Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 691 (RAJ)

Pawan Swaroop Gour S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Gour v. Dharmendra Kumar Bhinchar S/o Rahdeva Ram Bhinchar

2021-03-25

MANOJ KUMAR VYAS, SABINA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Vide this judgment abovementioned appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of common order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The question involved in the present cases is as to whether the candidates, who did not have language as optional subject in three years graduation degree course, but had qualified that language as additional subject by giving all the three papers in one year after completion of their Bachelor Degree, were eligible for appointment to the post of Language Teacher. 3. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 21.08.2018 has held as under: “35. In the result, the State-respondents are directed to exclude the participating candidates from the select list with degree acquired as “additional” in the concerned subject. The candidates who are in possession of graduate degree with optional subject of three years Bachelor’s degree with English as an optional subject in all the three years, should only be treated as eligible and entitled for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II (English), as per their merit.” 4. Hence, appeals have been filed by the State as well as private respondents in the writ petitions. Appellants Mahender Parasar and Gajanand Meena have also filed appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge alleging that they possess qualification of B.A. (Additional) English and had been ousted from the selection process initiated vide Advertisement dated 31.07.2018. 5. Learned Senior Counsel as also learned counsel for the appellants-candidates have submitted that for the appointment as a Teacher for Class VI to VIII, a candidate was required to have done graduation with at least 50% marks and one year Bachelor in Education and must have passed Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (RTET)/Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher (REET). As per Notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by National Council for Teacher Education, for a teacher of Class VI to Class VIII students, one of the qualification prescribed was graduation with at least 50% marks and one year Bachelor in Education. As per Ordinance 203-I, for Bachelor of Arts, the course of study for the examination was extended over a period of three years. The candidate would also opt for three optional subjects apart from two compulsory subjects. As per Ordinance 203-I, for Bachelor of Arts, the course of study for the examination was extended over a period of three years. The candidate would also opt for three optional subjects apart from two compulsory subjects. As per Para (8) of the said Ordinance, a candidate, who had passed B.A. Examination could take the examination in any subsequent year in any one of the optional subjects prescribed for B.A. Examination and not already taken by him at the time of degree examination and if successful, then would get the certificate to that effect. In pursuance to the said Ordinance, appellants had got additional degree in English by taking all the papers in one year after completing their graduation degree. The marks obtained by the candidates in additional examination were liable to be counted along with the marks obtained by them in their graduation degree. Thereafter, the appellants did their Bachelor in Education with English as a teaching subject. As per Ordinance 322 of the University of Rajasthan relating to B.Ed. qualification, a candidate, who had taken Bachelor’s Degree from the University shall be eligible for admission to the examination for degree of Bachelor of Education. As per Note (v) of the said Ordinance, the additional optional subject of Bachelor’s Degree Examination in which a candidate passes in one year with all the papers prescribed for the three years course after obtaining the Bachelor’s Degree may be treated as a teaching subject. The marks obtained by the candidate in the additional optional subject would be taken in account along with marks obtained at the Bachelor’s Degree for determining his eligibility for admission to B.Ed. course. Even the State had considered the appellants eligible for the post of Language Teacher, as they had duly qualified the subject by way of additional subject. In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Shaik Mahibulla Sharief (Civil Appeal No. 3094 of 2017 decided on 22.02.2017), wherein it was held as under: “7. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court does not warrant interference. Admittedly, the Respondent possesses BA with History, Economics and Political Science and B.Ed. with Telugu and Social Studies as methodology subjects. He also possesses BA in Telugu literature as a single subject from Dr. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court does not warrant interference. Admittedly, the Respondent possesses BA with History, Economics and Political Science and B.Ed. with Telugu and Social Studies as methodology subjects. He also possesses BA in Telugu literature as a single subject from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the qualification of BA Telugu literature as a single subject from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University can be considered as equivalent to bachelor’s degree with Telugu as main subject. We are in agreement with Mr. Rao that the memo dated 03.10.2005 is a clarification pertaining to transfer of teachers/officers and rationalisation of schools. The directions given by the Government to the Director of School Education which are referred to supra would clearly show that the degree issued by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University was considered to be equivalent to any other degree in respect of a selection conducted in the year 2003. If the Government has considered the degree issued by the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University as equivalent to any other degree for DSC-2003 and permitted appointment of similarly situated persons, there is no reason why the Respondent can be said to be ineligible. There is nothing in the Rules which makes a degree issued by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University which is recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) from being considered as equivalent to any other degree.” 6. Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Emarata Ram Pooniya and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (2) WLC (Raj.) 358, wherein it was held as under: “27. It is averred in the writ petition filed by Emarata Ram and others that they graduated in Arts with English as a subject, which they studied all the three years. Thereafter, they took admission in B.Ed in English, History and were imparted instructions in English as subject throughout the three years degree of bachelors i.e. B.Ed. It is averred in the writ petition filed by Emarata Ram and others that they graduated in Arts with English as a subject, which they studied all the three years. Thereafter, they took admission in B.Ed in English, History and were imparted instructions in English as subject throughout the three years degree of bachelors i.e. B.Ed. It is further averred that when the appellant-petitioners perused the provisional merit list, they found that their names were placed at a very low merit point and when the whole thing was closely scrutinized, it was found that the candidates, who had passed their Bachelor's degree examination in Science or Commerce, have come to be assigned a position much above the appellants. In this process, a person who studied like the appellants, English for all the three years of Bachelor's examination, has found a position at much lower point as compared to those, who passed Bachelor's examination in Science and Commerce stream and had thereafter taken the examination of English of the University as private candidates and passed therein by taking all the three papers of English at a time and are ones not having English stream in B.Ed. It is submitted that the provision is ex-facie discriminatory and unreasonable inasmuch as the lowest marks secured at the original examination of Graduation are substituted by the marks secured in the additional subject as a private student while calculating the merit. The candidates who have secured marks in additional subjects and studied in isolation and could secure the sizable marks, are obviously put to an advantageous position in comparison to other students who had studied all the subjects at the Graduation level for all the three years. Thus, the provision does not simply provide for improving the marks in a subject but complete substitution of marks and the subject. 28. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Additional Advocate General, that students who had taken English Literature as an optional/additional subject after passing the graduation examination are required to appear in two papers of each year i.e., in total six papers. It is in addition to the study of such a candidate in all the three parts of the graduation examination. Learned counsel has tried to demonstrate the factual position by placing on record the marksheets. By filing an additional affidavit, it is further submitted by Mr. It is in addition to the study of such a candidate in all the three parts of the graduation examination. Learned counsel has tried to demonstrate the factual position by placing on record the marksheets. By filing an additional affidavit, it is further submitted by Mr. Lodha that as per the criteria, a provisional list was prepared wherein the appellant Emarata Ram has secured 64.01%. A chart has also been placed on record to demonstrate that even if the names of the candidates, who have passed in English as additional paper, are deleted from the merit list, the name of appellant Emarata Ram does not fall within the zone of consideration. Thus, it is submitted that no purpose would be served even if the contention of counsel for the appellant Emarata Ram is accepted. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Mridul that it is not clear from the Chart that the percentage which is given out is in respect of English subject alone or it has been worked out by taking marks obtained in all the subjects by the candidate concerned. On over all consideration of the issue involved, we are of the view that the policy decision with respect to marks secured in additional paper cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. After all, higher marks obtained in examination are taken into consideration for determination of merit. During the course of arguments, on consideration of various illustrations, it was found that the two views are possible on the issue involved. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to unsettle the settled practice, at least to disturb the impugned selections.” 7. Learned counsel have further submitted that decision given by Delhi High Court in Director of Education and Others vs. Baboo Lal Sharma (W.P. (C) No. 5835/2010 and other connected matters decided on 04.10.2010) was reviewed vide order dated 18.09.2015 passed in Baboo Lal Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (Rev. Pet. No. 346/2015 and C.M. No. 13184/2015 in W.P. (C) No. 7309/2013), wherein it was held as under: “3. For the purposes of appreciating the submissions of the review petitioner, we set out hereunder the qualifications of the petitioner. He is stated to have undertaken a B.A. Degree course with History Political Science and Sociology from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer between 1996-98. For the purposes of appreciating the submissions of the review petitioner, we set out hereunder the qualifications of the petitioner. He is stated to have undertaken a B.A. Degree course with History Political Science and Sociology from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer between 1996-98. The petitioner relies on Ordinance 203 of the MDS University, Ajmer, to the effect that “any candidate who has passed the B.A. (Pass and Hons.) B.Sc. (Pass and Hons.) B.Sc. (Ag) or B.Com (Pass and Hons.) exam of the university or an examination recognized by the university as equivalent thereto shall be allowed to present himself for examination in any subsequent year in any of one of the optional subjects prescribed for the