Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Saraswati & Anr vs State & Ors on 12 December, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 1827 (RAJ)
Author: Deo Narayan Thanvi
Bench: Deo Narayan Thanvi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
J U D G M E N T
Smt.Saraswati & anr. Vs. State of Raj. & ors.
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.333/2006
UNDER RULE 134 OF
THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RULES.
Date of Judgment: Dec.12, 2008
P R E S E N T
REPORTABLE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI
Mr.M.Mridul, Sr.Adv.
Mr.G.R.Punia
Mr.R.S.Saluja
Mr.Sunil Joshi
Mr.P.R.Mehta
Mr.Raj Kamal Soni
Mr.B.N.Kalla
Mr.Sajjan Singh
Mr.K.R.Saharan
Mr.Shamsher Singh
Mr.Ravindra Singh
Mr.K.R.Choudhary
Mr.N.R.Choudhary
Mr.P.S.Chundawat
Mr.V.R.Choudhary
Mr.Ravinder Singh ) for appellants.
2
Mr.A.K.Rajvanshy, Additional Advocate General,
with Mr.S.M.Toshniwal, for the respondents.
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE THANVI J.)
1. To what extent, the right to get further education either expressly or by implication, can be enforced being provided for under Article 41, Part IV, of the Constitution of India, later styled as "the Constitution", dealing with the directive principles of State policy, is the controversy involved in all these 117 Special Appeals arising out of the basic two judgments of the learned Single Judge, one delivered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3639/2005 "Smt.Saraswati & anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & ors." with 78 other Writ Petitions and the other delivered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6115/2005 "Surajmal Katara & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & ors." with 25 other Writ Petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, both decided on 1st May, 2006.
3
2. Since the petitioner-appellants in all the writ petitions have questioned infringement of their fundamental rights vis-a-vis the directive principles of the State policy through the writ of mandamus in the matter of admission in the Basic School Training Course, in short "the BSTC 2005-07", therefore, all these appeals are being disposed-of by this common judgment, as the one set of petitions decided by judgment of the learned Single Judge in Smt.Saraswati's case deals with those para teachers, who were appointed without possessing requisite qualifications and the other set of petitions decided by judgment of the learned Single Judge in Surajmal Katara's case deals with those, who were having requisite qualifications but were not in service of the Government at the time of grant of admission in BSTC Course 2005-07 but were previously in service of Lok Jumbish or Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan. This BSTC Course 2005-07 was meant for those para teachers, who were in service and having minimum educational 4 qualification of 10 + 2 Sr.Secondary Examination with 5 Subjects including compulsory Subjects of Hindi, English and Maths in Secondary Examination. It is undisputed that at the time of initial appointment, both the categories of para teachers initially appointed, were not having additional qualification of BSTC or B.Ed. However in Smt.Saraswati's case and other similarly situated cases, petitioners were not even possessing the basic educational qualification of 10 + 2 but were in service, whereas in Surajmal Katara's case and other similarly situated cases, petitioners were having basic educational qualification of 10 + 2 and even more but were not in service of the Government at the time of commencement of the BSTC Course. Both the categories of the petitioners are seeking reliefs for getting admission in the BSTC Course 2005-07, which is a Correspondence Course, especially meant for in- service teachers. Petitioner-appellants in the category of Surajmal Katara's case have also sought additional relief for their reinstatement. Learned Single Judge has 5 dismissed both the sets of writ petitions on the ground that the BSTC Course 2005-07 is meant for in-service teachers with a minimum qualification of 10 + 2 as prescribed in the Circular dated 20.5.2005, Annex.2 in Smt.Saraswati's case and the Circular dated 2.6.2005 & 7.6.2005 Annex.9 and 10 respectively in Surajmal Katara's case. While relying upon the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single came to the conclusion that the petitioners, who are not possessing requisite academic qualification, though in service, as well as those who are having requisite qualifications but were not in service on the cut off date for undertaking the BSTC Correspondence Course 2005-07 are not entitled to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though the admission in the BSTC Correspondence Course of 2005-07 is common grievance in both the sets of petitions but due to different status of the petitioners, the one being in- service teachers but not having requisite qualifications and the other being out of service teachers but having 6 requisite qualifications, their cases are discussed separately.
3. First, we take the case of Smt.Saraswati and other similarly situated cases in which it has been contended by Mr.G.R.Punia & Mr.Sunil Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants that they were given appointment as Para Teachers, Contract Teachers etc. in the Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshalas and in other similar departments prior to the Circular dated 20.5.05, Annex.2 and the Circular dt.7.1.03, Annex.4. In the Circular dated 7.1.03, Annex.4, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, it was stipulated that those untrained teachers, who have been given provisional admission in the BSTC Course of 2002-04 can be permitted to fill up the examination form by obtaining affidavit from them that they will get the requisite qualification during the training period, the relevant portion of which is extracted as under:
"उपर क व षय न र न रश स र लख ह क ज
नशक सहय र!/मकहल पर ट$चर अनय सम(जन)
7
नशक नमय* ष 2002-2004 म+ (!.एस.ट$.स!.
