JUDGMENT : 1. These petitions arise out of common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitions can be divided into two groups. Civil Writ Petition No. 6587/2021 filed by Mukesh Kumar Royal and others and connected petitions call in question the vires of the notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE', for short), by which the B.Ed. degree holders, subject to certain conditions, are made eligible for appointment to the post of primary school teacher grade-III (level-1) (classes-I to V), along with other qualifications already prescribed under its notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended from time to time. The writ petition No. 2108/2021 filed by Sunita and other connected petitions are filed by the B.Ed. degree holders. They support the notification dated 28.06.2018 and have challenged the advertisement issued by the Board of Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan inviting applications for Rajasthan Eligibility Entrance Test ('REET', for short) (level-1) in which the B.Ed. degree holders are excluded. 3. In brief, the controversy revolves around the question whether the NCTE had correctly and legally included B.Ed. as essential qualification for eligibility for appointment to the post of primary school teacher (level-I). The petitioner Mukesh Kumar Royal and others were qualified as per the unamended notification. They possess the basic educational qualification (Higher Secondary Examination pass) and the certificate of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) pass. They argue that B.Ed. course per se cannot be stated to be a higher qualification. According to them even the Ministry of HRD and NCTE have viewed the situation in this manner. It is, therefore, that while including B.Ed. degree as one of the eligibility criteria, the notification dated 28.06.2018 provides that such a candidate upon appointment shall have to pass a bridge course of six months within two years of the appointment. Counter petitioners Sunita and others contend that this amendment is proper and legal and the state government had no authority to ignore this additional qualification prescribed by NCTE while declaring the REET. It is a common ground that REET result is the source for appointment for the primary teachers in the State. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may note in brief the factual background as well as the statutory framework. It is a common ground that REET result is the source for appointment for the primary teachers in the State. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may note in brief the factual background as well as the statutory framework. Article 21A was inserted in the Constitution by Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 with effect from 01.04.2010 which provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. Long before the amendment of the Constitution and insertion of Article 21A, the right to primary education was recognized as a fundamental right being part of Article 21 by the Supreme court in the cases of Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka [ (1992) 3 SCC 666 ] and in the case of Unni Krishnan J.P. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (1993) 1 SCC 645 ]. With the insertion of Article 21A, this right was recognized as an independent fundamental right in the Constitution. To operationalise this valuable right, the Parliament framed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ('RTE Act', for short). The term 'school' has been defined in Section 2(n) as to mean any recognized school imparting elementary education and would include the schools established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or a local authority, schools receiving aid and even unaided schools. Clause (g) of Section 8 of the RTE Act, pertaining to duties of appropriate Government, requires that the appropriate Government shall ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and norms specified in the Schedule. Section 18 requires compulsory recognition of all schools. Section 19 of the RTE Act pertains to norms and standards for school. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that no school shall be established or recognized under Section 18, unless it fulfills the norms and standards specified in the Schedule. The Schedule lists norms and standards for the schools imparting education for the classes-I to V. There are different prescriptions for the number of teachers for this section as compared to classes-VI to VIII. 5. Section 23 of the RTE Act, which is of considerable importance pertains to qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers and reads as under: "23. 5. Section 23 of the RTE Act, which is of considerable importance pertains to qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers and reads as under: "23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers- (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years: [Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position as on the 31st March, 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under subsection (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017.] (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed." 6. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 23, thus a person possessing such minimum qualifications as laid down by an academic authority authorised by the Central Government shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. Sub-section (2) of Section 23, empowers the Central Government to relax such minimum qualifications under certain circumstances subject to conditions. We would make a detailed reference to this Section at a later stage. 7. Chapter-V of the RTE Act pertains to curriculum and completion of elementary education. Section 29 contained in the said part pertains to curriculum and evaluation procedure, and it reads as under: "29. Curriculum and evaluation procedure.-(1) The curriculum and the evaluation procedure for elementary education shall be laid down by an academic authority to be specified by the appropriate Government, by notification. Section 29 contained in the said part pertains to curriculum and evaluation procedure, and it reads as under: "29. Curriculum and evaluation procedure.-(1) The curriculum and the evaluation procedure for elementary education shall be laid down by an academic authority to be specified by the appropriate Government, by notification. (2) The academic authority, while laying down the curriculum and the evaluation procedure under sub-section (1), shall take into consideration the following, namely:- (a) conformity with the values enshrined in the Constitution; (b) all round development of the child; (c) building up child's knowledge, potentiality and talent; (d) development of physical and mental abilities to the fullest extent; (e) learning through activities, discovery and exploration in a child friendly and child-centered manner; (f) medium of instructions shall, as far as practicable, be in child's mother tongue; (g) making the child free of fear, trauma and anxiety and helping the child to express views freely; (h) comprehensive and continuous evaluation of child's understanding of knowledge and his or her ability to apply the same." 8. Last section to be noted from the RTE Act is Section 35 contained in Chapter-VII of Miscellaneous provisions and reads under: "35. Power to issue directions.-(1) The Central Government may issue such guidelines to the appropriate Government or, as the case may be, the local authority, as it deems fit for the purposes of implementation of the provisions of this Act. (2) The appropriate Government may issue guidelines and give such directions, as it deems fit, to the local authority or the School Management Committee regarding implementation of the provisions of this Act. (3) The local authority may issue guidelines and give such directions, as it deems fit, to the School Management Committee regarding implementation of the provisions of this Act." 9. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the RTE Act, as noted above, empowers the Central Government to issue such guidelines to appropriate Government or the local authority, as it deems fit for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Act. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 35, the appropriate Government may issue guidelines and give directions, as it deems fit, to the local authority or the school management committee regarding implementation of the provisions of this Act. