JUDGMENT : S. Ravindra Bhat, J. This common judgment will dispose of two writ petitions by which amendments to Rule 266(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, which were amended with effect from 29.8.2017, are challenged. 2. The facts are limited. The State of Rajasthan issued an advertisement for recruitment and appointment of Teachers Gr. III (Level-II) for elementary education, in its Elementary Education Department. The impugned amendments were brought into force on 29.8.2017. The effect of these amendments is that individuals possessing requisite qualifications and otherwise fulfilling eligibility stipulations prescribed by the relevant Recruitment Rules, have been now rendered ineligible. Both petitioners highlighted that in terms of the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2015, the candidates who possess the minimum qualifications in terms of an earlier notification dated 29.7.2011 for recruitment to teach Class-VI to VIII, were to be amongst the following categories:- "A. Graduation and passed or appearing in final of 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known). OR B. Graduation with at least 50% marks and I year B.Ed. Passed or appearing in final year of 2-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.). OR C. Graduation with at least 45% marks and I year B.Ed. Passed or appearing in final year of 2 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation issued from time to time in the regard. OR D. Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and passed or appearing in final year of 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.E.Ed). OR E. Senior secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and passed or appearing in final year of 4-year B.A/B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed/ B.Sc.Ed. OR F. Graduation with at least 50 % marks and passed or appearing in I-year B.Ed. (Special Education)." 3. After the examination (REET 2015) the Director of Primary Education issued a notification (DR-2016). In terms of this notification candidates had to obtain 60% marks as minimum passing marks in REET/RTET (Teacher Eligibility Test). Some of the petitioners contend that they had the requisite qualifications of BA and B.Ed. and were preparing hard for the Teacher Gr.III Level-II. Some of the petitioners belong to TSP category. In terms of this notification candidates had to obtain 60% marks as minimum passing marks in REET/RTET (Teacher Eligibility Test). Some of the petitioners contend that they had the requisite qualifications of BA and B.Ed. and were preparing hard for the Teacher Gr.III Level-II. Some of the petitioners belong to TSP category. The petitioners referred to the National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the NCTE Regulations of 2005) as governing the B.Ed course, which in turn required those having less than 50% marks in BA/MA were not entitled to be admitted to the B.Ed. Course. It is stated that the petitioners had possessed the necessary marks i.e. more than 50%. 4. The petitioners then referred to a previous litigation where the cut off list issued for Science/Maths for different categories was set aside by judgment dated 27.4.2017 in Sher Singh v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1464/2016). Thereafter, a fresh advertisement was issued on 11.9.2017. In between on 29.8.2017 the impugned amendments were brought into force. The relevant extracts of the amendments are as follows:- "2. Amendment of rule 266. The existing clause (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996, hereinafter referred to as the said Rules, shall be substituted by the following namely:- (3) Primary and upper primary School teacher (100 percent by direct recruitment) A General Education Level (i) Class I to V Level (ii) Class VI to VIII Qualification as laid down by the National council For Teacher Education under the provisions of Sub section (1) of section 23 of the right to Children to free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (Central act No.35 of 2009) from time to time AND (i) For the teacher of Social Science, the candidate must have passed Graduation or equivalent examination with at least one subject as an optional subject from among History, Geography, Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Public Administration and Philosophy. (ii) For the teacher of Mathematics, the candidates must have passed Graduation or equivalent examination with Mathematics as an optional subject. (iii) For the teacher of Science, the candidate must have passed Graduation or equivalent examination with at least one subject as an optional subject from among Chemistry, Physics, Botany, Zoology, Micro-Biology, Bio-technology and Bio-Chemistry. (ii) For the teacher of Mathematics, the candidates must have passed Graduation or equivalent examination with Mathematics as an optional subject. (iii) For the teacher of Science, the candidate must have passed Graduation or equivalent examination with at least one subject as an optional subject from among Chemistry, Physics, Botany, Zoology, Micro-Biology, Bio-technology and Bio-Chemistry. (iv) For the teacher of language, the candidate must have passed Graduation or equivalent examination with the corresponding language as an optional subject. (v) The candidate who has Graduated in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) and B.A., B.Ed./B.Sc. B.Ed. i.e. a candidate with the qualification of four years integrated course, must also have passed the qualifying examination with the corresponding subject. And (vi). Must have passed the REET/RTET in the subject applying for. 5. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Appendix-4 to NCTE Regulations which clearly provide that B.Ed. Course is of two years and relies upon Clause 3.2 which reads as follows:- "Eligibility (a) Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the Bachelors Degree and or in the Masters Degree in Sciences/Social Sciences/Humanity, Bachelors in Engineering or Technology with Specialization in Science and mathematics with 55% marks or any other qualification equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission to the programme.; (b) The reservation and relaxation for SC/ST/OBC/PWD and other categories shall be as per the rules of the Central Government/State Government, whichever is applicable." 6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the prescription of a condition added to what was previously existing and what NCTE deems appropriate, for admission is not highly restrictive but arbitrary. It is highlighted that in the qualifying Teacher Eligibility Test held by the State, the concerned candidates have scored substantially high marks. However, they have been excluded from appointment because of the subject restriction prescribed by the impugned amendments. It is urged in this regard that the NCTE norms, formulated by way of notification dated 29.7.2011, nowhere prescribed the kind regard to the subject matters in which the candidates are to possess qualifications. In these circumstances, requiring the candidates to have the concerned subjects as the study in graduation or post-graduation level amounts to hyper classification and is discriminatory and arbitrary. 7. Learned counsel further highlighted that the amendments were apparently inspired by the judgment of the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Sher Singh case (supra). In these circumstances, requiring the candidates to have the concerned subjects as the study in graduation or post-graduation level amounts to hyper classification and is discriminatory and arbitrary. 7. Learned counsel further highlighted that the amendments were apparently inspired by the judgment of the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Sher Singh case (supra). In this regard it is submitted that Rule 266(3) was amended after Sher Singh decision which clearly implies that the State and the respondents were felt themselves bound by the directions and judgment. Learned counsel submitted that the Court can never be the source of litigation and the State cannot answer a charge of arbitrariness on the ground that the Court had indicated a particular reasoning which found the basis of policy. In the absence of any informed thinking or discussion or independent data collection on this aspect and consideration with respect to number of candidates who cleared the tests irrespective of the subjects that they had studied in their graduation or other levels as well as the performance of such candidates, after selection as Teachers, the State could not have arbitrarily imposed the changes through the impugned amendments, which clearly suggest that they were driven by the Courts decision. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Paresh Govindbhai v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 10199/2011 and other connected cases decided on 2.12.2011). It was submitted that the Gujarat High Court had set aside and quash identical requirements as arbitrary and the Special Leave Petition against its judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.2.2018. 9. The Additional Advocate General submitted that a ground urged with respect to lack of adequate discussion or consideration while formulating the norms, is not made out. In this regard, it is submitted that after the judgment in Sher Singh, a Cabinet Sub- Committee was constituted for reconsidering the criteria for appointment of Teachers for Level-II. This resulted in the impugned notification. Counsel submitted that the State, by way of a policy change, can always amend the rules or regulations, as the case may be within the framework of the Constitution. So long as the policy or rules conforms to constitutional parameters the fact that it has the effect of excluding some from consideration for appointment itself cannot be a ground for challenge. 10. So long as the policy or rules conforms to constitutional parameters the fact that it has the effect of excluding some from consideration for appointment itself cannot be a ground for challenge. 