पत च र म+ प व ल (अस0 ई) प श करय रय 0 ,
उ स प प शप0-पत आ) र पर पनशकण ल म+
न ) रर य गय पप र 7 श आ) र पर
पर$क फ म भर 7 अ मन पर 7 ! ह।"
4. Thereafter, vide Annex.2 dated 20.5.05 issued by the Primary Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, it was clarified that admission in the BSTC Course is sanctioned for the year 2005-07 on the same pattern of 2002-04 on fulfillment of certain conditions. The course was to be conducted by the Rajasthan Educational Research and Training Institute, Udaipur, the relevant portion of which is being extracted as under:
"उपर क व षय न र न रश स र र ! र ;)! स र
यन ! प ठश ल ओ; म+ यर अपनशजक पर ट$चस,
नशक म>, प ठश ल ओ; म+ यर अपनशजक
नशक नमय* ए ; अनय पनशजक नशक व भर
नम र स0 र जय शजक अ स;) ए ;
पनशकण स;स0 उरयपर द र पA म+ ष 2002-04 म+
स;प कर (!एसट$स! पत च र पनशकण अ रप ह$ ष
2005-07 म+ भ! पत च र म धयम स (!एसट$स!
पनशकण करल य 7 स ! Dन न म श E पर
8
पर 7 ! ह:-
1- यह पत च र प ठयकम र ष हर, सत
2005-07 म+ एस.आई.ई.आर.ट$. द र ड इटस
म धयम स समपन र य र।
3. xxx
4. xxx
5.xxx
6. इस पनशकण यकम म+ प श ल ह र !
र ; )! स ण यन ! प ठश ल ओ; म+ यर पर ट$चस,
प;च य र व भर अधय प स;व र अधय प ,
प 0नम व द लय/उचच प 0नम व द लय म+ यर ,
मकहल पर ट$चस, मD आनL /व ) /पररतयक
अधय प पय रश ल सह य मररस पर ट$चस ए ;
नशक म> प ठश ल ओ; म+ यर सभ! नशक म>
प त ह*र स!न यर स णडर$ (10+2) पर$क उत!ण
ह 0 स णडर$ पर$क कहनर$, अ;ग ! रजण ल र
5 व षय सकह उत!ण ह परन एस.ट$.स!./(!.एङ
उत>ण ह$; ह।
7.xxx
8.xxx
9.xxx
10.xxx
11.पनशकण स मग! फट सटट ( य मकR
र ई एर!। यह मRण य एस.आई.ई.आर.ट$.
उरयपर द र नशक म> ( ड, यपर म धयम स
25.8.2005 र य एर यकर इस य पर
प नप वयय स र नशय ; वयय ह र नशक म> ( ड
9
दर ष 2002-04 पत च र प ठयकम मRण
य 7 अ शष र नश द र पAरर क य यर ।"
5. The stress of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that once the appointment of untrained teachers has been made and they were permitted by the Director of Primary Education vide Annex.4 dt.7.1.03 to get the requisite qualification during the training period of BSTC Course 2002-04, then by the subsequent Circular dated 20.5.05, Annex.2, the condition that only those para teachers be permitted in the BSTC Correspondence Course of 2005-07, who have completed 10 + 2 Sr.Secondary Examination with three compulsory subjects in Secondary Examination, is in violation of their right to get further education and may ultimately debar them from service. According to the learned counsel, the Circular dt.20.5.05, Annex.2, wherein the BSTC Course 2005-07 was introduced was similar to that of the Course of 2002-04 by using the word "अ रप" in the said Circular. According to them, the permission which has been accorded earlier, cannot be later on withdrawn for a similarly situated course because it will amount to getting rid of the origin at the pleasure of the authority. In support of their contention, the learned counsel have placed reliance on certain pronouncements, which will be discussed at the appropriate stage alongwith various 10 interim orders of this Court granted in the Special Appeals and earlier, in the Writ Petitions, whereby they are undergoing this BSTC Correspondence Course of 2005-07.
6. With the help of written submissions, it has been contended by Mr.A.K.Rajvanshy, the learned Additional Advocate General, that the BSTC Correspondence Course of 2002-04 came to an end in the year 2004 and BSTC Course 2005-07 was introduced for giving training to the candidates who are in service and having qualification of 10 + 2 with 5 subjects including 3 compulsory subjects, which was prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions in two separate reasoned judgments. The permissions have been granted to these petitioner- appellants by this Court either in the writ petitions or in the Special Appeals for appearing in the first year or second year of the BSTC Correspondence Course 2005- 07, subject to decision of these appeals. Some of them 11 have failed and some of them did not appear in the Supplementary Examination. The present Course is of two years duration alongwith Personnel Contact Programme (PCP) of 30 days, which is compulsory, whereas some of the candidates have not cleared the PCP and some, who have cleared by the orders of this Court and the result has been withheld. Since the Correspondence Course is now over, the petitioners cannot be granted degree of BSTC, the life of which has now been expired and interim orders of this Court cannot create any right in their favour and de hors the principle of equality. In support of his contention, learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on various authorities, which will be referred later on.