B.A. examination and not already taken by him at the degree examination, and if successful will be given a certificate to the effect. Such a candidate shall be required to appear in all the papers of that subject in one and the same year, provided that his is not registered for any other examination of the university in the same years.” It is submitted by the petitioner that as permitted under the rules of the said university, he applied for the additional course with Sanskrit as the additional optional subject which was cleared by him in 2005. As a result, the petitioner completed the subject in question i.e. Sanskrit in all parts in which this subject was taught during graduation course with Sanskrit. In the meantime, the petitioner also cleared his post- graduation as well and a degree of M.A. in Sanskrit was conferred upon him in July, 2002 by the MDS University, Ajmer. In 2007, the petitioner passed his B.ED examination from the university of Kashmir, Sri Nagar with first class distinction inter-alia for teaching method Sanskrit. 12. In the case in hand, the petitioner has acquired a post-graduate degree in the Sanskrit language and has to be considered better to teach Sanskrit vis-a-vis a person who has studied the same under graduate degree course. 13. In view of the above, the fact that the petitioner had undertaken study of Sanskrit language for all parts in the B.A. additional course, was a relevant factor for consideration of his eligibility, as mentioned in the recruitment rules. 13. In view of the above, the fact that the petitioner had undertaken study of Sanskrit language for all parts in the B.A. additional course, was a relevant factor for consideration of his eligibility, as mentioned in the recruitment rules. The acquisition of the post-graduate degree in Sanskrit renders the petitioner even better qualified to teach in the position than a person with a mere graduate degree.” 8. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the candidates, who had qualified the language examination as additional subject after completion of graduation, were eligible for appointment as a Language Teacher. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the appeals and has submitted that the candidates, who had qualified language examination by way of additional subject after taking all the three examinations in one year, were not entitled to be considered for the post of Language Teacher, as they had not studied language subject for three years while doing graduation degree. It has been argued that for the post of Teacher of Language, the candidate must have passed graduation or equivalent examination with the corresponding language as an optional subject. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the candidates, who had acquired degree as additional subject in the concerned language, were not entitled for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II (English). In support of his argument, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University Rep. by Registrar vs. Secy. to Govt. INFN and Tourism Dept. and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4173 of 2008 and connected appeals decided on 25.02.2009), wherein it was held as under: “7. Indisputably, Ramesh holds a diploma in Film Technology. He also has the requisite experience of five years as Head of Section. He, however, has obtained M.A. Degree in Open University System (OUS) in an examination held by the appellant-University. 17. Indisputably, UGC in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, made the 1985 regulations. A notification in this behalf was published by the UGC on 25.11.1985. It, however, was given effect from 1.1.1986. We may notice some of the provisions of 1985 Regulations. “2. 17. Indisputably, UGC in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, made the 1985 regulations. A notification in this behalf was published by the UGC on 25.11.1985. It, however, was given effect from 1.1.1986. We may notice some of the provisions of 1985 Regulations. “2. Admission/Students: (1) No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1st Degree Course through non-formal/distance education unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board/University. In case there is no previous academic record, he shall be eligible for admission if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the University provided that he is not below the age of 21 years on July 1 of the year of admission. (2) No student shall be eligible for the award of the first degree unless he has successfully completed a three year course; this degree may be called the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (General/Honours/Special) degree as the case may be: Provided that no student shall be eligible to seek admission to the Master’s Course in these faculties, who has not successfully pursued the first Degree Course of three years duration: Provided further that, as a transistory measure where the universities are unable to change over to a three year degree course, they may award a B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (Pass) degree on successful completion of two years course, but that no student of this stream shall be eligible for admission to the Master’s course unless he has undergone a further one year bridge course and passed the same. The three year degree course after 10+2 stage should in no case be termed as B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (Pass) degree.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 23. UGC Act was enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas Open University Act was enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III thereof. The question of repugnancy of the provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is true that the statement of objects and reasons of Open University Act shows that the formal system of education had not been able to provide an effective means to equalize educational opportunities. The system is rigid inter-alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. It is true that the statement of objects and reasons of Open University Act shows that the formal system of education had not been able to provide an effective means to equalize educational opportunities. The system is rigid inter-alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also inflexible. Was the alternative system envisaged under the Open University Act was in substitution of the formal system is the question. In our opinion, in the matter of ensuring the standard of education, it is not. The distinction between a formal system and informal system is in the mode and manner in which education is imparted. UGC Act was enacted for effectuating co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities. The purport and object for which it was enacted must be given full effect. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all Universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to Open Universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of the UGC are all pervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof. Indisputably, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Solicitor General that Open University Act was enacted to achieve a specific object. It opens new vistas for imparting education in a novel manner. Students do not have to attend classes regularly. Indisputably, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Solicitor General that Open University Act was enacted to achieve a specific object. It opens new vistas for imparting education in a novel manner. Students do not have to attend classes regularly. They have wide options with regard to the choice of subjects but the same, in our opinion, would not mean that despite a Parliamentary Act having been enacted to give effect to the constitutional mandate contained in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, activities and functions of the private universities and open universities would be wholly unregulated. It has not been denied or disputed before us that in the matter of laying down qualification of the teachers, running of the University and the matters provided for under the UGC Act are applicable and binding on all concerned. Regulations framed, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly aimed at the Open Universities. When the Regulations are part of the statute, it is difficult to comrehend as to how the same which operate in a different field would be ultra-vires the Parliamentary Act. IGNOU has not made any regulation; it has not made any ordinance. It is guided by the Regulations framed by the UGC. The validity of the provisions of the Regulations has not been questioned either by IGNOU or by the appellant-University. From a letter dated 5.5.2004 issued by Mr. H.P. Dikshit, who was not only the Vice-Chancellor but also the Chairman of the DEC of IGNOU it is evident that the appellant-University has violated the mandatory provisions of the Regulations. 24. The amplitude of the provisions of the UGC Act vis-a-vis the Universities constituted under the State Universities Act which would include within its purview a University made by the Parliament also is now no longer a res integra. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx UGC Act, thus, having been enacted by the Parliament in terms of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India would prevail over the Open University Act. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 28. If mandatory provisions of the statute have not been complied with, the law will take its own course. The consequences will ensue. Relaxation, in our opinion, furthermore cannot be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for conferment of a degree. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 28. If mandatory provisions of the statute have not been complied with, the law will take its own course. The consequences will ensue. Relaxation, in our opinion, furthermore cannot be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for conferment of a degree. When a mandatory provision of a statute has not been complied with by an Administrative Authority, it would be void. Such a void order cannot be validated by inaction.” Learned Senior Counsel has next placed reliance on the Judgment of Kolkata High Court in West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Western Region and Others vs. Madhusudan Karmakar, 2007 (113) FLR 960 , wherein it was held as under: “8..........What was being declared actually was that a candidate having studied language as an additional subject could not be deemed to be an eligible candidate. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. It will be further seen that the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a graduate in the subject of English nor can it be held that he holds a valid degree in that subject. He merely holds a certificate that he has passed the examination of Special B.A. in English, which does not mention about a degree. A degree in the subject of English was an essential qualification. A glance at the advertisement would be sufficient to hold that. The petitioner may be a Science graduate but he is not a graduate or a degree holder in English. Mr. Banerjee has filed a communication from the Burdwan University to that effect. Therefore, the petitioner did not have essential qualification. The learned Single Judge has not considered this vital aspect. In the result the appeal would have to be allowed and it will have to be held that the petitioner was not eligible firstly not being a graduate in English as provided by the communication of the Burdwan University and secondly his doing the Special B.A. Examination was not in combination with other subjects and therefore he could not be held to be eligible or competent for the post. The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.” 10. The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.” 