JUDGMENT 1. - This it petition is illustrative of the deep rooted malice with which our system suffers. This case also shows that how some people who enjoy public confidence while holding public offices indulge in misuse of the public confidence totally unmindful of the extremely grave consequences of their actions and omissions and adverse impact on the large groups of the society. If found true and proved, action of the petitioner and some of the officers of the Government in Education Department, has resulted in recruitment of a large number of persons as Teachers Gr. III who do not possess the requisite training qualifications. One has only to make imaginations about the wide spread adverse consequences on the education of small children upon whom untrained persons have been thrust as Teachers. Those who are taught by untrained teacher may suffer throughout their life. For the courts it is impossible to gauge or measure the injury which small children of have not in the society would suffer if they are taught by untrained people or those who ignore the basic principles of good citizenship and join the rat-race of securing forged qualifications. Such like cases give an opportunity to the few well meaning people, who work for the social upliftment and progress, to ponder and think how such ailments are to be checked and how the corrupt practices prevalent in the working of the Government Departments can be curbed. 2. Petitioner had originally filed this writ petition on 8.12.92 seeking issue of a writ of mandamus to quash the sanction issued by the State Government on 1.12.92 for his prosecution and to restrain respondents from taking any adverse action against him. After notice had been issued by the court, learned counsel for the petitioner had, on 8.2.93, argued that the Government has discriminated the petitioner by not taking steps for prosecution of other persons, namely, Shri Laxman Bhambani and Shri N. Belani. The Court allowed the petitioner to amend the writ petition. Application for amendment was allowed on 26.2.93 and respondents No. 5 and 6 were added. An additional prayer has been added by amendment of the writ petition, namely, that the Government be directed to launch prosecution against respondents no. 5 and 6 as well. 3. Fact's of the case show that the petitioner joined service of the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1964. An additional prayer has been added by amendment of the writ petition, namely, that the Government be directed to launch prosecution against respondents no. 5 and 6 as well. 3. Fact's of the case show that the petitioner joined service of the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1964. In the year 1980-81 he was posted as Assistant in the Education Department (Government Secretariat), Jaipur. While the petitioner-was holding the post of Assistant in the said department a letter dated, 12.5.86 is said to have been written by the Secretary, Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sripalpur, Patna for grant of recognition to the examinations conducted by the said Parishad. This included the qualification of B. T. C. A request was made to declare this qualification as equivalent to B. S. T. C. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Secretary to the Government had directed him to prepare a file on the basis of the letter of the Secretary, Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad. Petitioner prepared a note-sheet dated, 20.6.86 on which Assistant Secretary appended his approval. The matter then went to the Dy. Secretary to the Government, Education Department, Secretary to the Government, Education Department and the Minister Incharge of the Education Department. All of them approved the note-sheet. On 6.3.87 the petitioner again submitted a note in the matter of equivalence of the examination of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sirpalpur, Patna. He has stated that under the directions of the Hon'ble Minister of Education he submitted factual report regarding the claim made by Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad. Comments of the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner were also called. On 28th April 1987 the petitioner again prepared a note. Some correspondence was exchanged between the Secretariat (Education Department) and the Director, Primary and Secondary Education. Finally, a note was prepared by the petitioner on 2.7.87 for grant of recognition to the examinations of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad. The matter was then dealt with by the Assistant Secretary, the Dy. Secretary and the Secretary, Education Department, of the Government of Rajasthan as well as the Education Minister. All of them appended their signatures. After grant of approval by Hon'ble the Minister the order was issued on 24.7.87 under the signatures of the Dy. Secretary, Shri N. Belani for grant of recognition to B. T. C. Course of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad equivalent to B. S. T. C. of the Government of Rajasthan. All of them appended their signatures. After grant of approval by Hon'ble the Minister the order was issued on 24.7.87 under the signatures of the Dy. Secretary, Shri N. Belani for grant of recognition to B. T. C. Course of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad equivalent to B. S. T. C. of the Government of Rajasthan. On 13.10.87 the State Government de-recognised B. T. C. Course with retrospective effect. 4. A number of writ petitions were filed in the High Court and these writ petitions have been allowed by the High Court on the ground that de-recognitaion of the qualifications cannot be given retrospective effect. On 3.2.89 the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a First Information Report at New Delhi for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471 I. P. C. Investigation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and finally a report was submitted to the State Government indicating that acts of respondents No. 5 and 6 amount to lack of exercise of due care and caution in attending their official work. The Central Bureau of Investigation recommended that a regular departmental action be taken against these persons. Charge-sheets have been issued by the State Government for holding of inquiry. 