JUDGMENT : Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical. For convenience, the facts are being taken from SBCWP No.1026/2017. 2. The petitioner is seeking a direction to consider the petitioner as eligible for recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) while considering the mark sheet of REET-2015 and the eligibility certificate i.e. RTET-2011 as valid in pursuance of the advertisement dated 6.7.2016 and in accordance with the Circular dated 23.03.2011. 3. The facts in short are that the respondents had issued an advertisement dated 6.7.2016 for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-I & II). As per the said advertisement, an aspirant was required to obtain minimum 60% marks in Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Examination (RTET) to include for merit list to be prepared for Teacher in Primary and Upper Primary Level. Further, as per the notification dated 29.08.2012 of the State Government, the aspirants belonging to Scheduled Tribe category of Tribal areas were required to have minimum 36% marks in RTET/REET. For recruitment on the post of Teacher, merit list was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in REET-2015 and RTET-2011 and RTET-2012. The maximum marks obtained in above said tests were to be considered for preparation of State Level Merit List. However, as per the advertisement, only those aspirants are to be included for preparation of merit list who have obtained minimum 60% marks in the above said examinations except the aspirants belonging to Schedule Tribes of Schedule areas notified vide notification dated 29.08.2012. The petitioner belongs to widow general category and posseses the qualification of B.A., M.A. and B.Ed. from a recognised institution. The petitioner is aggrieved on account of the fact that she has not been considered for the said appointment on the ground that she was awarded less than 60% marks in REET-2015. 4. While praying for considering the eligibility certificate i.e. RTET-2011, even though she has got less than 60% marks, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following arguments:- The NCTE had issued a guideline dated 11.02.2011. As per para 9 of the said guidelines, NCTE had prescribed 60% minimum qualifying marks required in the TET examination. However, the School Management (Government, Local Bodies, Government Aided and Non-Government Aided) gave concession to the persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC/Differently Able Persons, etc. As per para 9 of the said guidelines, NCTE had prescribed 60% minimum qualifying marks required in the TET examination. However, the School Management (Government, Local Bodies, Government Aided and Non-Government Aided) gave concession to the persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC/Differently Able Persons, etc. in accordance with their extent reservation policy vide circular dated 11.2.2011. As per the notification dated 23.3.2011, concession of 10% marks was given to the persons belonging to women candidates of General category, OBC category and concession 15% marks to women candidates of OBC category and widows and divorced category candidates, etc. The said notification was challenged before the High Court and the Division Bench of this Court set aside the Circular dated 23.03.2011 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1484/2012 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions decided on 02.07.2013. However, the said order and judgment passed by the Division Bench was challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3545-3549 of 2016 (Vikas Sankhala & Ors. Etc. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Etc.). The Apex Court allowed the appeal vide its judgment and order dated 18.10.2016 by holding as under:- "These appeals are accordingly allowed in the manner indicated in this judgment, effect whereof would be as under: (a) Those reserved category candidates who secured pass marks on the application of relaxed standards as contained in the extant policy of the Government in its communication dated March 23, 2011 to be treated as having qualified TET examination and, thus, eligible to participate in the selection undertaken by the State Government. (b) Migration from reserved category to general category shall be admissible to those reserved category candidates who secured more marks obtained by the last unreserved category candidates who are selected, subject to the condition that such reserved category candidates did not avail any other special concession. It is clarified that concession of passing marks in TET would not be treated as concession falling in the aforesaid category. All these appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost." 5. It was therefore contended that the appeals being allowed by the Apex Court, the Circular dated 23.03.2011 came to be upheld and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to consider the candidature of the petitioner in view of relaxation granted in Circular dated 23.03.2011. All these appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost." 5. It was therefore contended that the appeals being allowed by the Apex Court, the Circular dated 23.03.2011 came to be upheld and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to consider the candidature of the petitioner in view of relaxation granted in Circular dated 23.03.2011. It was further contended that the action of the respondents was accordingly arbitrary as they cannot turn around and ignore the circular dated 23.03.2011 which has been upheld by the Apex Court and hence, the petitioner should be granted relaxation in terms of the said circular. (b). Learned counsel for the petitioner raised yet another argument. It was contended that Certificate issued to them was valid upto 07 years. This fact is also mentioned in the certificate itself. Thus, the petitioner has in legitimate expectations for being considered eligible for recruitment on the post of Teacher on the basis of the said certificate. 