10. Learned Senior Counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Vinothan Krishnan Raman vs. University of Mumbai and Others, 2012 (114) Bom. L.R. 2737, wherein it was held as under: “8. In the circumstances, the UGC has stated that in view of its Regulations unless and until a candidate has pursued the first degree course of three years duration, he would not be eligible for admission to the Masters degree course. Moreover, a candidate who has obtained a Bachelor or Master's degree in contravention of the UGC Regulations, cannot be regarded as holding a valid degree. The Petitioner obtained his B.A. degree in one sitting from Annamalai University in 2009 and it is admitted that he had not followed a Three Year degree programme at that University. The UGC is unquestionably entitled to frame regulations in the interest of education and more specifically in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26(1)(f) of the University Grants Commission Act 1956. Under that provision the Commission is empowered to make rules and regulations to define the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of any degree by any University.” 11. Learned Senior Counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Binod Vikash Manch and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2003 (4) JCR 710 (Jhr), wherein it was held as under: “3. In this situation, it is necessary to direct the respondents to ensure that only teachers qualified in English and capable of teaching English are appointed as language teachers to teach English. This will be the same for other languages and/or subjects inasmuch as a person must have the necessary educational qualification in that language or subject and must have competence to teach that language or subject before he can be appointed to teach that subject. As counsel pointed out, we cannot have a teacher for teaching computer science unless the teacher is proficient in that subject. It is in that situation, that we feel justified in issuing a direction to the respondents in that regard. 6. As counsel pointed out, we cannot have a teacher for teaching computer science unless the teacher is proficient in that subject. It is in that situation, that we feel justified in issuing a direction to the respondents in that regard. 6. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to en sure that, only those who possess the qualification in the particular subject as indicated are selected and appointed to teach the particular subject. As an illustration, only a teacher who has the requisite qualification in terms of the Rules and who has studied the English language upto the qualification level, should be appointed as a teacher in English. The same will be the position regarding the other subjects. The authorities must also consider the need for introducing English as a subject for these selection tests taking into consideration the fact that the language is our window to acquisition of advanced knowledge making us competent to compete with the rest of the world in all fields of human activity.” 12. Learned Senior Counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others vs. Sachin Gupta (W.P. (C) No. 1520/2012 and other connected petitions including W.P. (C) No. 2514/2012 filed against Snehlata decided on 07.08.2013), wherein it was held as under: “44. As regards respondent Snehlata, there is a subtle but material difference between the position of respondents Nainika, Vikram Singh and Sachin Gupta and she. 45. Respondent Snehlata had applied for being appointed to the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit). It is an admitted fact that she has not studied Sanskrit subject in any year of the Graduation course undertaken by her, but has subsequently appeared in an examination conducted by the University and cleared three papers pertaining to Sanskrit subject after studying the same in one year.” 13. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26351/2013 filed by Snehlata against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.03.2017. 14. As per Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 “degree” means as under: “22(3) For the purposes of this section, “degree” means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the official Gazette.” 15. 14. As per Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 “degree” means as under: “22(3) For the purposes of this section, “degree” means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the official Gazette.” 15. Regulation 8 of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the First Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 reads as under: “8. Award of Degrees: 8.1 No student shall be eligible for the award of the first degree unless he/she has successfully completed a programme, of not less than three years duration and secured the minimum number of credits prescribed by the university for the award of the degree. 8.2 The degree to be awarded may be called the bachelor’s degree in the respective discipline in accordance with nomenclature specified by the UGC under Section 22(3) of the UGC Act.” Relevant part of Ordinance 203-I of the University of Rajasthan (as per copy placed on record) reads as under: “O. 203-I: (1) The courses of study for the examination shall extend over a period of three years as an integrated course. There shall be an examination at the end of each year, namely, Part I examination at the end of First Year, Part II examination at the end of Second Year, and Part III examination at the end of Third Year. (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) The subjects for examination shall be as follows: Compulsory subjects: 1. General Hindi 2. General English Note: Foreign nationals and students belonging to non-Hindi speaking areas may be allowed to offer Elementary Hindi in lieu of General Hindi and in such cases the rules prescribed for General Hindi shall be applicable to Elementary Hindi. Optional - Any three of the following, subject to the restrictions mentioned below against serials 1 to 4 and in Para (4): 1. English Literature 2. xxx xxx xxx 3. xxx xxx xxx” Clause (8) of the aforesaid Ordinance reads as under: “(8) (i) Any candidate who has passed B.A. (Pass)/B.A. (Hons.)/B.Sc. (Pass)/B.Sc. (Hons.) B.Sc. (Ag.)/B.Com. (Pass)/B.Com. (Hons.)/B.F.A./B.Sc. Optional - Any three of the following, subject to the restrictions mentioned below against serials 1 to 4 and in Para (4): 1. English Literature 2. xxx xxx xxx 3. xxx xxx xxx” Clause (8) of the aforesaid Ordinance reads as under: “(8) (i) Any candidate who has passed B.A. (Pass)/B.A. (Hons.)/B.Sc. (Pass)/B.Sc. (Hons.) B.Sc. (Ag.)/B.Com. (Pass)/B.Com. (Hons.)