7. In Surajmal Katara's case (supra) and similarly situated Special Appeals, it has been contended by Mr.M.Mridul, Sr.Advocate, that the respondents introduced self financed BSTC Course earlier in 2002- 12 04 and 2003-04 and at that time, the appellants were in service of Lok Jumbish and Sarvashiksha Abhiyaan during this period but they were not allowed to take admission in the Course. This Course was further enlarged vide Annexs.9 and 10 dated 2.6.2005 and 7.6.2005 respectively and those persons who were in service in all kind of projects i.e. Contract Teacher, Madarsa Teacher, DPEP workers having worked 4 hours and 6 hours were also included to it. The appellants were falling in the similar category and had worked in the Government project of Lok Jumbish and in some cases also as Shiksha Mitrs in Shiksha Karmi Projects but they have been denied admission in the BSTC Course 2005-07, despite having the requisite qualification and even more, though at present, some of them are not in service. Now, these appellants have been allowed to participate in the examination by interim orders of this Court but they are not allowed to participate in the PCP. According to the learned counsel, in similarly situated courses, earlier employed 13 persons cannot be denied further education of correspondence BSTC Course of 2005-07 because in a given time, they were in service and the Circulars Annexs.9 & 10 cannot infringe their right in hostility with the teachers, who are in service but not qualified or acquired qualification at a later stage during training period. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the various decisions, which will be discussed later on.
8. In written submissions, it has been contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the appellants were not in service of the kind of project at the commencement of the Course and the Scheme of BSTC Course 2005-07 is only for in-service teachers. Allowing candidates to appear in the examination by the interim orders of this Court, will not create any right in their favour, especially when the Course has been completed. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on the similar authorities, which 14 have been cited in Smt.Saraswati's Case (supra).
9. To resolve the rival contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, we propose to formulate the following four questions for answer:
QUESTION NO.1:
10. Whether the right to education guaranteed under Article 41 Part IV of the Constitution is complementary or supplementary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and is enforceable by way of judicial review?
QUESTION NO.2:
11. Whether the BSTC Correspondence Course 2005- 07 is open for the unqualified petitioner appellants, shown in Schedule `A', who are in service and are required to complete the requisite academic 15 qualification during the training period? QUESTION NO.3:
12. Whether the BSTC Correspondence Course 2005- 07 is open for the petitioner appellants, shown in Schedule `B', who were not in service at the time of commencement of the Course but were possessing the requisite academic qualification for eligibility?
QUESTION NO.4:
13. What is the effect of permission granted by the various interim orders of this Court for admission in the BSTC Correspondence Course 2005-07?
ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.1:
14. To answer the first question as a prelude, we can say that right to education is not a fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution but is a 16 directive principle of the State policy embodied in Article 41 Part IV of the Constitution, which reads as under:
"41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.- The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want."
15. Article 37 of the Constitution speaks of non- enforceability of these directive principles of the State policy but it says that the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. The U.N.Convention on Right to Development described the directive principles as an inalienable human right. Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, has held that these principles have a positive aspect and are to supplement the fundamental rights in a welfare State. All 17 Constitutional provisions including the legislative entries made in the VII Schedule of the Constitution be construed in the light of the directive principles. However, in some of the decisions, it has been held that the principles are not enforceable rights and its breach cannot declare a law as void. Likewise, incompetency of the legislature in enacting a law cannot be justiciable under the colour of directive principles of State policy.
16. Whatever the assistance provided-for during the course of arguments, we would like to refer to certain provisions of the Constitution vis-a-vis right to education as discussed in Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 645, cited by learned counsel for the appellants. In this case, five judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the provisions of the Constitution and disposed of various writ petitions and civil appeals under Part V of the judgment in the following terms:
18
"1. The citizens of this country have a fundamental right to education. The said right flows from Article 21. This right is, however, not an absolute right. Its content and parameters have to be determined in the light of Articles 45 and 41. In other words every child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of fourteen years. Thereafter his right to education is subject to the limits of economic capacity and development of the State.
2. The obligations created by Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution can be discharged by the State either by establishing institutions of its own or by aiding, recognising and/or granting affiliation to private educational institutions. Where aid is not granted to private educational institutions and merely recognition or affiliation is granted it may not be insisted that the private educational institution shall charge only that fee as is charged for similar courses in governmental institutions. The private educational institutions have to and are entitled to charge a higher fee, not exceeding the ceiling fixed in that behalf. The admission of students and the charging of fee in these private educational institutions shall be governed by the scheme evolved herein - set out in Part III of this judgment.
3. xxx
4. xxx
5. xxx
6. Civil Appeals arising from SLP Nos.13913 and 13940 of 1992 (preferred by students who were admitted by private unaided engineering colleges in Andhra Pradesh, without an allotment from the convenor of the common entrance examination) are allowed. The students so admitted for the academic year 1992-93 be allowed to continue in 19 the said course but the management shall comply with the directions given in para 223 hereinabove."
17. Though the subject in hand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with regard to the writ petitions filed by private educational institutes, which were engaged in imparting medical and engineering education and were charging capitation fee from the students and challenged the correctness of the decision in Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1992) 3 SCC 666, which was not held to be a binding law without considering its correctness on merits, as the question of primary education being a fundamental right under article 21 of the Constitution did not arise in that case.
18. In the petitions and appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan's case (supra), it was held that there is no fundamental right to education for a professional degree that flows from Article 21 of the 20 Constitution. However, the scope and ambit of Article 41 has been widely discussed in this judgment by relying upon the various literature and pronouncements. We would like to quote certain references, which are relevant with regard to importance of education.
19. The first is to quote an old Sanskrit adage, referred in Unni Krishnan's case (supra), which reads as under:
"11. "That is education which leads to liberation" - liberation from ignorance which shrouds the mind; liberation from superstition which paralyses effort, liberation from prejudices which blind the vision of the Truth."