5. In so, far as the petitioner is concerned, Central Bureau of Investigation forwarded the case to the Government for sanction of prosecution of the petitioner as per requirement of Section 197 Cr. P. C. and the Government has issued order dated, 1.12.92 for sanction of the petitioner. 6. Petitioner has questioned the legality of the order passed by the Government on the ground that order of the Government is without jurisdiction. He has pleaded that his work was merely to prepare office notes. Notes prepared by him had been approved by all the superior authorities which included respondents No. 5 and 6. Further case of the petitioner is that when sanction for prosecution of respondents No. 5 and 6 has not been given, there is no reason or justification to subject the petitioner to prosecution. Petitioner has also pleaded that when the Government has decided to hold departmental inquires against respondents No. 5 and 6, there is no rationality in picking out the petitioner for a different treatment. 7. In response to the notice issued by the court respondents No. 1 to 3, respondent No. 4 as also respondent No. 6 have filed their counter affidavits. 7. In response to the notice issued by the court respondents No. 1 to 3, respondent No. 4 as also respondent No. 6 have filed their counter affidavits. In their reply respondents No. 1 to 3 have pleaded that it was the duty of the petitioner to submit true and correct factual position of the cases assigned to him and the petitioner has failed to discharge his official duties. An order for his suspension has been issued on 13.10.93. It has then been stated that on the basis of the letter dated 12.5.86 of the Secretary, Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad Sripalpur, Patna the petitioner had recorded a note that Secretary of the Parishad be requested to furnish the copies of the letters of the different State Governments recognising the examinations of the Parishad. This note was approved by the Assistant Secretary, respondent No. 5. Thereupon, letter dated, 27.6.86 was sent to the Secretary of the Parishad. No reply was received from the Secretary and a reminder issued by the Government also remained unanswered. However, on 27.2.87 the petitioner suo-motu prepared a note that letter dated, 12.5.86 of the Parishad be sent to the Director, Primary and Secondary Education for his comments. This note was not approved by the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, a false noting was recorded by the petitioner on 6.3.87 that syllabus of the Parishad was available and the recognition of the Central Government was also available on the last page of the syllabus. He proposed that comments of the Director, Primary and Secondary Education be obtained. This note was approved by the Assistant Secretary and then the Director, Primary and Secondary Education was called upon to send his comments. A note dated, 12.6.87 was once again submitted by the petitioner for sending a - reminder to the Director. It was approved by the respondents No. 5 and 6 and a Demi Official letter dated, 17.6.87 was sent to the Director Primary and Secondary Education. On 2.7.87 a note was prepared by the petitioner to the effect that the Director, Primary and Secondary Education had recommended the issue of orders of recognition. He also recorded that approval of the Hon'ble Minister of Education be also obtained for the issue of order of recognition. On 2.7.87 a note was prepared by the petitioner to the effect that the Director, Primary and Secondary Education had recommended the issue of orders of recognition. He also recorded that approval of the Hon'ble Minister of Education be also obtained for the issue of order of recognition. On 6.7.87 the Assistant Secretary (respondent No. 5) recorded that it will not be improper to treat the B. T. C. Course of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad as equivalent to B. S. T. C. Course. This note was approved by the Deputy Secretary, Education, Secretary to the Government in Education Department and the Hon'ble Minister. However, draft order was prepared by the petitioner, which was approved by the Assistant Secretary and then order was issued by the Dy. Secretary. According to the respondents no decision had in fact, been taken at any level for grant of recognition to the examinations of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad but various notes were manipulated by the petitioner which led to the grant of recognition to the examinations of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad. When the true facts came to the notice, Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case and undertook investigation of the same. On the recommendations of the Central Bureau of Investigation the Government took a decision for sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner and then the Government issued sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner. Respondents have placed copy of the order dated, 2.12.92 sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner. 8. In its reply, the Central Bureau of Investigation has reiterated the facts mentioned in the reply of the respondents No. 1 to 3. In addition to that, the Central Bureau of Investigation has stated that during the course of investigation no mens area could be established against respondents No. 5 and 6 and for this reason the Central Bureau of Investigation did not recommend issue of sanction for their prosecution. 