJ CHOUDHARY & ORS Vs. 401 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3470/2012 MADAN LAL & ORS Vs. STATE 402 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3474/2012 ANAND PURI & ORS Vs. STATE 403 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3477/2012 JOHAN SINGH DEVDA & ORS Vs. 404 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3478/2012 VINOD KUMAR PATIDAR & ORS 405 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS 72 SBCWP No. 3479/2012 HASEENA BANO & ORS Vs. 406 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3481/2012 SANJAY KUMAR TANWAR & ORS 407 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3484/2012 RADHA KRISHAN & ORS Vs. 408 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3485/2012 NAND SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 409 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3486/2012 ARJUN LAL CHOUDHARY & ORS 410 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3487/2012 ASHA AMETA & ORS Vs. STATE 411 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3489/2012 LAL CHAND & ORS Vs. STATE 412 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3490/2012 PANKAJ SHARMA & ORS. Vs. 413 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3492/2012 HANUMAN RAM & ANR Vs. STATE 414 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3493/2012 SURYA KANT BHATI & ORS Vs. 415 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3494/2012 RAM KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 416 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3495/2012 JAI NARAYAN & ORS Vs. STATE & 417 ORS.

SBCWP No. 3496/2012 RAJA RAM GILA BISHNOI & ORS 418 Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3508/2012 TARA CHAND & ORS Vs. STATE 419 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3528/2012 RAHUL GOSWAMI & ORS Vs. 420 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3534/2012 SUSHILA PANWAR & ORS Vs. 421 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3562/2012 PADAM SINGH RATNU & ORS Vs. 422 STATE (EDUCATION) & ANR SBCWP No. 3582/2012 HARI RAM NAI & ORS Vs. STATE 423 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2558/2012 SMT. SHIWANI ACHARAYA & ORS 424 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2566/2012 SMT. PARIKSHA Vs. STATE 425 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3559/2012 MAHAVEER SINGH BHATI & ORS 426 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3563/2012 RAMNARAYAN & ORS Vs. STATE 427 (EDUCATION) & ANR SBCWP No. 3564/2012 SAJJAN KUMAR BISSU & ORS Vs. 428 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3565/2012 BABULAL & ORS Vs. STATE 429 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3567/2012 RAMESH KUMAR & ORS Vs. 430 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3569/2012 DHARMVEER & ORS Vs. STATE 431 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3578/2012 SUKH DEV & ORS Vs. STATE 432 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3579/2012 MANISHA SHARMA & ORS Vs. 433 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3580/2012 SMT. MEENA SWAMI & ORS Vs. 434 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3583/2012 RAMKARAN GODARA & ORS Vs. 435 STATE OF RAJ. & ANR.

SBCWP No. 3584/2012 BHANWANA RAM & ORS Vs. 436 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3586/2012 MISS KOSHALYA & ORS Vs. 437 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3592/2012 DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 438 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3593/2012 KALU RAM JAKHAR & ORS Vs. 439 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3595/2012 SURYA PRAKASH MEENA & ANR 440 Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR.