20. Second dictum " मण कह स;नसवU" quoted in Shrimad Bhagwad Geeta (Chapter 3.20) clearly demonstrates that perfection can be achieved through unattached action; For perfection, one requires knowledge; Knowledge is enriched from experience and Experience is gained through studiousness i.e. Study or Education. Thus, the route of perfection which 21 is said to be empowerment, is the education by which solidarity and security of the nation is determined.
21. Third is the Nyay-darshan (Judicial Philosophy) being one of the six astik darshan of Sanatan Dharma, originated by Rishi Gautam, wherein highest perfection has been described as a system of logical realism. The perfection is possible by valid knowledge i.e. truth based on perception, inference and words.
22. In the above light, if we turn upon compound reading of Articles 21 and 41 of the Constitution with the directive principle of State policy and fundamental rights, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases that Article 21 of the Constitution is the heart of the fundamental right and has received expanded meaning from time to time. While discussing the scope of directive principles contained in the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pathumma vs. State of Kerala reported in 22 (1978) 2 SCC 1 quoted the judgments of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala reported in (1973) 4 SCC 225 and State of Kerala vs. N.M.Thomas reported in (1976) 2 SCC 310, as under:
"9. In fact in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala all the Judges constituting the Bench have with one voice given the directive principles contained in the Constitution a place of honour. Hegde and Mukherjee, JJ. as they then were have said that the fundamental rights and the directive principles constitute the `conscience' of our Constitution. The purpose of the directive principles is to fix certain social and economic goals for immediate attainment by bringing about a non-violent social revolution. Chandrachud, J. observed that our Constitution aims at bringing about a synthesis between `fundamental rights' and the `directive principles of State policy' by giving to the former a place of pride and to the latter a place of permanence."
In this case, Hon'ble Y.V.Chandrachud, as he then was, said to the extent that -
"ideals set out in Part IV of the Constitution about directive principles of the State policy, should not be permitted to become a mere rope of sand."23
"10. In a later case, State of Kerala v. N.M.Thomas one of us (Fazal Ali, J.) after analysing the judgment delivered by all the Judges in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala on the importance of the directive principles observed as follows:
In view of the principles adumbrated by this Court it is clear that the directive principles form the fundamental feature and the social conscience of the Constitution and the Constitution enjoins upon the State to implement these directive principles. The directives thus provide the policy, the guidelines and the end of socio-economic freedom of Articles 14 and 16 are the means to implement the policy to achieve the ends sought to be promoted by the directive principles. So far as the courts are concerned where there is no apparent inconsistency between the directive principles contained in Part III, which in fact supplement each other, there is no difficulty in putting a harmonious construction, which advances the object of the Constitution. Once this basic fact is kept in mind, the interpretation of Articles 14 and 16 and their scope and ambit become as clear as day."
23. Hon'ble Krishna Iyer J. in State of Karnataka vs.Ranganatha Reddy reported in (1977) 4 SCC 471, observed as under:
"Our thesis is that the dialectics of social justice should not be missed if the synthesis of Part III and Part IV is to influence State action and court 24 pronouncements."
24. In Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1980 SC 1789, Hon'ble Chandrachud, C.J. quoted with approval the simile of Granville Austin that Parts III and IV are like two wheels of a chariot and observed that " to give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". The learned Chief Justice observed further:
"Those rights (fundamental rights) are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end. The end is specified in Part IV."
25. Having relied upon the various decisions, as referred-to above, it is abundantly clear that the Courts while issuing directions under Articles 32 & 226 of the Constitution are simply to caution the State to provide educational facilities to its citizens within the limits of its economic capacity and development. By this way, 25 the Article 41 is not substituted from Part IV to Part III of the Constitution but merely illustrates the contents of the right to education flowing from Article 21. Thus, in the judgment of Unni Krishnan (supra), it has been held that each and every obligation referred to in part IV does not get automatically precluded from the purview of Article 41 but held the right to education to be implicit in the right to life because of its inherent fundamental importance with reference to Articles 41 and 46 of the Constitution to determine the parameters of the said right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
26. On the basis of the above discussion, we may safely say that right to education provided for in Article 41 of the Constitution being directive principle of the State policy is supplementary to Article 21 of the Constitution leading with right to life because right to life includes to live with human dignity including by getting appropriate education within the parameters of 26 economic capacity and development. We may make it clear that by the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been declared that Article 226 of the Constitution is not only confined to the fundamental rights but for other rights as well. The Courts while exercising such powers should always give due regard that the citizens of the Country, being a welfare State, get equitable justice irrespective of the technicalities arising out of the discriminatory or injurious orders or circulars issued by the various departments of the State.
27. We, accordingly, answer the first question in affirmative by saying that right to education provided for in Article 41 of the Constitution is supplementary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and is justiciable and we cannot subscribe with the view of the learned Single Judge that these writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. 27 ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.2:
28. As to Second Question, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Saraswati's case & connected 78 petitions is with regard to the petitioners, who have been denied admission in the BSTC Correspondence Course 2005-07 on the ground that they were not fulfilling the requisite qualification of 10 + 2 Sr.Secondary plus 5 optional subjects including 3 compulsory subjects of English, Hindi and Maths. This Scheme was similar to the earlier BSTC Correspondence Course 2002-04 as appended in Annex.2 of the writ petition. Though all the petitioners in these petitions were in-service teachers and were appointed under the orders of the State Government as Para Teachers, Shiksha Karmi etc. in Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Schools but were not having the requisite academic qualification. The contention of the petitioners was that by another letter Annex.4 dt.7.1.2003, the Directory, Primary Education, 28 Rajasthan, Bikaner authorised all the Principles that all those para teachers who were given provisional admission in the BSTC Correspondence Course 2002- 04, they may be allowed admission by obtaining affidavit from them that they will complete the academic qualification required for the Course during the training period.
29. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions of these para teachers on the ground that Annex.4 dt.7.1.2003 does not apply to the Course being conducted vide Annex.2 dt.20.5.2005 because this being a separate Course where no relaxation has been granted and consequently held that Annex.4 cannot be said to be having any effect on Annex.2 dt.20.5.05. Learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harpal Kaur Chahal vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab & anr. reported in 1995 Supp(4) SCC 707, Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar reported in 1997(4) SCC 29 18 and in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar Misra reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2608. In our view, these judgments are of no assistance to the facts of the present petitions because in all these three cases, relied upon by the learned Single Judge, the matter was relating to the appointments, wherein the applications were invited and petitioners were not having the requisite qualification. The case of the present petitioner-appellants is not of the appointment but to get further education through BSTC Correspondence Course, which is a right to education under Article 41 read with Article 21, postulated in Part IV and Part III of the Constitution respectively and has been discussed above in answer to Question No.1.
30. It is undisputed that the relaxation was granted for the BSTC Correspondence Course 2002-04 vide Annex.4 dt.7.1.2003 and the Course of 2002-04 commenced much earlier to it and the petitioners could not either apply or their forms were not accepted due 30 to lack of requisite qualification of 10 + 2 Sr.Secondary Examination. Once a relaxation is granted for a particular Course to acquire the requisite academic qualification during the training period, then denial of admission by not granting relaxation to the similar Course in a latter year is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, being discriminatory in nature. The latin legal maxims "Origine propria neminem posse voluntate sua eximi manifestum est : No one can get rid of his origin at his pleasure and "Nemo potest mutare consilium suum in alterius injuriam : No one can change his mind and cause injury to another, are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
31. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the BSTC Correspondence Course 2005-07 is independent to the Course of 2002-04. As per the written submissions and the documents submitted in the writ petition by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is true that 31 under the norms and standards for elementary teachers education programme published vide Appendix-I of the NCTE Regulations 2001 in the gazette notification, candidates with atleast 45% marks in the Sr.Secondary Examination of 10 + 2 or its equivalent, are eligible for admission. The preamble of these norms says that this programme is meant for the elementary teachers education for preparing teachers for elementary schools and this programme is to be conducted by the Rajasthan State Educational Research and Training Institute, Udaipur, which is Annex.RA/1. The preface of this programme is in consonance with the Annex.2. Annex.2 clearly speaks that the Correspondence Training Course for in-service teachers is similar to the Court of 2002-04. When in the Course of 2002-04, petitioners have been granted relaxation to acquire the requisite academic qualification during the training course vide Annex.4 after commencement of the Course, not granting the same relaxation in the Course of 2005-07 is arbitrary and is at the cost of 32 causing injuries to the petitioners, especially under those circumstances when prior to grant of relaxation vide Annex.4, petitioners could not get admission due to lack of requisite academic qualification.
32. Appointments to the untrained Para Teachers, Shiksha Karmi etc. were given in the Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Schools. While giving appointment, the Appointing Authority neither obtained the certificate of candidates about minimum educational qualification nor of Training Course and later on, to regularize them, the respondents introduced Scheme for the Training Course and gave relaxation after its commencement but denied the same at a later stage, which cannot be permitted as being termed as a colourable exercise of power and this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot close its eyes on the cumulative circumstances under which these teachers were appointed and the Course was commenced.
33
33. We have been told that these teachers were appointed under the direction of popular Government prior to 2002-04 Scheme to give mass education in the rural areas and they were appointed on the recommendation of the local authorities etc., but when the Government felt that there is no fate of such unqualified and untrained teachers, the Scheme of training was introduced for training such teachers. We are not questioning the authority of the State in making appointments in the Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Scheme and perhaps, the State might have done it to impart more education in the rural and tribal areas but once a right has been created for getting further education of training through Correspondence Course with a rider of getting minimum educational qualification during training period, it cannot be extinguished by way of discriminatory orders and circulars at a later stage of similar Scheme. In our view, the denial of admission in the BSTC Correspondence Course of 2005-07 to the in-service 34 teachers, despite there being relaxation to complete the minimum educational qualification during the training course of 2002-04 vide Annex.4 dt.7.1.2003 is unjust and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The judgments cited by the learned Additional Advocate General on this point are distinguishable from the facts of the present petitions.
34. In State of M.P. vs. Gopal D. Tirthani reported in (2003) 7 SCC 83, the minimum qualifying marks were not allowed to be relaxed for in-service candidates contrary to the Medical Council of India Regulations. This was a matter pertaining to the post graduate Course. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the concept of minimum qualifying percentage cannot be given a complete go bye. There can be a minimal departure only by the experts in the field of education, whereas in the present petitions, it is a basic school training course, that too for in-service teachers, who are untrained. However, in the cited case of the 35 Hon'ble Supreme Court, the relaxation granted for in service doctors in rural areas was held to be constitutionally valid. Rest of the decisions cited by the learned Additional Advocate General are with regard to the grant of relaxation in the matter of appointment, which are not applicable to the facts of the present petitions and are distinguishable.