9. Respondent No. 5 has filed a counter affidavit and has stated that when the Central Bureau of Investigation has, after thorough examination found that no case for prosecution of the respondent No. 5 has been made out, this court cannot issue a direction to the Government to issue sanction for prosecution. He has submitted that the Government has already initiated disciplinary enquiry against him. 10. He has submitted that the Government has already initiated disciplinary enquiry against him. 10. Under the directions of the Court, the file containing the note-sheets has been produced by Miss Sumitra Goyal and Shri Chatterji has produced a copy of the charge-sheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the petitioner and others. The file produced by the State Government shows that the same has been opened some time in the month of June, 1986. The first note-sheet refers to the request made by the Secretary, Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad for grant of recognition. Then there appeared different nothings for issue of letters. On 27.2.87 the petitioner wrote a note that comments be sought for from the Director, Primary and Secondary Education. Upon this, respondent No. 5 recorded that first the Parishad should submit requisite information. Suddenly, on 6.3.87 the petitioner recorded a noting that syllabus of BSTC was available and on the last page of the syllabus order of the Government of India granting recognition to the said examination is available. He recorded that syllabus be sent to-the Director, Primary and Secondary Education for comments. Respondent No. 5 appended his signatures on this noting on 9.3.87. When the letter was prepared by the petitioner on 12.3.87, respondent No. 5 appended his signatures and at the same time indicated that syllabus be also sent. One letter written by Shri Shankar Lal Ahir, Member, Legislative Assembly has also been referred to in noting between 15 and 16. On 28.3.87 the petitioner recorded that comments of the Director were still awaited. On 31.3.87 respondent No. 5 recorded a note with reference to the noting of the Hon'ble Minister. He noted that comments of the Director are awaited and he be reminded to send comments. On 2.7.87 the petitioner prepared a note that the Director, Education (Research and Training Institute) Udaipur had made recommendation for issue of the order of recognition. He noted that the approval of the Hon'ble Minister be obtained. On 6.7.87 respondent No. 5 recorded note that the Director has made a comparative study and has informed that the two years' BTC Course of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad is equivalent to B. S. T. C. Course of Rajasthan. He further noted that it will not be improper to grant equivalence. On this noting of respondent No.5, respondent No. 6, the Education Secretary, and Education Minister appended their signatures. He further noted that it will not be improper to grant equivalence. On this noting of respondent No.5, respondent No. 6, the Education Secretary, and Education Minister appended their signatures. Then the orders was issued for recognition. The matter hotted up when a news item was published in Nav Bharat Times dated 17.9.87 that two years' Course of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad is not recognised even by the State of Bihar. Then steps were taken for cancellation of the recognition. The Secretary, Education Department of the State of Bihar informed the Secretary to the Government in Education Department of Rajasthan that the State of Bihar has not approved any institution named as Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad and BSTC certificate is awarded only by the Bihar Board of Secondary Education. He further mentioned that no institution named as Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad has been recognised by the Government of Bihar. Thereafter,a note was prepared by the Education Secretary directing cancellation of the recognition and initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers of the Education Department. 11. A large number of writ petitions were filed before the High Court at the principal seat, Jodhpur as well as Jaipur Bench. While deciding a batch of writ petitions on 7.9.88, Narendra Singh Solanki v. State of Rajasthan and others D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 34 1188 the Court granted declaration that the circular dated, 13.10.87 issued by the Government cancelling recognition to the examinations of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad including STC Course cannot operate retrospectively. Notwithstanding grant of aforesaid declaration the court made the following order : "Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the serious allegations made in writ petition No. 2451/88 we are inclined to allow that writ petition as well and it is directed that the State Government shall get the matter investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation promptly and we expect that the Central Bureau of Investigation shall take all precautions to complete investigation within the shortest possible time to find out whether really a racket as alleged by the petitioners and if so, whether the persons involved in this racket. A copy of this order should be sent to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur as also to the Director General of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi." Before parting with the order we may also mention here that the petitioners who have obtained diploma shall be entitled consideration if they apply for the post of Teacher Gr. III subject tot he decision of the investigation. However, their appointments if made, shall be subject to the ultimate result of the inquiry." 