JUDGMENT 1. - A common cause has prompted the petitioners in all these writ petitions to move this Court challenging a notification dated 22.8.97 issued by the office of the Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan, by which the notification for admission into the Teachers' Training Educational Instituted (commonly referred to as the STC Course) has been amended laying down therein that the basis for selection and admission into the course would he the percentage of marks obtained in the Secondary examination and not the Senior Secondary. Since all these writ petitions have raised identical questions of law, hence they were ordered to be consolidated which are now being disposed of by this common order. Learned counsel for the parties have also been heard it some length at the admission stage itself in view of the fact that the process of selection into the STC Course is at a stand-still on account of an order of stay granted by this Court. 2. Before adverting to a discussion of the dispute involved in the case at hand, it may be placed on record, the admitted position which is vital for deciding the controversy raised herein which Rule 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the Rules for admission into the STC Course which envisages that the Secondary with Hindi, English, and Maths alongwith other compulsory subjects and Senior Secondary/Higher Secondary from a recognised Board, are the essential certificates for admission into the STC Course, wherein it has been specifically laid down that for admission into the course, the basis of assessment of merit would be the marks obtained by the the candidates in the Senior Secondary which is to the following effect: " izos'k ds fy, esfjV dk vk/kkj lhfu;j lSd.Mjh ds izkIrkad ekus tk;saxsA " 3. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of this rule, a notification was issued on 13.7.97 for admission into the Teachers' Training Institution in the State of Rajasthan for the session 1997-98 which was published in two daily newspapers and applications were invited. Alongwith the application, two forms were issued in which one happened to be the application form, and another was a check-list form were in the marks obtained in the Higher Secondary/Sr. Alongwith the application, two forms were issued in which one happened to be the application form, and another was a check-list form were in the marks obtained in the Higher Secondary/Sr. Secondary only had been required to be furnished by the candidates for preparation of the merit-list, and in the booklet also which was supplied alongwith the application-form, the minimum educational qualification for admission had been prescribed as Sr. Secondary/Higher Secondary examination which was rightly understood that the merit-list was to be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the Sr. Secondary examination. it is also quite relevant to State that the notification dated 30.7.97 also specifically disclosed that the method of selection would he as per the rules laid down in the booklet which required only the marks obtained by a candidate in the Senior Secondary.4. Accordingly, all the petitioners herein applied for admission into the Course after which they would be eligible for appointment as Primary and Middle School Teachers. However before the selection could be made, a further notification was issued on 22.8.97 by the office of the Director, Primary and Secondary Education describing it as an amended notification wherein it was published that the notification dated 30.7.97 issued for the purpose of admission into the 1997-98 session would stand amended, and the method of selection into the STC Course would be on the basis of the marks obtained at the Secondary or equivalent examination, in which Hindi, English, Maths, Science and all other compulsory subjects should have been included in the Course of Secondary and i the merit list would be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the Secondary examination. This became the bone of contention, as all the petitioners herein have secured higher percentage in the Senior Secondary and lower percentage in the Secondary Examination but they have felt motivated to challenge the amended notification on the ground that the criterion for selection into the Course could not have been changed by the Director, Primary & Secondary Education contrary to the Rules in this regard.5. The petitioners having established a prima facie case in their favour, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondents and an interim stay of the notification dated 22.8.97 was granted in favour of the petitioners in response to which the respondents had appeared and the counsel for the parties advanced their arguments and counter-arguments in support of their respective pleas. Mr. Rajendra Soni, Mr. S.C. Gupta, Mr. Trilok Choudhary and Mr. Zakir Hussain took up the cause of the petitioners and submitted that the marks obtained by the candidates in the Secondary examination should not be allowed to form the basis for selection into the STC Course and the notification dated 222.8.97, in so far as it relates to changing the criteria from Sr. Secondary to Secondary, is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed, for it clearly runs contrary to the rules in this regard referred to hereinabove which are Rule 0.1, 0.2 and 6.3.6. It may be interesting to record herein that on 12.9.97 when the counsel for the respondents were heard after hearing the petitioners' Advocate, it was specifically submitted by Mr. J.M. Saxena on behalf of the respondents/Education Department, that the petitioners have unnecessarily moved this Court as even according to the Education Department it is the Secondary with three subjects viz., Hindi, English and Maths as also the Higher Secondary which would form the basis for holding a candidate eligible for admission into the STC Course. However, this submission specifically ran counter to the notification dated 22.8.97 because in the said notification, there is no mention of Sr. Secondary Certificate at all and an impression, in my opinion, was rightly formed by the petitioners that the Sr. Secondary Certificate would be completely ignored and marks obtained in the Secondary examination only would be relevant. On this Mr. Saxena Vehemently contended that it was clearly a wrong impression and, therefore, this Court thought it proper (Sic-hours) to direct the Department of Education through the office of the Director, Primary & Secondary Education further in order to pin them down to their submission by publishing a corrigendum/clarification to the notification dated 22.8.97 in two newspapers clarifying that the basis for selection into the STC Course would still be as per rule 6 of the Rules issued by the office of the Director, Primary & Secondary education, Bikaner way back in the year 1985, meaning. thereby that it was to be specifically clarified to the effect that Secondary alongwith three subjects Hindi, English and Maths part from the compulsory subjects as also the Sr. Secondary shall form the basis of selection into the STC Course.7. The respondents Director, Primary & Secondary Education, although have complied with the direction of this Court, and got it clarification published in two newspapers on 13.9.97 indicating amendment to the notification dated 22.8.97 and they have also specified that education qualification as laid down in rule 6.1., 6.2, and 6.3 has not been changed and will remain in operation as before and have further stated that the essential qualification for selection into the STC Course would be the Secondary with Hindi, English and Maths and other compulsory subjects as also the Higher Secondary/Sr. Secondary, yet the matter could not be concluded since although they have issued necessary clarification, yet Mr. Saxena strangely still insisted that for the purpose of selection, the marks obtained in the matriculation Secondary would he given weightage and he has attempted to justify the action of the respondents by submitting that the prescribed conditions clearly indicate that weightage has to be given to Secondary examination and not the Sr. Secondary, since the candidates after completing the STC Course has to impart teaching to the primary standard and is required to possess proficiency only in three subjects Hindi, English and Maths and the policy has been adopted keeping in view the requirement of a teacher for imparting teaching up to upper and primary level. He has also submitted that the rules no where indicate that the Sr. Secondary/Higher Secondary is the minimum qualification for the purpose of giving admission into the STC Course since it is also Secondary Certificate with Hindi, English and Maths which is essential and the booklet which was annexed alongwith the application form also indicated such facts. It has still further been submitted, that it is an error on the part of the petitioners, to unnecessarily mis-interpret the rule in their favour and give rise to a dispute of this nature.8. It is no doubt true that the essential qualification for admission into the STC Course as per the rule is both Secondary and Sr. Secondary certificate, which lays down that a candidate should be possessing a secondary certificate with Hindi, English and Maths alongwih other compulsory subjects as also the Sr. It is no doubt true that the essential qualification for admission into the STC Course as per the rule is both Secondary and Sr. Secondary certificate, which lays down that a candidate should be possessing a secondary certificate with Hindi, English and Maths alongwih other compulsory subjects as also the Sr. Secondary certificate, but in the process what the respondents and their counsel are completely missing, is the specific note laid down in rule 6.3 which clearly emphasises that for admission into the STC Course, the basis of assessment of merit would be the marks obtained in the Sr. Secondary which already have been noted here in above and even at the cost of repetition, it may be reiterate that the rule itself lays down as follows: " izos'k ds fy, esfjV dk vk/kkj lhfu;j lSd.Mjh ds izkIrkad ekus tk;saxsA " 9. Clearly specifying that the marks obtained in the Sr. Secondary would form the basis of selection into the Course, and infact the Director, Primary and Secondary Education had also accordingly issued a notification on 30.7.97 laying down the conditions as per rules in the booklet and initially requiring the candidates to furnish only the Sr. Secondary marks. What prompted the respondents to suddenly realise the importance of the matriculation/Secondary marks for giving weightage to the marks obtained in the Secondary for admission into the STC Course and what was the pressing need for the Director, Primary & Secondary Education to give more weightage and importance to the marks obtained in the Secondary examination without amending the rules in this regard is completely beyond the comprehension of this Court. The argument of Mr. The argument of Mr. Saxena supporting the stand of the respondents in this regard, is curiously circular, for while on the one hand he accepted the position on behalf of the respondents by agreeing to issue the clarification/corrigendum that selection is required to be made as per Rule 6 of the Rules in this regard and Secondary, as well as, Senior Secondary certificates are both essential qualifications for admission into the Course, yet in the same breath he insisted that weightage to the marks obtained by the candidates in the Secondary and not Senior Secondary would be given, which clearly amounts to shifting of the stand of the Education Department time and again in this regard which is nothing, but a pure juggler trying to have his way in a clearly devious manner.10. However, submission on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the rules could not be changed in the midst of selection and in case the Education Department thought it proper to give more weightage to the marks obtained in the Secondary Examination, it was only proper to introduce an amendment into the notification, sufficiently in advance, is an argument which cannot be brushed aside lightly for an amendment in any rule or criteria has some object to be achieved and that must be having nexus to the object which is targeted to be achieved by the notification. The petitioners' Advocate have, therefore, rightly relied on a judgment of this Court reported in WLR 1992 Raj. 290, in the matter of J.C. Calla v. University of Jodhpur & Ors., and AIR 1994 SC 55 , in the matter of K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka & Ors. wherein also it has been held that the rule-making authority should not be permitted normally to act in the past and application of a rule with retrospective effect is a camouflage of the rule. What is worse in the case at hand, is that the respondents have not yet amended rule 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 nor they have erased the note in