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 35, the local authority may issue such guidelines and directions as it deems fit to the school management committee. 10. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 35, the local authority may issue such guidelines and directions as it deems fit to the school management committee. 10. It is not in dispute that the Central Government has notified the NCTE as the 'academic authority' for the purposes of Subsection (1) of Section 23 as well as Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the RTE Act. In terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 23, thus, it is the NCTE which has the authority to prescribe the minimum eligibility qualifications for appointment as a teacher. Likewise, the NCTE is authorised in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 to lay down the curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education. It may be noted that the NCTE has been constituted under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('NCTE ACT', for short). In its original form, the preamble to the NCTE Act provided that it was an Act to provide for establishment of NCTE with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulations and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. By Amendment Act 18 of 2011 with effect from 01.06.2012 the words "including qualifications of school teachers" were inserted in the preamble. Similar amendments were made in the Act and the applicability of the Act as provided in Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the NCTE Act, was expanded to schools imparting pre-primary, primary, upper primary education. The functions of the NCTE as contained in Section 12 were expanded to include laying down of guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a persons to be employed as a teacher in recognized institutions. Section 12A was inserted with effect from 01.06.2012, which provides that for the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools, the NCTE may, by regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college, by whatever names called, established, run, aided or recognised by the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or other authority. First proviso, while protecting the existing teachers, was subject to further proviso, which provides that the minimum qualifications of a teacher shall be acquired within the period specified in the NCTE Act or under the RTE Act. 11. First proviso, while protecting the existing teachers, was subject to further proviso, which provides that the minimum qualifications of a teacher shall be acquired within the period specified in the NCTE Act or under the RTE Act. 11. Section 29 of the NCTE Act pertains to directions by the Central Government. Sub-section (1) of Section 29 provides that the NCTE shall, in the discharge of its functions and duties under this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 provides that the decision of the Central Government as to whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final. 12. Section 32 of the NCTE Act gives power to the NCTE to frame regulations. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 32, the NCTE may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of this Act. Subsection (2) of Section 32 which provides that in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely those contained in various sub-clauses of the said Subsection, which was amended by insertion of Clause (dd) pertaining to the minimum qualifications of teachers under Section 12A. 13. Section 33 of the NCTE Act requires the rules and regulations framed by the NCTE to be laid before the Parliament, which reads as under: "33. 13. Section 33 of the NCTE Act requires the rules and regulations framed by the NCTE to be laid before the Parliament, which reads as under: "33. Rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament.-Every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both House agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation, or both House agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation." 14. The NCTE in exercise of powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act had issued a notification dated 23.08.2010 prescribing minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher in classes-I to VIII in a school referred to in Clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act. Clause (1) of this notification pertains to minimum qualifications. Sub-clause (i) prescribed minimum qualifications classes-I to V. This recognized persons with senior secondary or equivalent with diploma in elementary education (which is, as noted, is called D.El.Ed.) by whatever name called or senior secondary passed with prescribed percentage and 4 years Bachelor of Elementary Education and 2 year Diploma in Education as qualified for appointment provided they possess Teacher Eligibility Test passed certificate as conducted in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE. In contrast, for classes-VI to VIII, as per this notification a candidate must possess degree in B.A. or B.Sc. with Diploma in Elementary Education or such degree with minimum 50% marks with one year B.Ed. course and such similar qualifications. 15. The notification dated 23.08.2010 was amended by the NCTE vide notification dated 29.07.2011. Certain modifications were made in the essential qualifications for appointment of a teacher for classes-I to V as well as classes-VI to VIII. with Diploma in Elementary Education or such degree with minimum 50% marks with one year B.Ed. course and such similar qualifications. 15. The notification dated 23.08.2010 was amended by the NCTE vide notification dated 29.07.2011. Certain modifications were made in the essential qualifications for appointment of a teacher for classes-I to V as well as classes-VI to VIII. We are not directly concerned with these changes brought about by the subsequent notification dated 29.07.2011. The entire controversy revolves around the notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by NCTE making certain amendments in the earlier notification dated 23.08.2010, as amended vide notification dated 29.07.2011. Since this notification is at the center of controversy, we may reproduce the same in its entirety: "NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 28th June, 2018 F. No. NCTE-Regl 012/16/2018- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act. 2009 (35 of 2009) and in pursuance of notification number S.O. 750(E) : MANU/HRDT/0013/2010, dated the 31st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby makes the following further amendments to the notification number F.N. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S), dated the 23rd August, 2010 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated the 25th August, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the said notification namely:- (1) In the said notification, in para 1 in sub-para (i), in clause (a) after the words and brackets "Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), the following "shall be inserted, namely:- OR "Graduation with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)" 2. In the said notification in para 3, for sub-para(a), the following sub-para shall be substituted namely:- "(a) who has acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education from any NCTE recognized institution shall be considered for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo a six month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognized by the NCTE, within two years of such appointment as primary teacher." SANJAY AWASTHI, Member Secy." (emphasis supplied by us) 16. The petitioners, who are opponents of this notification particularly in the case of Mukesh Kumar Royal and others sought information from the NCTE and Ministry of Human Resources Development under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act', for short) as to the manner in which the decision to make amendments in the eligibility criteria was arrived at by NCTE. Through this process, they have brought on record certain documents and information, which need to be noted. It appears that on 30.05.2018 the Ministry of HRD had written to NCTE requiring the NCTE to amend the eligibility criteria for primary