SBCWP No. 3601/2012 SHYAM SUNDER BISHNOI & ORS 441 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3602/2012 KISHAN LAL JANI & ORS Vs. 442 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3603/2012 VISHNU DEV BISHNOI & ORS Vs. 443 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3607/2012 SANJHU LATA BISHNOI & ORS Vs. 444 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3626/2012 SATYA PRAKASH SAHARAN & 445 ORS. Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3628/2012 BHAGWATI & ORS Vs. STATE 446 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3643/2012 NARESH KUMAR & ORS Vs. 447 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS 75 SBCWP No. 3699/2012 BALVINDER SHARMA & ORS. Vs. 448 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3741/2012 ABHISHEK GODA & ORS. Vs. 449 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2716/2012 RAVINDRA KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 450 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2719/2012 BHUPESH CHARAN & ORS Vs. 451 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2723/2012 SHEETAL JAGGA & ORS Vs. 452 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2724/2012 SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 453 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2725/2012 RAM DAYAL & ORS Vs. STATE 454 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2730/2012 JITENDRA VERMA & ORS. Vs. 455 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2735/2012 VISHAL GURJAR Vs. STATE 456 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2738/2012 SHANTI CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE 457 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2746/2012 MUKESH BERA & ORS Vs. STATE 458 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3738/2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE 459 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3745/2012 RAJU SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 460 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ANR SBCWP No. 3749/2012 SHAMSHAD BANO & ORS. Vs. 461 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ANR 76 SBCWP No. 3755/2012 PAWAN KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE 462 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2752/2012 MOHAN RAM MEGHWAL & ORS. 463 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2754/2012 SUNITA & ORS Vs. STATE 464 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2755/2012 JITENDRA KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 465 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2756/2012 MUKESH DAVE Vs. STATE 466 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2769/2012 VEERAM RAM PATEL Vs. STATE 467 (PAN. RAJ.) & ANR SBCWP No. 2779/2012 SOMVEER SINGH & ANR. Vs. 468 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2781/2012 CHANDRA SHEKHAR DANTLA Vs. 469 STATE & ORS SBCWP No. 2782/2012 SHYAM LAL SUTHAR & ORS. Vs. 470 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2783/2012 CHHAGAN SINGH Vs. STATE 471 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2785/2012 SATPAL BHAMBHU & ORS Vs. 472 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2786/2012 BAJRANG PRASAD & ORS. Vs. 473 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2787/2012 ASHOK KUMAR RAJPUROHIT & 474 ORS Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2790/2012 DR. RAKESH KUMAR & ORS Vs. 475 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2793/2012 RAKESH KUMAR DAVE & ORS Vs. 476 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2795/2012 LEELA RAM DEVASEE & ORS Vs. 477 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2796/2012 BALDEV CHAUDHARY & ORS Vs. 478 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2797/2012 BHAGIRATH JAKHAR & ORS Vs. 479 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 2798/2012 PREM KUMAR BISHNOI & ORS. 480 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 2799/2012 RAJ KUMAR JAIN & ORS Vs. 481 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3780/2012 UTTAM KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE 482 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 3865/2012 NIDHI SHARMA & ORS Vs. STATE 483 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3873/2012 KABEERA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 484 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 3945/2012 SMT. KALPANA SWAMI & ORS. Vs. 485 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3946/2012 RAJENDRA KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 486 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3955/2012 HEMLATA & ORS Vs. STATE 487 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 3966/2012 BHADAR SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 488 (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4007/2012 CHAIN SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE 489 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS 78 SBCWP No. 4043/2012 MAHESH KUMAR HARSWAL & 490 ORS Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4044/2012 RAMNARAYAN CHOYAL & ORS 491 Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4047/2012 SANDEEP OLA & ORS Vs. STATE 492 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4048/2012 MEGH SINGH RATHORE & ORS 493 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4060/2012 PRABHU LAL TELI & ORS Vs. 494 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4077/2012 MAAN SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 495 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4094/2012 MUKESH KUMAR & ORS. Vs. 496 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4095/2012 BHAGIRATH SINGH & ORS Vs. 497 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4100/2012 RAJMAL BUJH & ORS Vs. STATE 498 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4104/2012 HAPU RAM CHOUDHARY & ORS 499 Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4118/2012 SATYA PRASNN SINGH & ORS. 500 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4119/2012 AJIT SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 501 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4176/2012 SAROJ SAHARAN & ORS Vs. 502 STATE OF RAJ. & ANR SBCWP No. 4177/2012 NAND LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE 503 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4185/2012 RAJ KUMAR MEGHWAL & ORS Vs. 504 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4186/2012 PRAMILA CHOUDHARY & ORS Vs. 505 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4189/2012 NEETI SANADHYA & ORS Vs. 506 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4190/2012 MAMTA & ORS Vs. STATE 507 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4196/2012 SURENDRA SINGH CHARAN & 508 ORS. Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4254/2012 DAYA KANWAR & ORS. Vs. STATE 509 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4260/2012 MANJU KADWASARA Vs. STATE 510 (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4261/2012 DULA RAM Vs. STATE (PAN. RAJ.) 511 & ORS SBCWP No. 4271/2012 BANKA RAM Vs. STATE 512 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4290/2012 LEELA Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & 513 ORS.

SBCWP No. 4291/2012 ROOPA Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) 514 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4292/2012 DEEPAK & ORS Vs. STATE 515 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4293/2012 KUSUM LATA Vs. STATE 516 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4294/2012 BHANWARI Vs. STATE 517 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4313/2012 ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS Vs. 518 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ANR SBCWP No. 4328/2012 RAJU VAISHNAV & ORS Vs. 519 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4340/2012 SUMAN BERWAL & ORS Vs. 520 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4342/2012 NARENDRA KUMAR DELU & ORS 521 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4346/2012 ARUN PAREEK & ORS. Vs. STATE 522 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4348/2012 ANIRUDH SHRIMALI Vs. STATE 523 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4351/2012 RAM RATAN LAKHERA & ORS Vs. 524 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4352/2012 CHET RAM SERADIA & ORS. Vs. 525 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4353/2012 SANWAR RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 526 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4361/2012 REKHA SHARMA & ORS Vs. 527 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4395/2012 PUSHPA KHATRI & ORS Vs. 528 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4405/2012 SUMAN BISHNOI & ORS Vs. 529 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4406/2012 KAMLA Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) 530 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4425/2012 KIRAN & ORS Vs. STATE 531 (EDUCATION) & ORS 81 SBCWP No. 4465/2012 SMT. DURGA RAIDAS & ORS Vs. 532 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4471/2012 SUBHASH CHANDRA & ORS Vs. 533 STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

SBCWP No.4491/2012 KISHNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & 534 ORS.