12. Present Chief Minister of Rajasthan had in his capacity as member of the Legislative Assembly written a letter dated, 27th July 1988 to the then Education Minister, Government of Rajasthan and brought to his notice the appointments given on the basis of the forged degrees. He drew the attention of the Education Minister that if immediate action is not taken then the business of securing employment on the basis of forged degrees will accelerate resulting in denigration of the standard of education and it will give encouragement to the people to secure forged degrees for getting employment. He also suggested that prompt decision should be taken by the Government so that the matter can be placed before the Court in a correct perspective. 13. It is also borne out from the record that in pursuance of the directions given by the Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation took up the matter by registering a case against one S. C. Mishra and 15 others. It took three years to the Central Bureau of Investigation to complete the investigation and submit a charge-sheet No. 2/92 dated, 29.1.92. In this charge-sheet the petitioner has been named as one of the accused. Although, it is neither just nor proper for the Court to make any comment on the merits of the investigation made by the Central Bureau of Investigation but one thing which is revealed is that a racket has been formed by some persons for securing recognition of S. T. C. qualification allegedly awarded by Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad which started functioning in the small room of the first floor of the Post Office situated in Village Sripalpur in the year 1986 without any provision for class rooms or teachers. Regarding the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan the charge-sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation contains the following note : "The aforesaid facts establish that the accused persons mentioned in Col. No. of the charge-sheet conspired among themselves with ulterior motive as above and in pursuance thereof, they wrongly obtained the recognition of B. T. C. Course of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sripalpur, Patna from the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 24.7.87 and issued various mark-sheets and character certificates of B. T. C. Course to a large number of candidates after taking amounts from them during the period 1986 to 89 and even after the withdrawal of the said recognition order vide order dated, 13.10.85." 14. The facts which have come on record unmistakably show a sinister design on the part of those who entered into a criminal conspiracy to prepare forged degrees and mark sheets and who cheated large number of candidates by supplying them forged degrees on payment of specified sum. It is really amazing that an institution which had started its operation in 1986 immediately approached the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan as early as on 12.5.86 for grant of recognition. Still more surprising is that even though on 26.3.87 the petitioner and respondent No. 5 had called upon the applicant to submit the details regarding syllabus etc. and comments were sought for from the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, all of a sudden the petitioner submitted a note dated, 2.7.87 indicating that the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner had got the matter examined by the Rajasthan State Education Research and Training Center, Udaipur and has sent recommendations for grant of recognition to the B. T. C. Course of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad at par with B. S. T. C. Rajasthan. Similarly, on 6.7.87 the respondent No. 5 prepared a note for grant of recognition. The respondent No. 6, the Education Secretary and the Hon'ble Education Minister simply appended their signatures to these notes and this is how the order of recognition was issued. 15. Argument of Mrs. Similarly, on 6.7.87 the respondent No. 5 prepared a note for grant of recognition. The respondent No. 6, the Education Secretary and the Hon'ble Education Minister simply appended their signatures to these notes and this is how the order of recognition was issued. 15. Argument of Mrs. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that her client has been falsely implicated in the criminal case and the Government has issued the order of sanction without application of mind to the facts of the case, cannot be accepted in the face of the record which has been produced before the Court. Whether the petitioner is ultimately convicted or not by a Court of competent jurisdiction is not required to be examined at this stage. What the Court is required to consider is as to whether prima facie a case for prosecution of the petitioner is made out and having regard to the material available on record there can be no manner of doubt that sufficient material was available with the Government for taking a decision to sanction the prosecution of the petitioner. In my opinion, issue of writ in favour of the petitioner by exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be a clear abuse of the process of the court. Once the Court has felt satisfied that sufficient material was available with the Government for taking a decision to sanction the prosecution of the petitioner, it will be wholly unwarranted exercise of power under Article 226 to quash the proceedings pending before the court of competent jurisdiction. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, 1992 (1) Suppl. SCC 222 as also State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan 1992 (1) Suppl. SCC 335 clearly applies to the case of petitioner. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, 1992 (1) Suppl. SCC 222 as also State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan 1992 (1) Suppl. SCC 335 clearly applies to the case of petitioner. In the first case, State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the order passed by the Patna High Court quashing the case registered against the respondent and while doing so, their Lordships held that there is no justification for the High Court to go deep into the merits of the allegations leveled against the accused, the Court held : "My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against charge-sheet and considering the matter on merit in the guise of prima facie evidence to stand an accused for trial amounts to pre-trial of a criminal trial under Article 226 or 227 even before the competent Magistrate or the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence. Once the proceedings are entertained the further proceedings get stayed. Expeditious trial of a criminal case is the cardinal rule. Delay feeds injustice to social order and entertaining writ petitions would encourage to delay the trial by diverse tricks. It is not to suggest that under no circumstances, a writ petition should be entertained. As was rightly done by Rajasthan High Court in this case at the instance of the directors of the company, wisdom lies to keep the hands back and relegate the accused to pursue the remedy under the Code." 16. In the second case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed : 'The power, of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.The Court further held : "The order of the High Court quashing the first information report, viewed from any angle, cannot be sustained both on the question of law and facts. Consequently, that part of the judgment of the High Court quashing the first information report is set aside. Consequently, that part of the judgment of the High Court quashing the first information report is set aside. The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima faice constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a congnizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without any order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code: (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 17. Thus, I do not find any merit in the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. Coming to the second argument of Mrs. Singh that the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination, I would like to observe that on the note prepared by the petitioner on 2.7.87, the respondent no. 5 had also prepared a note. on 6.7.87. This he did without himself looking to the record and without taking steps to verify the-facts. Apparently, respondent No. 5 also ignored the responsibility which had been imposed on him. However, it is difficult to record a specific conclusion by the Court as to whether respondent No. 5 had acted with malice or criminal negligence or not. In fact, it was for the C. B. I. to have applied its mind to the question as to whether it was a fit case for prosecution of respondent No. 5. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Central Bureau of Investigation has though it proper to recommend a simple disciplinary action against respondent No. 5. Having regard to the fact that the respondent No. 5 had more or less toed the lines suggested by the petitioner, I do not find any justification for holding that by not hauling up the respondent No. 5 the Central Bureau of Investigation or for that reason the State Government has discriminated the petitioner. Indeed, it is unfortunate that respondent No. 6, the then Secretary, Education and the Education Minister had simply appended their signatures without bothering themselves to find out the truth or even without going through the previous note-sheets. If any one of them had applied himself a bit to the record of the case, he would have at once come to the conclusion that the proposal prepared by the petitioner was totally unworthy- of acceptance. If any one of them had applied himself a bit to the record of the case, he would have at once come to the conclusion that the proposal prepared by the petitioner was totally unworthy- of acceptance. Their casual approach to the matter, which has perhaps become the order of the day, has resulted in a situation where immense injury has been caused to the careers of large number of students and innumerable cases have come to the Court which should not have ordinarily come to the court. 19. Before concluding, I consider it appropriate to remind the high functionaries of the Government of their Constitutional obligations so that they may realise that the casual approach and lack of responsibility at different levels of the Government can lead to the perpetuation of frauds and injustice to innocent masses. People holding high public offices in the Government and elsewhere must remember that they are servants of the public and their accountability is to the people of the country. People of the country have, through the medium of the Constitution of India reposed great faith in those who occupy the high public offices and therefore, one who holds high public office owe an onerous responsibility to act with greater care in the discharge of his duties so that the people don't suffer. Part-IV of the Constitution of India specifies the directive principles of State Policy and even though in terms of Article 37, the provisions contained in Part-IV are not enforceable by any Court, nevertheless, the principles contained in that part are fundamental in the governance of the country and the State has to apply these principles in making laws. I would add to this by saying that the State, its agencies, its instrumentalities and all those who are involved in the running of the State administration as also the Courts are duty bound to apply these principles in their functions and discharge of duties. Article-41 imposes obligation on the State to take effective steps in order to provide education to all. Article 45 imposes obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education upto the age of 14 years. Article 46 postulates promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and weaker sections. Article-41 imposes obligation on the State to take effective steps in order to provide education to all. Article 45 imposes obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education upto the age of 14 years. Article 46 postulates promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and weaker sections. These are the goals set by Part-IV of the Constitution and if read with the preamble of the Constitution there remains no doubt that till the State is able to achieve those goals, concept of justice- social, economic and political; liberty of thought expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity etc. will remain distant realities and papers dreams. Health and Education are two fields where the State owes greatest responsibilities to the people of the country. Therefore, imparting of education to the students of all hues is the duty of the State. Education means purposeful and meaningful education which allows child to develop its personality in all its dimensions and faculties. I would do no better than quoting the Supreme Court in Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education AIR 1989 S.C. 183 , where the Supreme Court observed : "Before parting with the case, we should like to add a word more. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teacher is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the engine of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefitter. He must keep himself abreast of ever changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill trained or sub standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill trained or sub standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of the teacher is not compounded by any extraneous consideration." 20. Similarly, in Ram Sukh and others v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1990 S.C. 590 , the Apex Court observed : "The primary school teachers are of utmost importance in developing a child's personality in the formative years. It is not just enough to teach the child alphabets and figures, but much more is required to understand child psychology and aptitudes. They need a different approach altogether. Only trained teachers could lead them properly. The untrained teachers can never be proper substitute to trained teachers. We are, therefore, unable to give any relief to the petitioners." Therefore, the court will be failing in its constitutional duty if it does not give proper directions the State Government and all its functionaries to remedy the damage which has already been done or at least prevent further injury. Persons who have been appointed as Teachers Gr. III with B. T. C. qualification are mostly teaching in primary schools run by the Government or by the Panchayat Samitis. A majority of children studying in those schools belong to the 'have nots' in the society. They belong to the category of those who are poorest of the poor and cannot afford to send their children for education in the modern business shops. Those who have been taught by teachers Gr.III, who have secured job on the basis of fraudulent degrees and qualifications, have already suffered and will continue to suffer throughout their life. But it is high time that sufferings of others through the hands of these types of teachers is stopped forthwith. Therefore, it is directed that the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan, the Director Primary & Secondary Education and the Director Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, should take prompt steps for removal of all those teachers who have been appointed in different schools in the State from Bihar Pradesh Siksha Parishad. Therefore, it is directed that the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan, the Director Primary & Secondary Education and the Director Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, should take prompt steps for removal of all those teachers who have been appointed in different schools in the State from Bihar Pradesh Siksha Parishad. Even though some persons may have been appointed by being treated eligible under the orders of the Court, I deem it proper to issue a direction to the Education Department, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department and other functionaries of the State to terminate their services in view of the directions given by the court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341/88 decided on 7.9.88, of which reference has been made in the earlier part of the order. Issuance of such direction by the court is absolutely imperative because continuance of such persons on the post of teachers will be perpetually harmful to the children to whom they teach in future. The Secretary, Education Department, the Director Primary & Secondary Education, and the Director Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department, should, therefore, take necessary steps and issue instructions to their subordinate officers immediately to comply with these directions of this court within a period of four months. The competent authorities should specifically mention in the orders of termination of services of such teachers that this action is being taken in pursuance of Court's direction in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341/88 Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan decided on 7.9.88 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7854/92 Rajilal Meena v. State of Rajasthan & others decided on 21.12.93 . The Director, Primary & Secondary Education and the Director, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department should send reports to the court by 3.5.94 showing total compliance of this order of the court. The Registry of the Court must list this file before the court on 7.5.94 for the purpose or perusal of these reports and for giving further directions, if required. 21. The writ petition is dismissed subject to above directions. 22. A copy of this order be sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Rajasthan and the Hon'ble Education Minister so that they may also be in a position to take necessary policy decision in such like matters.Petition dismissed/ Directions given. *******