school teacher in classes-I to V as to include any person, who has acquired qualification of B.Ed. from a recognized institute provided the person so appointed shall compulsorily undergo a six month bridge course, which may be recognized by NCTE and such course would have to be completed within two years of appointment. This communication is also being challenged by the petitioners. It would be useful to take note of the contents thereof: "F. No. 11-15/2017-EE10-part(1) Government of India Ministry of School Education & Literary Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, Dated the 30th May 2018 To, The Chairperson NCTE, Haris Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 Dear Madam Kindly refer to the letter of even no dated 12.04.2018 regarding request of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for recruiting primary teachers with higher qualification i.e. B.A./B.Sc. B.ed. Plus TET pass and letter no. NCTE-REG1012/16/2018-IJS (Regulation)-HQ dated 23.05.2018 received from NCTE regarding the same. 2. The above request has been considered in the ministry, to order to safeguard the interest of the students and ensure the quality of education, the competent authority has decided to agree to the request of KVS to recruit Primary Teacher with Higher Qualification. The insufficient number of eligible D.EI.Ed. candidates due to tow pass percentage of TET examination has also become as issue for recruitment of primary teacher. Further, with the roll out of four year B.Ed. Integrated course from next academic year, the existing D.EI.E.D./B.Ed. Course will be phased out is due course of time. 3. NCTE vide their letter No. NCTE-REG1012/16/2018-IJS (Regulation)-HQ dated 23.05.2018 stated that the MHRD may consider implementing the directions in the detailed noting of Hon'ble Minister of Human Resource Development Government of India. Integrated course from next academic year, the existing D.EI.E.D./B.Ed. Course will be phased out is due course of time. 3. NCTE vide their letter No. NCTE-REG1012/16/2018-IJS (Regulation)-HQ dated 23.05.2018 stated that the MHRD may consider implementing the directions in the detailed noting of Hon'ble Minister of Human Resource Development Government of India. Further in view of the fact presented by the commissioner, KV and since the NCTE did not have any objection to permit KV schools to recruit primary teachers with higher qualifications, then there should be no objection to standing the to other schools. Therefore considering the powers vested in MHRD Under Section 29 of the NCTE Act 1993. The NCTE regulation 25.08.2010 (determining of teacher to be appointed at primary level class 1st to 5th) shall be amended to include that any person who has acquired the qualification of B./Ed. from any NCTE recognised course will also be considered for appointment as a teacher in classes 1st to 5th provided the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatory undergo a 6 month bridge course, which is recognised by NCTE, within two years of such appointment as primary teacher. 4. It is therefore requested that the draft qualification to amend the NCTE regulation may please be submitted to this Ministry. This may please be treated as most urgent. With regards. Yours sincerely Sd/- (Bashi Sharma) Director (TE)" (emphasis supplied by us) 17. The petitioner Mukesh Kumar Royal had raised certain queries under the RTI Act, which were replied on 23.03.2021, in which it was provided that the bridge course had till then not been designed, however, a committee had been constituted to develop the norms and standards for six months bridge course and the report was awaited. 18. Again through the means of RTI, the petitioners sought further information regarding deliberations, which took place before the impugned amendments were notified. Along with an order dated 28.10.2020 the appellate authority under the RTI Act provided certain internal documents, one of them was the minutes of the meeting dated 09.04.2018 of the officials of MHRD, according to which, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had informed the Ministry that up to the year 2011-2012 candidates having professional qualification of B.Ed. were also eligible for appointment in K.V.S. schools. However, from the year 2012-2013, in compliance with the guidelines of NCTE, K.V.S. did not allow those candidates to be appointed. were also eligible for appointment in K.V.S. schools. However, from the year 2012-2013, in compliance with the guidelines of NCTE, K.V.S. did not allow those candidates to be appointed. It was noted that sufficient number of candidates having the eligibility qualifications were not available, which adversely affected the quality in selection of teachers. It was recorded that the competent authority had given conditional approval to the K.V.S. to appoint primary teachers with higher qualification of BA, B.Sc. or B.Ed, in case sufficient number of D.El.Ed. candidates are not available. It was, therefore, suggested that it would not be appropriate to remove first condition and the K.V.S. can decide as it is an autonomous body and competent to decide such matter. In short, the suggestion was not to include the B.Sc., B.A. or B.Ed. teachers in the eligibility criteria at par with other educational qualifications but to allow K.V.S. to expand the zone of consideration by including such qualifications, in case without inclusion of such candidates, it was not possible to fill up the posts. Significantly, these deliberations were with respect to K.V.S. schools alone. When this note was placed before the Hon'ble Minister of HRD, he placed detailed note expressing his opinion as under: "There are DL.ED. colleges is few states. Therefore, applications for primary teachers come from limited states. B.Ed. is a post graduate degree. They are ready to serve as Primary Teachers. So we get best more equipped teachers. The issue therefore are two 1. When more educated teachers are available why students should not get benefit of better qualified teachers, therefore, we must allow B.Ed. teachers. 2. Second issue is pedagogical for primary teacher which is available in DL.Ed. & not in B.Ed. course. The member has been found by teaching one specific model through Swayam & contact programmer also. Thus, it is very clear that students have the right to have better teachers B.Ed. are more equipped as it is graduate +, while Dl.Ed. is 12+ Finally Decision should be 1. Dl.Ed. will continue to the eligible to apply for Primary teacher post. 2. Additionally, B.Ed. pass candidates will be also eligible to apply. 3. When, Dl.Ed. candidates is selected they can start teaching after formalities. 4. When B.Ed. candidate are selected, they will start teaching but will have to complete pedagogical module within 2 years 5. Thus Dl.Ed. & B.Ed. Dl.Ed. will continue to the eligible to apply for Primary teacher post. 2. Additionally, B.Ed. pass candidates will be also eligible to apply. 3. When, Dl.Ed. candidates is selected they can start teaching after formalities. 4. When B.Ed. candidate are selected, they will start teaching but will have to complete pedagogical module within 2 years 5. Thus Dl.Ed. & B.Ed. Candidates can apply for the job of Primary teacher in KV. Selected B.Ed. candidates will have to complete pedagogical module in 2 years of appointment." 19. According to the Minister, thus B.Ed. should be recognized as an additional qualification and not an alternative qualification for appointment to primary school teachers. However, this opinion also was confined to K.V.S. schools alone. 20. Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the NCTE had placed before us further correspondence, which took place between NCTE and MHRD in this regard. These documents are taken on record. Perusal of these documents would show that after the Minister put his remarks on 11.04.2018, MHRD wrote to NCTE pointing out that the Minister has directed the NCTE to amend the qualifications and make B.Ed. also an eligibility for teaching primary level with a proviso of passing the module within two years of joining the service. We also note that in a meeting held on 28.05.2018 the officials of MHRD and Minister concerned discussed and deliberated the issues and decided to recognize B.Ed. degree course as an additional eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of primary school teachers in classes-I to V. The relevant portion of the minutes of this meeting reads as under: "File was called for. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vide letter No. F. 11054/3/KVS(HQ)/RPS dated 18.05.2016 requested National Bank Council For Teacher Education to allow KVS to recruit Primary Teachers with higher qualification than prescribed by National Council for Teacher Education i.e. graduation with 50% marks and B.Ed. 2. The matter was considered in this Ministry and HRM has approved the proposal of KVS to recruit primary teacher with higher qualification (i.e. B.A./B.Sc., B.Ed.+TET). Further, HRM has also directed that NCTE may amend the qualification and make B.A./B.Sc., B.Ed. also eligible for teaching at Primary level with provision of completing Pedagogical module in 2 years of joining the service, these directions were conveyed to NCTE on 12.04.2018, however, the action is still pending at their part. 3. Further, HRM has also directed that NCTE may amend the qualification and make B.A./B.Sc., B.Ed. also eligible for teaching at Primary level with provision of completing Pedagogical module in 2 years of joining the service, these directions were conveyed to NCTE on 12.04.2018, however, the action is still pending at their part. 3. The matter was again discussed and deliberated in detail in the meeting held today(28th May, 2018) chaired by HRM and attended by Special Secretary, Chairperson, NCTE, MS, NCTE, Joint Secretary (SE.I) and KVS Commissioner. KVS Commissioner raised the issues of insufficient number of candidates applying for the post of Primary teachers and candidates applying from few states rather than across the country. It was informed by MS, NCTE that approximately 7.5 lakh seat are available for D.El.Ed across the country out of which 50% seats are filled. However, the TET pass D.El.Ed. candidate would be much less as the result of TET varies from 6% to 16%. This makes the availability of eligible D.El.Ed. candidates much less than the desired. HRM also pointed out the need for better equipped teachers to ensure quality education in schools. Recruitment of Teachers with higher qualifications will ultimately be beneficial and in the interest of the students. 4. In addition to above, NCTE will roll out four year B.Ed. integrated course from next academic year, therefore, the prevalent D.El.Ed./B.Ed. etc will phase out in time bound manner. Further, similar kind of request has also been from the state of Uttrakhand. 5. In view of the above discussions, HRM directed NCTE to change its regulations, Directions are required to be given under section 29 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Section 29 of the NCTE Act is as follows: (1) The Council shall in the discharge of its functions and duties under this Act be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time. (2) The decision of the Central Government as to whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final. 6. We may request NCTE to submit draft notification to amend NCTE regulations at the earliest. The draft letter is attached for approval please. Once the draft notification is received, the same will be sent to Legislative Department for vetting with the approval of HRM. Submitted." 21. 6. We may request NCTE to submit draft notification to amend NCTE regulations at the earliest. The draft letter is attached for approval please. Once the draft notification is received, the same will be sent to Legislative Department for vetting with the approval of HRM. Submitted." 21. This decision was summed up in a note dated 29.05.2018, which reads as under: "Please place on file the latter from NCTE which was handed over to the HRM by the MS, NCTE during the meeting, the details of which have been referred to in the draft reply. The meeting clearly took the decision that in view of the facts presented by the Commissioner, KV and since the NCTE did not have any objection to permit KV schools to recruit primary teachers with higher qualifications, then there should be no objection to extending this to other schools, and therefore, this Ministry could issue directions to the NCTE under Section 29." 22. The State Government holds a belief that such amendment was unconstitutional and could not have been thrust on the State. Ignoring such amendment, the State Government issued an advertisement dated 11th January, 2021 inviting applications for REET aspirants. This advertisement did not recognize B.Ed degree holders as eligible for appearing in the test. In such scenario, the petitioner Mukesh Kumar Royal and others, who are non-B.Ed. degree holders have challenged the NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 Out of caution, they have also challenged the communication dated 30.05.2018 from MHRD to NCTE. The petitioner Sunita and others have supported the amendment and challenged the advertisement issued by the State Government inviting applications for REET. The State Government has supported the petitioners who have challenged the notification dated 28.06.2018. 23. In such background, learned counsel appearing for the challengers of the notification dated 28.06.2018 including learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government have raised the following contentions:- (i) B.Ed. qualification is not a higher qualification than D.El.Ed. and therefore, cannot be automatically included as eligibility criteria. (ii) Under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the authority for prescribing the qualifications for appointment as primary teachers lies with the NCTE. The Ministry of HRD had no authority to give any direction in this respect. qualification is not a higher qualification than D.El.Ed. and therefore, cannot be automatically included as eligibility criteria. (ii) Under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the authority for prescribing the qualifications for appointment as primary teachers lies with the NCTE. The Ministry of HRD had no authority to give any direction in this respect. (iii) By virtue of the impugned notification, the candidates who are ineligible for appointment are made eligible subject to acquiring eligibility which is not permissible and in any case, is opposed to the basic idea of the responsibility of the State to provide quality primary education flowing from Article 21A of the Constitution. (iv) Even under the NCTE Act, MHRD has power only to give directions in relation to the policy matters. The question of prescribing eligibility criteria for appointment as teachers is exclusively within the domain of NCTE and it is not a policy matter in which the MHRD can have any say. (v) In terms of Section 35 of the NCTE Act any regulations framed by NCTE have to be placed before the Parliament for its approval, which has not been done in the present case. (vi) The eligibility criteria could not have been modified without amending the notification dated 12.11.2014 in which such minimum qualifications have been prescribed. (vii) It was contended that the power to relax the minimum qualifications were exercised without sufficient material available on record justifying exercise of such powers. It was argued that in the State of Rajasthan, there are large number of D.El.Ed. Pass candidates who are qualified for appointment as primary school teachers (classes I to V). Without examination of such data, the B.Ed. degree holders are made eligible. (viii) It was contended that the entire exercise before the Ministry of HRD was in relation to the request of the KVS to recognize B.Ed. degree as an alternative qualification, the source to be tapped when sufficient number of qualified candidates are not available. This was also the view of the officials of MHRD. The Minister alone over-ruled this suggestion and required that B.Ed. may be recognized as additional qualification and that such decision may be projected across all schools in the country. degree as an alternative qualification, the source to be tapped when sufficient number of qualified candidates are not available. This was also the view of the officials of MHRD. The Minister alone over-ruled this suggestion and required that B.Ed. may be recognized as additional qualification and that such decision may be projected across all schools in the country. (ix) It was argued by the learned Advocate General that the primary education is part of the Concurrent List in Schedule VII to the Constitution and under Article 309, it is the power of the State Government to make appointments to the posts created under the State Government. The Union Government while framing regulations contrary to the RTE Act and Rules framed thereunder, had usurped the power of the State Government to make appointment of qualified persons in the posts created under the State Government. 