35. Accordingly, we answer the Question No.2 also in affirmative.
ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.3:
36. This question pertains to decision given by the learned Single Judge in Surajmal Katara's case and other connected 25 petitions, wherein it has been held that the condition of "in-service" specified in Annexs.9 and 10 is relevant to the objects sought to be achieved or has any rationale behind it. According to the learned Single Judge, when the petitioners were not in service, 36 they cannot be permitted in the Correspondence Course. The only course open to them is to get admission in the regular Course. Learned Single Judge also held that Articles 21, 21A, 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution have no application whatsoever to the controversy involved in these petitions. So far as Article 21A is concerned, it deals with the fundamental right of education to the children below the age of 14 years but the other Articles of the Constitution, as referred-to above, have very much application to the controversy involved in these petitions and which have been discussed while answering the Question No.1.
37. It is undisputed that the petitioners in these petitions are possessing the requisite qualifications but they are not in service and according to the learned Single Judge, Annexs.9 and 10 of the writ petition covers only to in-service teachers. The original Scheme of 2002-04 for giving the Correspondence Course to the in-service para teachers was introduced in the 37 Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Schools and teachers in Shiksha Karmi Schools. Later-on, vide Annex.9 dt.2.6.05, it was extended to other contract teachers, Mahila para teachers, Madarsa para teachers, Shiksha Karmi and other untrained teachers in the Government institutions. However, by further notification Annex.10 dated 7.6.2005, it was extended to Shiksha Sahayogis of DPEP Cadre with 6 hours and 4 hours Mobile Schools, Madarsa teachers and Urdu Shiksha Karmi. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants were appointed prior to this Course as Shiksha Mitras under the Scheme of "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan" vide Annex.1 dated 23.11.2004. This Institution was opened by the State Government under the DPEP Scheme and its officiating Coordinator was the District Education Officer of the Primary Education, Department of the State Government. This Scheme was to open the Shiksha Mitra Centres for those children under the age of 10 to 14 years and are unable to get education. The minimum qualification 38 was Senior Secondary. This was also the Scheme of the Government. It is stated in the petitions that some of the petitioners were already working in the Lok Jumbish Projects, which came to an end and they were thereafter appointed as Shiksha Mitras under the "Sarva Shiksha Avhiyaan". The District Education Officer also issued budget for the same vide Annexs.7 and 8 but when the petitioners applied for the BSTC Correspondence Course of 2005-07 in pursuance to the Annexs.9 and 10, they were denied the admission on the ground that they are not in-service candidates as on the date of advertisement. Though, this contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is having force to the extent that on the date of advertisement vide Annex.9 dated 2.6.05, it is confined to in-service teachers. But the Scheme which is continuing since 2002-05 for those in-service teachers, who were appointed earlier to Annex.9 & 10 and later on, they came out of the job due to abolition of Lok Jumbish Pariyojna and some were absorbed as in the Shiksha 39 Karmi Yojna, which is not a Government Department, they cannot be denied admission to the BSTC Correspondence Course merely because this Course is only for in-service candidates.
38. Firstly vide Annex.10, dated 7.6.2005, all Shiksha Mitras of DPEP Cadre to which the present petitions belong, have been included in it. Whether they are in service or not in service or any of the institutions mentioned in Annex.9, if they have served in those institutions, their right to get Correspondence Course cannot be abrogated vis-a-vis those in service of those institutions. These teachers could not undertake the BSTC Course of 2002-04 because they were not originally under the Scheme of Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshalas in Govt.Schools but later on, when they have been included vide Annex.10 i.e. the teachers of DPEP as Shiksha Mitras alongwith other para teachers, they cannot be denied admission and the advertisement, Annexs.9 and 10 affects their right 40 to get further education by virtue of Article 41 read with Article 21 of the Constitution for which elaborate discussion has been made above in answer to Question Nos.2 & 3.
39. So far as reinstatement is concerned, neither learned counsel for the appellants have pressed for it nor we are able to grant this relief, as we have confined ourselves to the right of education for further studies in the BSTC Correspondence Course 2005-07 by virtue of Articles 41 & 21 of the Constitution.
40. Accordingly, the Question No.3 is also answered in affirmative.
ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.4:
41. It is true that by the various orders of this Court dated 18.10.05 in the present writ petition order dt.5.7.06, order dt.24.7.07, order dt.15.1.08 in 41 D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.386/06, order dt.12.3.08 in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.382/06, order dt.10.12.07 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6881/2005 and similar other orders in various writ petitions of the like nature, petitioner-appellants have been allowed to appear in the respective first year and second year of the BSTC Correspondence Course 2005-07 alongwith PCP Programme and the result of which is yet to be declared. Learned Additional Advocate General while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Council for Indian School Certificate Examination vs. Isha Mittal reported in (2000) 7 SCC 521 and Mohanlal Sukhadia University vs. Chandra Bhan Singh reported in 2003(1) WLC (Raj) 359 has submitted that this Court cannot pass an interim order in a writ petition to grant relief, which could have been granted finally and the consideration of equity cannot prevail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the decision of Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University reported in AIR 1986 SC 1448 42 and on the decision of Unni Krishnan's case (supra), wherein it has been held that when the students have been admitted under the orders of the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the students should be allowed to continue their studies. In Unni Krishnan's case (supra) decided by the five judges Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"223. It is true, as pointed out by the High Court that these admissions were made in a hurry but the fact remains that they have been continuing in the said course under the orders of this Court over the last about four months. As stated hereinbefore, the present situation has been brought about by a combination of circumstances namely, the enactment of Section 3-A, the allotment of students to the extent of 50% only by the convenor and the failure of the Government to immediately rectify the misunderstanding of the convenor. In the circumstances, we are not satisfied that these students should be sent out at this stage. May be, the result is rather unfortunate but we have to weigh all the relevant circumstances."