10. It is highlighted that the State is duty bound to prescribe minimum qualifications for Teachers in terms of Section 23(1) of the Right to Education Act, 2009. It is urged that having regard to the relevant factors and exercise of the power as appropriate Government, the State is entitled to frame such policies as are devised to promote and further the objectives of the RTE Act. It is submitted in this context that the restriction of possessing of qualifications in particular subjects for candidates to be appointed as Teachers is relevant, highlighting that the petitioners in both these proceedings claimed appointment to teaching posts in Maths and English respectively on the basis that they scored requisite eligibility test marks (REET/RTET), whereas the subject of their choice at graduate level was neither Maths nor English but rather Commerce etc. It is stated that for the concerned level of education, Class VI to VIII the subject conditions are specific. In other words, since teaching is imparted in subjects such as Social Studies, Maths, Science subjects language etc. the requirement for the candidate to have graduated in the cannot be termed as unreasonable since it has nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 11. The judgment in Sher Singh (supra) pertinently had stated as follows:- "34. Within our Constitution, we have specifically demarcated the ambit of power and boundaries of the three organs of the society by laying down principles of separation of powers which have to be adhered for carrying out democratic functioning of the country. Subordinate legislations are framed by the executive by exercising the delegated powers conferred by the statute which is the rule making power. Thus, it is inappropriate for the Courts to issue a mandate to the State or its authorities to act in a particular fashion and manner. We are afraid that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge would amount to legislate as to how the appointments should be made and what should be the qualification for the post of Teacher in the subjects and what should be the minimum qualification for appointment of a Teacher in a particular subject. We are afraid that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge would amount to legislate as to how the appointments should be made and what should be the qualification for the post of Teacher in the subjects and what should be the minimum qualification for appointment of a Teacher in a particular subject. However, suffice it to state that the decision to incorporate the marks obtained at various levels to treat a particular individual as eligible for appointment as a Teacher in a particular subject, would solely rest with the Government who may frame rules thereto and this Court cannot embark upon such an exercise. 35. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, as noted above, is limited to as to how the merit is to be prepared. We find that as per the advertisement, which requires a candidate to have a particular minimum educational qualification and also to have REET eligibility, has decided to prepare merit only on the basis of the marks obtained in the REET which has resulted in causing ambiguity, confusion and administrative chaotic situation where a candidate may be able to secure appointment as a Teacher in a particular subject, even though he may not have studied that subject at all. Such cannot be the purpose of selection and we, therefore, hold that the advertisement condition of preparation of merit itself being vague and contrary to the purpose sought to be achieved, deserves to be set aside and we accordingly do so. It may also be noted that a subject Teacher of level-2 is also entitled for further promotion under the relevant educational service rules in that subject to the level of teacher Gr.II in order to teach higher classes. If a candidate enters on the lower post, even without having the minimum qualifications in that subject, would amount to resulting in a chaotic situation." 12. The Gujarat High Court appears to have held that as long as a candidate successfully qualifies in the concerned eligibility test, the stipulation with respect to minimum marks in a particular subject, is arbitrary. The said High Court in Paresh Govindbhai (supra) stated as follows:- "13. The Gujarat High Court appears to have held that as long as a candidate successfully qualifies in the concerned eligibility test, the stipulation with respect to minimum marks in a particular subject, is arbitrary. The said High Court in Paresh Govindbhai (supra) stated as follows:- "13. Therefore, even a graduate in Science with mathematics may opt for becoming a teacher of Social Studies or any other subjects whereas a graduate in Arts or Commerce subjects may also choose the subject of Mathematics and Science provided however that those candidates, in addition to the compulsory subjects, must be prepared to sit in the examination for the relevant optional subjects containing 60 marks and they are required to compete in such examination with the candidates who are graduate in the relevant subjects. 14. We do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the State that a person who has become a graduate by taking Sociology as the principal subject cannot be fit for the TET. Even if a person having graduation in Arts stream without Science and Mathematics as principal subjects undertakes the optional subjects of Mathematics and Science and becomes successful in the examination of paper-II, he can be selected in preference to other candidates having obtained lesser marks in the total subjects notwithstanding the fact that those persons were graduated in science. The pattern of choice of optional subject disclosed in the guidelines of NCTE does not stand in the way of a candidate in choosing any other subject than the one with which he undertook the graduation course. 