24. On the other hand, the learned counsel for NCTE and the petitioners, who have supported the NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 have raised the following contentions:- (i) The powers are exercised under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 and not under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. It is therefore not necessary to examine the data in different States. (ii) The Ministry of HRD had the powers to give directions to the NCTE in relation to the policy matters. Essentially the educational qualification for appointment as primary teacher is an important policy issue. (iii) After due deliberations the MHRD formed a view that B.Ed. degree should be recognized as an additional qualification subject to passing the bridge course. (iv) In policy matters, particularly in the area of technical fields such as education, the Court would not substitute its wisdom for that of the authorities duly empowered under the Statute and aided by experts in the field. (v) It was contended that the sufficiency of the materials before the Ministry for forming final opinion is not subject to judicial review. In any case, after full deliberations, the authority had come to the conclusion that the B.Ed. degree should be recognized as an additional qualification. It was pointed out that such qualification was recognized till the year 2012. (vi) It was contended that the earlier decisions of the Courts holding that B.Ed. is not a higher qualification were rendered in different background. If eventually the rule making authority was of the opinion that a person holding B.Ed. degree should be recognized as an additional qualification. It was pointed out that such qualification was recognized till the year 2012. (vi) It was contended that the earlier decisions of the Courts holding that B.Ed. is not a higher qualification were rendered in different background. If eventually the rule making authority was of the opinion that a person holding B.Ed. degree was just as qualified to impart education in primary schools (classes-I to V), the Court would not over-rule such matured decision arrived at after due deliberations. (vii) It was contended that not placing the regulations before the Parliament would not vitiate them since the provision under Section 35 of the NCTE Act, merely requires such regulations to be placed before the Parliament and does not attach any adverse consequences if this procedural requirement is not followed. (viii) It was argued that the purpose of constituting NCTE was principally for coordinated development of teacher education system across the country and the dominant purpose for constitution of NCTE was not for laying down qualifications for school teachers. 25. Both sides have relied upon and referred to various judgments, reference to which will be made at appropriate stages. 26. As noted above, the NCTE has been authorized by the Central Government for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 as well as Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the RTE Act. Subsection (1) of Section 23 pertains to minimum qualifications that a person must possess for eligibility for appointment as a teacher, whereas Sub-section (1) of Section 29 pertains to curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education to be laid down by the academic authority. The issues of eligibility for appointment as a teacher and the curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education are closely connected and interlinked. It is possibly for this reason, that in its wisdom, the Government of India has recognized NCTE as an academic authority for both the purposes. While exercising such powers, the NCTE evolves important criteria and guidelines for setting the curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education as well as prescribing minimum qualification for appointment as a teacher. 27. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 thus authorizes NCTE as an academic authority duly notified by the Central Government for prescribing minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher. The power and authority thus exclusively vests in NCTE. 27. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 thus authorizes NCTE as an academic authority duly notified by the Central Government for prescribing minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher. The power and authority thus exclusively vests in NCTE. Subsection (2) of Section 23 is a special provision under which the Central Government retains its authority to relax the qualifications for appointment as a teacher under certain circumstances. As per this provision where a state does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under Sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, relax the minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher for such period not exceeding 5 years as may be specified in the notification. First proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides that a teacher who at the commencement of the Act does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down in Sub-section (1) shall acquire such qualification within a period of 5 years. Further proviso to Subsection (2) provides that every teacher appointed or in position as on 31.03.2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under Sub-section (1) shall acquire such minimum qualification within a period of 4 years from the date of commencement of RTE (Amendment) Act 2017. 28. Analysis of Sub-section (2) of Section 23 would thus show that the Central Government has the power to relax the qualifications laid down for appointment of the teacher where adequate number of institutions offering courses or training in teacher education or teachers possessing minimum qualifications in a state are not available. Such powers are in the nature of relaxation to the essential qualifications that may be prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the main body of Subsection (2) and the first and second proviso thereto reference is to the qualifications laid down under Sub-section (1). The emphasis is on the person to be appointed as a teacher to possess the qualification prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 which can be relaxed subject to fulfillment of conditions as provided. In the main body of Subsection (2) and the first and second proviso thereto reference is to the qualifications laid down under Sub-section (1). The emphasis is on the person to be appointed as a teacher to possess the qualification prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 which can be relaxed subject to fulfillment of conditions as provided. Thus, there is a clear distinction between the powers to be exercised under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 which are vested in the NCTE and those that can be exercised by the Central Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of relaxing the standards laid down by NCTE under Sub-section (1) of Section 23. 29. With this clarity if we revert back to the materials on record, it would emerge that the entire exercise has been undertaken initially by the MHRD and thereafter by the NCTE as one under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. In fact, the learned Additional Solicitor General Shri Rastogi had repeatedly argued before us that the powers are exercised by NCTE under Subsection (1) of Section 23 and not Sub-section (2) of Section 23. If we proceed on such basis, immediate question of the authority of the Central Government to mandate the NCTE to make a certain change would arise. The RTE Act does not give power to the Central Government to give any such directions to the NCTE. We have reproduced Section 35 of the RTE Act which are in the nature of powers of the Central Government and other authorities to issue directions under Sub-section (1) of Section 35. The Central Government has the power to issue guidelines to the appropriate Government or the local authority for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Act. Local authority has been defined under clause (h) of Section 2 as to mean a Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council or Zila Parishad or Nagar Panchayat or Panchayat, by whatever names called and to include such authority or body having administrative control over the school or empowered by or under any law for the time being in force to function as local authority. Thus, the power of the Central Government to issue guidelines under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the RTE Act does not extend to the NCTE as an academic authority notified under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. Thus, the power of the Central Government to issue guidelines under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the RTE Act does not extend to the NCTE as an academic authority notified under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. A reference of-course was made to Section 29 of the NCTE Act for such purpose. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 29, the NCTE shall in discharge of its functions and duties under the Act be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time. However, in our opinion, the Central Government cannot trace the source of the power to give such directions to the NCTE in exercise of its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The primary source of the powers of the NCTE to frame regulations prescribing the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers is in Sub-section (1) of Section 23. In exercise of such powers, the NCTE is not to be guided or be bound by any directive that the Central Government may issue. We do not find any such powers retained by the Central Government under the RTE Act. In plain terms therefore, the Ministry of HRD could not have mandated the NCTE to make the amendments in question. It is beyond dispute that the amendment is not the original work of NCTE. In fact, the opinion of the NCTE was that B.Ed. may be recognized as an alternative qualification for the purpose of KVS, where adequate number of otherwise qualified candidates are in short supply. Over-ruling such opinion of NCTE, the Ministry of HRD mandated that B.Ed. may be recognized as an additional qualification for all schools. This was clearly beyond the power of the Central Government. 30. The RTE Act was enacted to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. As noted, as per Sub-section (1) of Section 23, a person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by the academic authority authorised by the Central Government (i.e. NCTE) by notification shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The primary source of the authority of the NCTE to lay down such minimum qualifications thus is Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The primary source of the authority of the NCTE to lay down such minimum qualifications thus is Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. We are not oblivion to the fact that Section 12A was inserted in NCTE Act with effect from 1.6.2012 which provides that for the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools, the NCTE may, by regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in various levels of schools and colleges. We may recall that the NCTE Act, as originally enacted, was to provide for establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and coordinate development of the teacher education system and for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system. The purpose of qualifications of school teachers was inserted in the preamble only with effect from 1.6.2012. Essentially this Section 12A of the NCTE Act is an eco of the primary source of power of NCTE flowing from Section 23(1) of the RTE Act to lay down minimum qualifications for eligibility for appointment as a teacher. It is for this reason, therefore, in our opinion, the power of the Central Government to give directions to the NCTE under Section 29 of the NCTE Act cannot be utilized to require NCTE to frame regulations concerning eligibility for appointment as teacher under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act. 31. Even otherwise, we do not think that the powers of the Central Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the NCTE Act are wide enough to require the NCTE to frame regulations for eligibility in a particular manner. As per Subsection (1) of Section 29, the NCTE shall in the discharge of its functions and duties under the Act be bound by directions on question of policy as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time. The power of the Central Government to issue directions to the NCTE and its binding effect are confined to the question of policy. The legislature has advisedly limited the powers of the Central Government to issue directions only on the question of policy. The powers thus are not plenary or all pervasive but are restricted to the question of policy alone. Such provision, therefore, has to be interpreted strictly. The legislature has advisedly limited the powers of the Central Government to issue directions only on the question of policy. The powers thus are not plenary or all pervasive but are restricted to the question of policy alone. Such provision, therefore, has to be interpreted strictly. The legislature has constituted the NCTE with specified duties, functions and powers and which Council consists of various experts in the field. The legislature has also while empowering the Central government to give directions to the Council, advisedly restricted such powers on the question of policy. The directions of the Central Government therefore cannot be for day to day functioning of the NCTE or for purposes other than the policy matters. Framing of regulations prescribing eligibility criteria or minimum qualifications for appointment as primary teachers certainly cannot be seen as a policy matter. 32. In the case of A. Manoharan and others vs. Union of India and others [ (2008) 3 SCC 641 ] while interpreting the powers of the Central Government to give directions to the Major Trust under Sub-section (1) of Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, which provided that the authority in discharge of its functions under the Act be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing from time to time, it was held and observed as under: "24. The power of the Central Government to issue directions as contained in Section 111 of the 1963 Act cannot be stretched to amend the Regulations. Power must be exercised by the Central Government only in regard to the administration of the Trust. Such a power to issue direction must be construed strictly. (See Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India: (1979) 3 SCC 489 , Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab: (2007) 9 SCC 582, Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India: (2007) 2 SCC 640 and Poonam Verma v. DDA.: (2007) 13 SCC 154 )" 33. We may also not be unduly perturbed by the finality attached to the decision of the Central Government under Section 29(2) of the NCTE Act on the question of what constitutes policy matter. Any such decision is open to judicial review of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We may also not be unduly perturbed by the finality attached to the decision of the Central Government under Section 29(2) of the NCTE Act on the question of what constitutes policy matter. Any such decision is open to judicial review of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such judicial review being a basic feature of the Constitution as held by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and other [ (1997) 3 SCC 261 ] cannot be barred. 