42. Since we have answered the above three questions in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner- appellants, we would not like to enter into the niceties 43 of the admissions granted under various interim orders of this Court, while placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case (supra) and five judges decision in Unni Krishnan's case (supra), hereinbefore discussed.
43. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge referred-to in para 1 of this judgment and allow all these appeals, appended in Schedule `A' and `B', with no order as to costs, with the following directions:
(i) The right to get education incorporated in Article 41 Part IV of the Constitution dealing with the directive principles of the State policy is to supplement and flows from Article 21 Part III of the Constitution dealing with the fundamental rights and is justiciable by virtue of the fundamental governance of a welfare State and aggrieved citizen can seek remedy for its breach under Article 226 of the Constitution;44
(ii) Petitioner-appellants, who are in-service, affected by the judgment in Smt.Saraswati's case (supra) & connected appeals, shown in Schedule `A', are allowed to complete the BSTC Correspondence Course of 2005- 07, organized by the Rajasthan State Educational Research and Training Institute, Udaipur or its any other nodal agency, provided they have achieved the requisite qualification during the training period; &
(iii) Petitioner-appellants of Schedule `B' who are in- service or not in service as para teachers and are or were in the Government Schemes of Lok Jumbish or Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan or as Shiksha Mitra under the DPEP Scheme and are possessing the requisite academic qualification, are also allowed to complete the BSTC Correspondence Course of 2005-07, organized by the Rajasthan State Educational Research and Training Institute, Udaipur or its any other nodal 45 agency.
(DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (A.M.KAPADIA), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS SCHEDULE - 'A' 46 CONNECTED CASES TO D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (SAW) NO.333/2006 (SMT. SARASWATI & ANR.VS. STATE & ORS.) (1) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.331/2006 (BHERU LAL GURJAR VS. STATE & ORS.) (2) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.332/2006 (SMT.CHANDRA BALA VYAS VS. STATE & ORS.) (3) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.335/2006 (SMT.GEETA & ANR. VS. STATE & ORS.) (4) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.336/2006 (REVANTRAM VS. STATE & ORS) (5) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.337/2006 (SMT.SITA DEVI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (6) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.338/2006 (SMT. PUSPHA CHOUDAHRY VS. STATE & ORS) (7) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.349/2006 (SMT.NISHA JOSHI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (8) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.350/2006 (DHAN RAJ VS. STATE & ORS.) (9) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.351/2006 (KRISHANLAL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (10) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.352/2006 (SMT.CHAWALI DEVI & ANR. VS. STATE & ORS.) (11) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.353/2006 (SMT.SAROJ KANWAR VS. STATE & ORS.) (12) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.363/2006 (SMT.KALPANA DEVI VS. STATE & ORS.) (13) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.365/2006 47 (SOHAN RAM & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (14) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.366/2006 (SAHIRAM BISHNOI VS. STATE & ORS.) (15) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.367/2006 (RAJARAM & ANR VS. STATE & ORS.) (16) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.368/2006 (DURGADUTT VS. STATE & ORS.) (17) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.386/2006 (CHELA RAM VS. STATE & ORS.) (18) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.394/2006 (SUKHADIYA KALASUA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (19) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.395/2006 (RAWAJI DINDOR & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (20) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.396/2006 (RAMLAL VS. STATE & ORS.) (21) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.397/2006 (VOHRA AMIRUDDIN VS. STATE & ORS.) (22) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.399/2006 (SMT.GAYATRI VYAS VS. STATE & ORS.) (23) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.400/2006 (SMT.MANJU SAMAKAR VS. STATE & ORS.) (24) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.401/2006 (RAMESH CHANDRA LOHAR VS. STATE & ORS.) (25) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.402/2006 (BHANWAR LAL JAT VS. STATE & ORS.) (26) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.404/2006 (SMT.BAGATOO DEVI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (27) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.405/2006 48 (SMT.DEVI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (28) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.406/2006 (USHA KUMARI JOSHI VS. STATE & ORS.) (29) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.407/2006 (SUMAR KHAN & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (30) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.409/2006 (UMESH SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS. STATE & ORS.) (31) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.410/2006 (SMT.GOVIND DEVI SHARMA VS. STATE & ORS.) (32) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.411/2006 (VARDI SINGH CHADANA VS. STATE & ORS.) (33) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.412/2006 (LADU SINGH VS. STATE & ORS.) (34) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.413/2006 (JAGDISH CHANDRA PARIHAR (SUTHAR) VS. STATE) (35) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.415/2006 (MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE & ORS.) (36) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.416/2006 (HARJI NATH VS. STATE & ORS.) (37) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.417/2006 (MANGI LAL VS. STATE & ORS.) (38) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.418/2006 (PUNA RAM DEVASI VS. STATE & ORS.) (39) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.419/2006 (MST.SURYA KUMARI ROAT @ SURYA DEVI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (40) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.422/2006 (CHAINA RAM & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (41) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.423/2006 49 (BANNE SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (42) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.424/2006 (JEEWAN RAM & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (43) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.425/2006 (RAMESHWARLAL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (44) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.426/2006 (SMT.VEENA VYAS & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (45) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.427/2006 (GURMEET SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (46) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.428/2006 (SHRAWAN SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS. ) (47) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.429/2006 (SMT.MEENA DEVI & ANR. VS. STATE & ORS.) (48) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.430/2006 (SMT. SUMITRA PUNIA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (49) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.431/2006 (SMT. NIRMALA DEVI SWAMI & ORS. VS. STATE) (50) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.432/2006 (MALA RAM VS. STATE & ORS.) (51) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.437/2006 (DHARAMVEER PARMAR & ORS. VS. STATE) (52) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.438/2006 (SMT.SUSHILA KUMARI ROAT & ANR. VS. STATE) (53) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.439/2006 (LAXMAN LAL DAMOR & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (54) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.441/2006 (IBRAHIM KHAN & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (55) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.445/2006 50 (BANSHILAL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (56) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.483/2006 (BHANWARLAL VS. STATE & ORS.) (57) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.484/2006 (GOPAL RAM & ANR. VS. STATE & ORS.) (58) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.485/2006 (HARIRAM VS. STATE & ORS.) (59) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.486/2006 (INDRA RANI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (60) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.487/2006 (SMT.MOHANI DEVI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (61) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.488/2006 (JASWANT SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (62) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.493/2006 (BRIJ LAL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (63) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.494/2006 (BANWARI LAL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (64) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.495/2006 (KALU RAM & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (65) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.496/2006 (NAND RAM & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (66) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.503/2006 (DEVSI RAM DUDI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) 51 SCHEDULE - 'B' CONNECTED CASES TO D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (SAW) NO.334/2006 (SURAJMAL KATARA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (1) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.334/2006 (SURAJMAL KATARA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (2) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.354/2006 (MANILAL DAMOT & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (3) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.355/2006 (MOHANLAL PATEL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (4) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.356/2006 (KAMLESH DAMORE & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (5) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.357/2006 (JAGANNATH BRAHMANIA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (6) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.358/2006 (PRABHULAL MAIYDA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (7) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.359/2006 (LAXMAN LAL PATEL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (8) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.360/2006 (HAKRU CHARPOTA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (9) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.361/2006 (SHANTI LAL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (10) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.362/2006 (KACHRULAL MAIYDA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (11) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.369/2006 (AMAR SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (12) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.370/2006 (AMAR SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) 52 (13) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.371/2006 (RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (14) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.372/2006 (NARAYAN LAL MAKVANA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (15) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.373/2006 (RAGHUVEER SINGH CHOUHAN & ORS. VS. STATE) (16) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.374/2006 (KARI LAL MEENA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (17) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.375/2006 (SOMESHWAR CHARPOTA & ORS. VS. STATE) (18) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.376/2006 (HEM RAJ MEENA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (19) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.378/2006 (SOHAN LAL NINAMA & ORS VS. STATE & ORS.) (20) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.379/2006 (MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (21) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.380/2006 (BAPU LAL NINAMA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (22) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.381/2006 (RAJENDRA KUMAR DAMORE & ORS. VS. STATE) (23) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.382/2006 (SHYAM LAL CHARPOTA & ORS. VS. STATE) (24) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.383/2006 (ARVIND KUMAR KATARA & ORS. VS. STATE) (25) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.384/2006 (DEVI LAL KHANDIYA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (26) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.385/2006 (DEVI LAL KATIJA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) 53 (27) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.388/2006 (KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN & ORS. VS. STATE) (28) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.389/2006 (JAGDISH KUMAR YADAV & ORS. VS. STATE) (29) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.390/2006 (REKHA DAMORE & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (30) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.391/2006 (KAILASH CHANDRA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (31) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.392/2006 (KAPTAIN SINGH RATHORE & ORS. VS. STATE) (32) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.393/2006 (NANALAL MEENA VS. STATE & ORS.) (33) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.465/2006 (GANESH LAL DAMORE & ORS. VS. STATE) (34) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.466/2006 (SURTA BAMNIYA VS. STATE & ORS.) (35) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.467/2006 (PHULA RAM & ANR. VS. STATE & ORS.) (36) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.468/2006 (RAMESHWAR SINGH PATEL & ORS. VS. STATE) (37) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.469/2006 (LALA RAM VS. STATE & ORS.) (38) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.470/2006 (GOPAL LAL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (39) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.471/2006 (RAMLAL MEENA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (40) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.472/2006 (BAPU LAL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) 54 (41) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.473/2006 (CHANDU LAL BHAGORA & ORS. VS. STATE) (42) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.474/2006 (NATHU LAL & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (43) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.475/2006 (RAJMAL MEENA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (44) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.476/2006 (DEVI LAL MEENA VS. STATE & ORS.) (45) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.480/2006 (NATHU LAL MEENA & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (46) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.497/2006 (AMAR SINGH DAMOR & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (47) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.498/2006 (JYOTINDRA KHARADI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) (48) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.500/2006 (GAUTAM LAL MEENA VS. STATE & ORS.) (49) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.672/2006 (RAMESH CHAND MEENA & ORS. VS. STATE) (50) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.673/2006 (DEEPIKA JOSHI & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) ***