6. Reply has been filed by the respondents. As per the reply, the certificate of Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (RTET) does not confer any right for any person for recruitment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment. Further, the merit list was prepared on State Level after considering the highest marks scored by the candidate in RTET-11/12 and REET-2015. The candidates who have scored more than requisite marks i.e. 60% will only be eligible to be considered against the advertised post. In para 47 of the judgment passed in Vikas Sankhla & Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal bearing Appeal No.3545-3549/2016, the Apex Court held that the power vested in the State Government to give relaxation includes the power not to give relaxation and therefore, the State Government has taken a conscious decision that no relaxation so far qualifying marks in RTET-2011/12 and REET-2015 are concerned shall be granted to any category except to the persons belonging to the scheduled tribes of the schedule area in pursuance to the notification dated 29.08.2012. 7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. For proper adjudication, certain dates are required to be noticed. (a). The Circular vide which the relaxation was granted to the reserved category candidates vis.a.vis the prescribed qualifying marks to pass the TET in accordance with the extend reservation policy is dated 11.2.2011. (b). 7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. For proper adjudication, certain dates are required to be noticed. (a). The Circular vide which the relaxation was granted to the reserved category candidates vis.a.vis the prescribed qualifying marks to pass the TET in accordance with the extend reservation policy is dated 11.2.2011. (b). The Circular dated 11.2.2011 was set aside by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal (W) No.1484/2012 by its order and judgment dated 02.07.2013. (c). The appeal against the said order and judgment was allowed by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2016. (d). The present advertisement in pursuance to which no relaxation in the marks of TET has been provided is dated 6.7.2016. 8. From the above facts, it is evident that the advertisement was issued after the Division Bench had quashed the circular dated 11.02.2011 and prior to the judgment dated 18.10.2016 allowing the appeal by the Apex Court. On the date when the advertisement in question was issued, the circular was not in existence. To the said extent, no fault can be found with the decision of the State Government to issue an advertisement laying down the condition of 60% with no relaxation as the minimum requisite marks in REET for qualifying. 9. The question is as to whether the respondents are required to reconsider this decision in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Vikas Sankhala (supra) at this juncture after the last date for receiving the application form is long over. 10. In order to adjudicate this question, it is necessary to refer to one of the issue that was decided by the Apex Court in Vikas Sankhala (supra) which was:- "Whether policy of the State as reflected in its letter dated March 23, 2011 deciding to give relaxation from 10% to 20% in TET marks to different reserved categories as mentioned therein is valid in law?" While answering the said question, the Apex Court held as under:- It is a matter of record, which is taken note of the High Court also, such relaxation has been granted by various State Governments and respondents State is not only State. However, one observation made by the High Court needs serious consideration. However, one observation made by the High Court needs serious consideration. It is pointed out that except for the State of Andhra Pradesh, no other State has granted such wide range of concessions as the State of Rajasthan did in its letter dated March 23, 2011. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into and needs to be reconsidered by the States inasmuch as very high percentage of relaxation may amount to compromising with quality which may not be conducive to maintaining standards of education. However, we are not tinkering with the extant of relaxation given in letter dated March 23, 2011 because of the reason that on that basis, two recruitment tests have been conducted and candidates who have been selected are now teaching for last number of years. However, for future selections in this behalf, we impress upon the State Government to consider this aspect and bring the relaxations within reasonable limits. 11. A perusal of the same makes it crystal clear that as per the Apex Court, the reservation policy was prerogative of the State and can be formulated for a particular recruitment or for a particular year. It can be extended every year and may not be extended and it can also be changed from time to time as deemed proper by the State. 12. In order to find out whether a conscious decision had been taken by the respondents for withdrawing the concession granted in Circular dated 23.3.2011, this Court directed the respondents to produce the record. From the record, photo copy of which has been placed on record, the minutes of the cabinet meeting dated 16.10.2015 show the decision taken by the cabinet. Item No.