15. We, therefore, find that the State Government is entitled to set appropriate questions in paper-II by following the guidelines issued by the NCTE but has no right to disqualify an otherwise duly qualified candidate having the required qualification fixed by NCTE from appearing in the said examination. In other words, TET is the forum, where any candidate having the required minimum qualification fixed by NCTE, can justify his ability to appear in any subject he likes by competing with others. In other words, TET is the forum, where any candidate having the required minimum qualification fixed by NCTE, can justify his ability to appear in any subject he likes by competing with others. If an Arts graduate without Mathematics and science in his graduation level takes the risk of competing with the science graduates by taking the option of 60 marks in science and Mathematics subjects out of total 150 and becomes successful, the State Government cannot refuse his appointment on the ground that the science graduates having obtained lesser marks would be more effective. Similarly, a science graduate can opt for social studies by proving his excellence in TET on basis of his knowledge of social studies acquired at the Higher Secondary Level." 13. At the very outset this Court notices that disqualification imposed by the State of Gujarat was not in respect of selection for appointment but at the threshold i.e. debarring candidates from appearing in the TET. Having regard to the structure of the NCTE Regulations and Section 23 of the RTE Act, the High Court held that a restrictive stipulation debarring participation even in the TET by the Sate was not warranted. In the present case, however, the impugned amendments prescribe eligibility for appointment to the post and do not restrict participation in the REET/RTET in question. This is an important distinction which has to be kept in mind. 14. As to the merits this Court is of the opinion that petitioners arguments with respect to the impugned Rule, having been introduced at the dictates of the Court are in-substantial. The State has submitted that the Rules were formulated after deliberations by the Cabinet Sub-Committee which had considered the relevant circumstances. Undoubtedly, the decision in Sher Singh hinted the need to frame appropriate regulations. However, that judgment did not contain any direction in that regard, (nor can it be seen to be so); it rather proceeded to set aside and quash the process. The State, as the primary policy maker, is enjoined to ensure the larger objective of the RTE Act, is achieved and was therefore, within its right to frame a policy. It no doubt has an adverse impact on the petitioners. But that consideration cannot be the sole one for this court to hold that it is arbitrary. 15. The next question is whether the impugned policy is discriminatory. It no doubt has an adverse impact on the petitioners. But that consideration cannot be the sole one for this court to hold that it is arbitrary. 15. The next question is whether the impugned policy is discriminatory. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners here besides relying upon Gujarat High Court decision, that at the basic level expertise in particular subject is not essential and that as long as the minimum qualification as graduation with B.Ed alongwith the proficiency in the RTET/REET is possessed by a candidate, he ought to be eligible for selection. Here again, the Court is unpersuaded with the petitioners submission. For instance, some of the petitioners had, as their main subjects, Commerce. For such candidates, (imparting education and training in Maths for Class VI to VIII), in the circumstances the State could, as it did, insist on those possessing requisite qualifications which were offered as compulsory subjects in graduation alone would be eligible for selection. The States rationale in this sound. If as in the present case the Commerce graduates are permitted to teach subjects in which they did not offer or perhaps never had proficiency - such as Maths or English- the result is likely to have an adverse impact upon the nature of education imparted. It is possible or likely that such teachers may be able to make the mark and impart the necessary learning content. Yet as to which of the two likely outcomes is most probable, is not for the Court to decide or second guess. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the classification (i.e. of insisting that only the candidates possessing graduate level qualification in particular subjects alone can apply for those subjects as Teachers in the concerned levels of education) is either discriminatory or arbitrary. 16. For the above reasons the Court is of the opinion that the writ petitions are unmerited; they are consequently dismissed but without any order as to costs.