34. Though not so projected before us, if the Central Government was exercising powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 23, the same had to be upon fulfillment of conditions precedent for exercise of such powers. As noted, it is open for the Central Government to relax the qualifications prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 23, if adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education or teachers possessing minimum qualifications in a state are not available in sufficient numbers. Firstly, Sub-section (2) refers to such short fall arising in a state meaning thereby such powers have to be exercised state-wise. Secondly, the powers can be exercised only upon the Central Government finding that in such a state adequate institutions offering courses or training are not available or teachers possessing minimum qualifications are not available in sufficient numbers. Only if these conditions are satisfied, the power of relaxing the minimum qualification prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 can be exercised, not otherwise. In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken. The broad discussion of number of vacancies and short fall in certain regions would not satisfy the requirements for exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 23. Further, as recorded above such powers were state specific and had to be exercised in relation to a particular state. Undoubtedly, within the state of Rajasthan no such exercise has been carried out. 35. Learned counsel for the supporters of the impugned notification have argued before us that the State Government or the petitioners challenging the notification have not produced any data to show that sufficient number of candidates other than holding B.Ed. degree course were available. To our mind, this was not the requirement for exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 23. degree course were available. To our mind, this was not the requirement for exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 23. The requirement was establishing that the factors necessary for exercising the powers existed and the required collection of data as to the number of vacancies vis-à-vis number of eligible candidates available without relaxing the minimum qualifications was undertaken. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to go into the details of the statements made before us either by the petitioners challenging the notification or the learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government, who had stated that in the REET conducted on 26.09.2021 for primary, upper primary school teacher (level-1), 3,50,000 odd candidates holding the qualifications of BSTC D.El.Ed. had participated against 18850 vacant posts. 36. Even going by the insertion of B.Ed. as a recognized qualification, it is manifest that the B.Ed. per se is not sufficient educational qualification. It is for this reason that the MHRD desired and NCTE has introduced the requirement of passing of the bridge course. It is only on passing of such bridge course that the candidate would become eligible to hold the post of primary school teacher (classes-I to V). This should not be misunderstood as an in-service training after recruitment. This is a part and parcel of the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Rules. 37. We may recall that the amended qualifications are that the person may have a B.Ed. degree and may compete for the appointment, however after appointment within a period of two years, he must pass the bridge course of six months which will be designed by the NCTE. In clear terms, the intention is to design a course which will equip a candidate to impart education at the primary school level (classes- I to V). This is an indirect admission on the part of the authorities that minus such bridge course, a B.Ed. degree holder is not qualified to hold the post of a primary school teacher (classes-I to V). If upon fulfillment of conditions required for exercising powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 23, the Central Government had relaxed the standards by enabling a B.Ed. degree holder to secure appointment but to clear the bridge course within the specified time, perhaps no challenge would lie against exercise of such powers. If upon fulfillment of conditions required for exercising powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 23, the Central Government had relaxed the standards by enabling a B.Ed. degree holder to secure appointment but to clear the bridge course within the specified time, perhaps no challenge would lie against exercise of such powers. However, even the Union of India has not taken the stand that the powers are exercised by the Central Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. In any case, we have concluded that no such powers could have been exercised without satisfying that the conditions precedent for exercising such powers existed. 38. Since the MHRD as well as NCTE through the process of framing the amendments and issuing the notification of amendment have recognized that B.Ed. degree per se is not a sufficient qualification for appointment as teacher in primary school (classes- I to V), it is not necessary to dilate on the question whether a B.Ed. degree is a higher qualification as compared to D.El.Ed. or not. To borrow mathematical phraseology, B.Ed. degree course does not form a super set of training of which D.El.Ed. Diploma training forms a sub set. In other words, a B.Ed. degree holder cannot argue that he has sufficient training to teach not only higher standards but also the primary level standard I to V and what is taught to a D.El.Ed. course is part and parcel of his training. This was rejected by the Supreme Court in the cases of P.M. Latha and others vs. State of Kerala and others [ 2003 (3) SCC 541 ] and Yogesh Kumar and others vs. Government of NTC, Delhi and others [ 2003 (3) SCC 548 ]. 39. In the case of P.M. Latha (supra), for recruitment to the post of lower and upper primary school teachers in Government schools, qualification prescribed was Trained Teachers Certificate ('TTC', for short) pass. Instead of selecting the TTC holders, B.Ed. degree holders were selected on the basis that B.Ed. is higher qualification than TTC. It was in this background held that there is no force in the argument that B.Ed. qualification is higher qualification than TTC. Similar view was expressed in the case of Yogesh Kumar (supra). This is also a case where for the post of assistant teachers in primary schools of Municipal Corporation, qualifications prescribed were TTC holders. It was in this background held that there is no force in the argument that B.Ed. qualification is higher qualification than TTC. Similar view was expressed in the case of Yogesh Kumar (supra). This is also a case where for the post of assistant teachers in primary schools of Municipal Corporation, qualifications prescribed were TTC holders. It was held that the candidates holding B.Ed. degree cannot be considered eligible as B.Ed. cannot be treated higher qualification than TTC. 40. Learned Additional Solicitor General however painstakingly argued that these judgments were rendered in vastly different background and arose in a situation which no longer prevails. For two reasons, we are not prepared to accept this contention in its fullest form. Despite the above noted judgments of the Supreme Court, if the rule making authority had after due deliberations come to a conclusion that it is necessary to recognize B.Ed. degree as one of the eligibility criteria for appointment, in exercise of judicial review, out of due deference to the expertise of the academic authority, we would perhaps have not interfered. However, even the academic authority has not proceeded on the basis that B.Ed. is a sufficient training for imparting education at the lowest level of primary schools. It is therefore that the bridge course, which literally would bridge the training gap has been envisaged. 41. With these conclusions, we may deal with a few peripheral issues and contentions. 42. Since we have held that the NCTE has exercised powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act and also held that in case the Central Government could not have given directions to the NCTE for framing the regulations in a particular manner for prescribing a particular eligibility criteria for appointment of a teacher under Section 29 of the NCTE Act, it is not necessary to examine the consequences of the regulations not being placed for approval before the Parliament. 43. The learned counsel Shri Vigyan Shah was perhaps not correct in contending that NCTE could not have amended the eligibility criteria without amending the notification dated 12.11.2014. Under this notification, Clause (4) provides for qualification for recruitment as provided in the schedule. The first schedule pertains to minimum academic and professional qualifications at different level of schools. 