(vi) of the minutes of the said Committee reads as under:- ^^v/;kid HkrhZ gsrq ojh;rk lwph & MERIT LIST gsrq vH;FkhZ dh jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk (REET/RETE) esa U;wure 60 izfr'kr mrh.kkZd (MINIMUM PASSING MARKS) vftZr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk ijUrq jkT; ljdkj ds jkti= dzekad F71EE/PLAN/2011 DATED 29-08-2012 ds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa Scheduled Area's ds vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds fy;s U;wure 36 izfr'kr mrh.kkZd MINIMUM PASSING MARKS vfuok;Z gksaxsA ;g NwV dsoy REET 2015 ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ij vuwlwfpr {ks=ksa Scheduled Area's ds fu;qfDr ds fy;s gh ykxw gksxkA iwoZ esa vk;ksftr a RTET, 2011 ,oa 2012 esa ;g NwV ykxw ugha gksxh D;ksafd mDr lwpuk 29-08-2012 dks tkjh gqbZ gSA** 13. In pursuance to the said decision taken in the cabinet meeting, the Joint Secretary issued the order dated 27.10.2015 to the following effect: ^^mDr vkns'k f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk fofHkUu vkjf{kr Jsf.k;ksa dks U;wure mrh.kkZd esa fn;s tkus okyh NwV esa tkjh iwoZ vkns'k dzekad&@ih,l@ih,lbZ@2010@91 fnuakd 23-03-2011 ,ao vkns'k dzekad ia0 7(1)@izkf'k@vk;ks@2011 fnuakd 17-05-2012 ds vfrdze.k esa tkjh fd;s tkrs gSA** Eligibility Examination for teachers (Reet) & 2015 14. The communication dated 27.10.2015 issued by the Secretary, Elementary Education was addressed to Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. Para 5 of the communication read as under:- 5 f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk fofHkUu vkjf{kr Jsf.k;ksa dks U;wure mrh.kkZd esa fn;s tkus okyh NwV esa tkjh vkns'k dzekad ih,l@ih,lbZ@2010@91 fnuakd 23-03-2011 ,oa vkns'k dzekad i 7¼1½ izkf'k@vk;ks@2011 fnuakd 17-05-2012 jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk jhV RAJASTHAN ELEGIBILITY EXAMINATION FOR TEACHERS REET - 2015 gsrq fu"izHkkoh jgsaxsA 15. In these Circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the policy decision so taken by the respondents State to fix 60% marks with no relaxation in REET/RTET as minimum qualification in the selection except Scheduled Tribes of Schedule areas. Further as discussed above, the same can not be said to be contrary to the order and judgment passed in Vikas Sankhala (supra) which has given liberty to the State to look into the matter afresh. 16. The learned Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench while dealing with the identical matter challenging the same advertisement in the case of Smt. Sharmila & Anr v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected writ petitions (SBCWP No.10092/2016) dismissed the writ petitions by holding as under:- "Shri Gupta has contended that from the experience of earlier round of litigation, wisdom had dawned upon the State Government, therefore the State Government already in the advertisement issued in the year 2015 before decision of Supreme Court took a conscious decision that no relaxation so far qualifying marks in REET are concerned shall be granted to any category except to the persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes of the Scheduled Area. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the power vested in the State Government to give relaxation includes power not to give relaxation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the power vested in the State Government to give relaxation includes power not to give relaxation. Hence, if the State Government has taken a conscious decision that a candidate to become eligible for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III should obtain 60% marks in REET, the State Government cannot be compelled to give any relaxation or concession especially when the Supreme Court has impressed upon the State Government not to give relaxation except within the reasonable limits." 17. This Court need not have gone into any further detail and dismiss the present writ petitions also being covered with the aforesaid judgment, however, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the order passed in SBCWP No.10786/2016 (Renu Bala Dave v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 10.01.2017 to contend that a different view has been taken by this Court. 18. However, a perusal of the judgment passed in Renu Bala (supra) shows that same was not passed on merits but on the concession made by the learned counsel for the respondents. Moreover, the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench in Sharmila v. State of Raj. (supra) was prior in time and nor was it brought to the notice of this Court at the time of passing of the order in Renu Bala (supra). 19. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that certificate of RTET so issued to the petitioners is valid for 07 years and therefore, same should be read as having been issued to them after giving relaxation of the marks cannot be sustained as the certificate was issued to every candidate who sat in the examination. A perusal of the said certificate place on record shows that certificate duly mentions the marks obtained by the concerned candidate in the examination undertaken by him and under no circumstances does it confer eligibility. This is evident from Clause 9 of the guidelines of the NCTE dated 11.2.2011 which has specifically laid down as under:- "A person who score 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass school managements (Government, local bodies government aided and unaided) (a) May consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC differently able persons etc. in accordance with their extent reservation policy. in accordance with their extent reservation policy. (b) should give weight age to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment". 20. Thus, Clause 9(b) also clarifies that qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment. Thus, the NCTE gives no relaxation. It clearly stipulates that qualifying marks laid down by NCTE are 60% and the State, if so desire, can give concession upto the extent of reservation policy. In the present case, the State has already taken a conscious decision in the cabinet meeting held on 16.10.2016 as mentioned above that there shall be no relaxation to the reserved candidates except Scheduled Tribes of Schedule area which requires no interference in view of the above discussion in the earlier part of the judgment. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.