the rules which lays down that the marks obtained in the Higher Secondary/Sr. Secondary would form the basis of selection into the STC Course and yet the criteria has been changed and the method of selection prefers to give more weightage to the Secondary Examination. Secondary would form the basis of selection into the STC Course and yet the criteria has been changed and the method of selection prefers to give more weightage to the Secondary Examination. In fact the respondents were anxious and earring for the Primary and Middle School children on the ground that they require teachers with proficiency in Hindi, English and Maths only and that the subjects in which the petitioners passed out the STC Course would not really he relevant for the STC Course, it was expected of them to act sufficiently in advance and not wake up to the need suddenly. The submission to the effect that Secondary with Hindi, English and Maths in fact are more relevant for selection of candidates into the STC Course also does not inspire any confidence, for it is difficult to infer that those who have got higher percentage in the Secondary Certificate must necessarily have obtained high marks in Hindi, English and Maths, for the possibility cannot be ruled out that they may have obtained higher marks in other compulsory subjects but lower marks in Hindi, English and Maths. However, all these contentions are purely conjectural, and no definite opinion can he formed so as to justify the change of criterion in such haste in the midst of selection when initially they had issued the notification dated 31.3.97 as per Rule indicating that Sr. Secondary Certificate would form the basis for judging the merit and suitability of a candidate for admission into the STC Course. I may further add herein, that in view of the subsequent clarification issued by the office of the Director, Primary & Secondary Education and published in the newspaper on 13.9.97,it would perhaps not have been essential to adjudicate the matter at this length, but on account of the shifting stand of Mr. Saxena on behalf of the respondents insisting that the percentage of marks in the Secondary alone would form the basis of selection, has led this Court to deal with the matter slightly in detail. It is also unfortunate that the Director, Primary & Secondary Education as also his counsel has been trying to play hide and seek with the Court in this manner for while on the one hand they accept that Sr. Secondary as well as the Secondary Certificate are the essential qualifications for selection, yet they prefer to ignore the marks of Sr. Secondary as well as the Secondary Certificate are the essential qualifications for selection, yet they prefer to ignore the marks of Sr. Secondary by adopting a convenient plea that they wish to give more weightage to the candidates having higher marks in Hindi, English and Maths obtained at the Secondary level completely obvious of the fact that a candidate having secondary certificate necessarily may not have obtained higher marks in Hindi, English and Maths and even if that be so, it is not open for them, in my opinion, to change the criterion and the method of assessment of the merit of a candidate giving a go/bye to the rule, merely by issuing an amended notification just before the selection which was done by them on 22.8.97 and although they had to issue a clarification to the notification as directed by this Court and published on 13.9.97, yet the oral submissions advanced in this regard, led the whole exercise of publication of the corrigendum into futility. Reliance of the respondents' Advocate Shri Saxena on a judgment reported in 1996 SCC (L & S) 1491 delivered in the matter of Secretary (Health) Department of Health & FW & Another v. Dr. Anita Puri & Ors. which laid down that more weightage may be given to a higher qualification even contrary to the advertisement published, is of no assistance to the respondents' case for the obvious reason that in this case it is not the higher qualification of Sr. Secondary which is given preference but the lower qualification of Secondary and the reason for such abrupt change, hardly inspires any confidence.11. It may finally be noticed, that in the matter of one Vijay Kumar Burdak a somewhat similar question pertaining to Gr. III Teachers arose, wherein a Division Bench of this court has been pleased to stay the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, whereby it had been laid down, that matriculation/Secondary would be the essential qualification for appointment to Gr. III Teachers and not Higher Secondary. Although the said matter is still subjudice in this Court, yet it has prima facie found the decision of the learned Single Judge questionable in this regard. However, in so far as this matter is concerned the rule is unambiguously clear which is to the effect that percentage of marks Sr. III Teachers and not Higher Secondary. Although the said matter is still subjudice in this Court, yet it has prima facie found the decision of the learned Single Judge questionable in this regard. However, in so far as this matter is concerned the rule is unambiguously clear which is to the effect that percentage of marks Sr. Secondary has to be given more weightage for selection into the STC Course, and there is no reason for this Court to speculate as to what prompted the respondents to issue notification making the percentage of marks obtained in the Secondary Certificate only, as the basis for selection so as to hold their action justified even though it is contrary to the rule.12. Thus, I find sufficient substance in the case of the petitioners and they have rightly felt aggrieved with the notification dated 22.8.97 which is contrary to the Rule as discussed hereinabove. The notification dated 22.8.97 accordingly stands quashed. The Director, Primary & Secondary Education, while assessing the merit of the candidates for admission into the STC Course, is both duty bound and rule bound, to give more weightage to the percentage of marks obtained in the Sr. Secondary for admission into the STC Course for if the arguments of the respondents were to be accepted, meaningless and there would be no reason left why it should be made obligatory for the candidates to obtain Secondary Certificate if no weightage is required to be given to the marks obtained in the STC. All the writ petitions, under the circumstances are allowed but without any orders as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******