SBCWP No. 4509/2012 MAHENDER KUMAR & ORS Vs. 535 STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4535/2012 SHAILENDRA MIRDHA & ORS. Vs. 536 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4569/2012 RAMESHWAR LAL & ORS Vs. 537 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4589/2012 PRADEEP KUMAR YADAV & ORS 538 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4601/2012 SHALU MEENA & ORS Vs. STATE 539 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4603/2012 BIRU RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE 540 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4604/2012 SANJAY GODARA & ORS. Vs. 541 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4610/2012 SOHAN LAL BERA & ORS. Vs. 542 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4978/2012 SOHAN LAL BISHNOI & ORS Vs. 543 STATE & ANR SBCWP No. 4622/2012 NIRMALA KUMARI Vs. STATE 544 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4623/2012 PAWAN SHARMA & ORS. Vs. 545 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ANR 82 SBCWP No. 4625/2012 POOJA SHARMA & ORS. Vs. 546 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

547 SBCWP No. 4629/2012 INDER KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4637/2012 SAPNA CHAWLA & ORS Vs. 548 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4645/2012 SMT. PRAMILA PALIWAL & ORS 549 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4650/2012 BHERU SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 550 & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4656/2012 MUKESH & ORS Vs. STATE & 551 ANR SBCWP No. 4661/2012 JONI SHEKHAWAT & ORS. Vs. 552 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4710/2012 MADAN LAL AHEER & ORS Vs. 553 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4714/2012 ROHITASH KUMAR MEENA & ANR 554 Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4719/2012 SANTOSH KUMARI & ANR Vs. 555 STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4720/2012 SURESH KUMAR BADARIA & ANR. 556 Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4721/2012 RAJENDRA KUMAR SONKARIYA & 557 ANR Vs. STATE (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4723/2012 MAHENDRA SINGH GODARA & 558 ORS Vs. STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4726/2012 TINA PARIHAR Vs. STATE (RURAL 559 DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ANR 83 SBCWP No. 4730/2012 ASHA GAUR & ANR Vs. STATE & 560 ORS.

SBCWP No. 4731/2012 LOKESH PALIWAL & ORS Vs. 561 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4732/2012 VIRENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT & 562 ORS Vs. STATE (PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4748/2012 KISHAN SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE 563 (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4750/2012 PRIYA RAJ & ORS. Vs. STATE 564 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4755/2012 BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE 565 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4756/2012 ASHOK & ANR. Vs. STATE (RURAL 566 DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4757/2012 SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS Vs. 567 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4758/2012 POOJA KANWAR & ORS Vs. 568 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4759/2012 SMT. PUSHPA Vs. STATE (PAN. 569 RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4760/2012 ANKITA VAGARECHA & ORS Vs. 570 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4761/2012 MAHESH CHANDRA & ORS Vs. 571 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS SBCWP No. 4762/2012 MULA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 572 (RURAL DEVE.& PAN. RAJ.) & ORS SBCWP No. 4766/2012 SURJA RAM & ORS Vs. STATE 573 (RURAL DEVE. & PAN. RAJ.) & ORS 84 SBCWP No. 4777/2012 MUKESH VARHAT & ORS. Vs. 574 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4790/2012 RAMPHAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & 575 ORS SBCWP No. 4791/2012 BABU LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & 576 ORS.

SBCWP No. 4795/2012 RAMDEV BORANA & ORS Vs. 577 STATE (EDUCATION) & ORS.

SBCWP No. 4797/2012 MANI RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & 578 ORS.

SBCWP No. 4856/2012 PUKH RAJ MALI & ORS. Vs. 579 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 5022/2012 SOMVEER SINGH & ORS Vs. 580 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 5120/2012 RAJU KUMARI MEGHWAL Vs. 581 STATE & ORS.

SBCWP No. 5124/2012 MANDEEP KAUR & ORS Vs. 582 STATE & ORS.