43. The learned counsel Shri Vigyan Shah was perhaps not correct in contending that NCTE could not have amended the eligibility criteria without amending the notification dated 12.11.2014. Under this notification, Clause (4) provides for qualification for recruitment as provided in the schedule. The first schedule pertains to minimum academic and professional qualifications at different level of schools. Clause 3 contained in the schedule pertains to primary and upper primary (Class I to VIII) and the qualification prescribed are "minimum qualifications as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education vide its notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended from time to time issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009)". As per these Regulations thus, the essential qualifications for appointment are those as prescribed under the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, namely, one dated 23.08.2010 as amended from time to time. Thus, the moment the notification dated 23.08.2010 is amended by NCTE in exercise of powers under Subsection (1) of Section 23 automatically such change gets reflected and embedded in the qualifications prescribed in the first schedule of these regulations. Thereafter, therefore, there was no need to amend this notification. All challenges in the preliminary notification dated 23.08.2010 would automatically be recognized for the purpose of the said schedule. 44. The debate has also taken place with respect to the stand of the State Government. Firstly, with respect to the State Government as a respondent challenging the notification of NCTE, it was argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General that such challenge without a counter petition being filed, was not maintainable as per the High Court Rules. Second contentious issue was the act of the State Government to ignore the NCTE notification making amendment in the eligibility criteria and not recognizing B.Ed. degree holders for the purpose of REET. 45. Since there are independent petitions and petitioners before us who have challenged the notification of NCTE, it is not necessary for us to examine whether the State Government on its own as respondent could maintain its challenge without filing an independent petition. However, with respect to the second ground, we are of the opinion that the State Government could not have ignored the notification while inviting applications for REET. However, with respect to the second ground, we are of the opinion that the State Government could not have ignored the notification while inviting applications for REET. Even if the State Government was of the opinion that such notification was unconstitutional or for any reason illegal, the same had to be stayed or set aside by a competent court before it could be ignored. 46. The contention of Shri Rastogi that the challengers to the notification have no locus standi to bring the petition because the amendment merely expands the zone of consideration, cannot be accepted. Whether by mere expansion of zone of consideration the challenge will succeed or not is a matter of a different context but a person who is already eligible finds himself in a wider competition on account of widening the zone of consideration for appointment or promotion holds a belief that such amendment is illegal he has every right to call in question. To reiterate the question of locus standi of such a person and maintainability of his or her petition stands on vastly different footing as compared to the success or failure of such challenge to widening of the zone of consideration for appointment or promotion. The judgments relied upon in this context by Shri Rastogi in the cases of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Dilip Kumar and others [ 1993 (2) SCC 310 ] and Shyama Charan Dash and others vs. State of Orissa and others [ 2003 (4) SCC 218 ] would fall in a latter category. It is open for him to argue that when the only consequence of the amendments in the regulations is expanding the zone of consideration, the Court should not strike down the amendment is entirely different from arguing that the persons recognized as eligible as per the existing regulations cannot question the amendment. 47. We concede to the suggestion of the learned Additional Solicitor General that in policy matters and particularly in specialized and highly technical fields such as education, the Court always holds the opinion of the policy framers with highest regards and would not substitute its wisdom for that of the specialized body. 47. We concede to the suggestion of the learned Additional Solicitor General that in policy matters and particularly in specialized and highly technical fields such as education, the Court always holds the opinion of the policy framers with highest regards and would not substitute its wisdom for that of the specialized body. The reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others [ (2009) 11 SCC 726 ] and Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others [ (2019) 2 SCC 404 ] for such purpose is noted. However, in the present case, we have not questioned the wisdom of the rule making authority to make a certain change in the eligibility criteria. What we have held is that the same was done under the mandate of the Central Government without such powers being vested. 48. The learned Advocate General is not quite accurate in contending that by prescribing these qualifications there is affront on the State's power to recruit persons on the posts under the State Government. Quite apart, the power under Article 309 of the Constitution to make recruitment by the State agencies, the eligibility criteria for various posts can be prescribed under respective statutes governing the terms and conditions of education and such similar positions. Even under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996, the State legislature has provided that the qualifications of the teachers would be as prescribed by the NCTE. 49. We summarize our conclusions as thus: (i) The impugned notification dated 28.06.2018 is unlawful because:- (a) it is under the direction of the Central Government, which power the Central Government under Subsection (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act did not have; and (b) it is not in exercise of power of the Central Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of RTE Act relaxing the eligibility criteria prescribed by the NCTE, nor there has been any exercise for ascertaining existence of the conditions precedent for exercising such power. (ii) The petitioners have locus standi to challenge the notification dated 28.06.2018. Merely because an additional qualification is recognized as one of the eligibility criteria, the petitioners cannot be prevented from challenging it. (iii) Accepting a candidate with B.Ed. (ii) The petitioners have locus standi to challenge the notification dated 28.06.2018. Merely because an additional qualification is recognized as one of the eligibility criteria, the petitioners cannot be prevented from challenging it. (iii) Accepting a candidate with B.Ed. degree as eligible for appointment and thereafter subjecting him to complete the bridge course within two years of appointment is in the nature of relaxing the existing eligibility criteria, which the Central Government could have done only within Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and subject to existence of circumstances necessary for exercise of such power. (iv) The State Government could not have ignored the notification of NCTE dated 28.06.2018 while issuing advertisement for REET. However, when we have declared that this notification is illegal and are in the process of setting aside, the issue becomes one of academic value. 50. In the result, the impugned notification dated 28.06.2018 is set aside. The latter dated 30th May 2018 of the MHRD to NCTE being in the nature of internal communication, does not give rise to cause of action unless acted upon and therefore, it is not necessary to separately set it aside. 51. The writ petitions being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6587/2021 filed by Mukesh Kumar Royal and other similar connected petitions are allowed. 52. The writ petitions being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2108/2021 filed by Sunita and other similar connected petitions are dismissed. 53. The interim orders granted earlier allowing the petitioners holding B.Ed. degree to appear in the REET are vacated. The candidature of those petitioners, who appeared in the REET under the interim orders of this Court, shall not be processed further. 54. All applications stand disposed of accordingly.