/B.F.A./B.Sc. Home Science Examination of the University under 10+2+3 pattern shall be allowed to present himself for examination in any subsequent year in any one of the optional subjects prescribed for the B.A. Examination (10+2+3 pattern) and not already taken by him at the degree examination and he is not registered for any other examination of the University in the same year, and if successful, will be given a certificate to that effect. Such a candidate shall be required to appear in all the papers of that subject in one and the same year. (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) xxx xxx xxx” Ordinance 322 of the University of Rajasthan relating to B.Ed. Examination (as per copy placed on record) reads as under: “O.322. A candidate who after taking a Bachelor’s/Shastri Degree of the University or any other University recognised for the purpose by the syndicate, with two teaching subjects (as defined in Note No. 1 below) has completed a regular course of study in college, affiliated to the University for one academic year and has during the course of the year delivered at least 40 lessons in a recognized school under the supervision of the staff of the college shall be eligible for admission to the examination for the degree of Bachelor of Education. Notes: (i) Teaching subject means a subject offered by the candidate at his Bachelor’s/Shastri or Master’s Degree Examination either as a compulsory subject or as an optional subject or as a subsidiary subject provided that the candidate studied it for at least two years and also took University Examination each year but shall not include such subjects as were studied by him only for a part of the Bachelor’s Degree Course. Thus, the qualifying subjects like General English, General Hindi, General Education, History of Indian Civilization and Culture, Elementary Mathematics etc. prescribed for the First year T.D.C. Course of the University or a subject dropped by candidates at the Part I stage of the degree course shall not be treated as teaching subjects. Thus, the qualifying subjects like General English, General Hindi, General Education, History of Indian Civilization and Culture, Elementary Mathematics etc. prescribed for the First year T.D.C. Course of the University or a subject dropped by candidates at the Part I stage of the degree course shall not be treated as teaching subjects. In case the honours graduates, besides the Honours subject the subsidiary subject would also be taken into account provided the candidate studies the same for at least two academic sessions and also took University Examination each year. (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) xxx xxx xxx (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) The additional optional subject of Bachelors Degree Examination in which a candidate passes in one year with all the papers prescribed for the Three Year course after obtaining the Bachelor’s Degree may also be treated as a “Teaching subject.” Further, if a candidate desires to pass the additional optional subject after obtaining the Bachelor’s Degree to be taken into consideration for permitting him to offer the subject, under paper V and VI for the B.Ed. Course, the marks obtained by him in additional optional subject may also be taken into account in addition to the marks obtained by him at the Bachelor’s Degree for determining his eligibility for admission to B.Ed. Course. (vi) xxx xxx xxx” Amended Clause (3) of Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) prescribes for necessary qualification for Language School Teacher for Class VI to Class VIII, which reads as under: (3) Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher (100 percent by direct recruitment) Qualifications as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009), from time to time and must have passed the REET/RTET. (A) General Education Level: (i) Class I to V Level: (ii) Class VI to VIII Qualifications as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009), from time to time: (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 amongst History, Geography, Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Public Administration and Philosophy. (ii) for the teacher of Mathematics, the candidate 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 amongst Chemistry, Physics, Botany, Zoology, Micro-Biology, Bio-technology and Biochemistry. (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.) or 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. (vi) must have passed the REET/RTET in the subject applying for. (B) Special Education Level: (i) Class I to V Qualifications as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (Central Act. No. 35 of 2009), from time to time and must have passed the REET/RTET. Level: (ii) Class VI to VIII Qualifications as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009), from time to time: (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 amongst History, Geography, Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Public Administration and Philosophy. (ii) for the teacher of Mathematics, the candidate must have passed graduation or equivalent examination with Mathematics as an optional subject. (ii) for the teacher of Mathematics, the candidate 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 amongst Chemistry, Physics, Botany, Zoology, Micro-Biology, Bio-technology and Biochemistry. (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.) or 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. (vi) must have passed the REET/RTET in the subject applying for. 16. The controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the candidates, who had got additional degree/certificate in English language after qualifying graduation examination, could be treated at par with the candidates, who had taken up English Literature as an optional subject in their graduation. In this regard, the relevant factor to determine the controversy would be the relevant rules. As per the Rules, for the teacher of language for Class VI to Class VIII, the candidate must have passed graduation or equivalent examination with the corresponding language as an optional subject. Thus, the rule itself is clear that the candidate must have passed graduation with corresponding language as an optional subject. Advertisements dated 11.09.2017 and 31.07.2018 have also been issued in terms of Amended Rule 266(3) of the Rules and a condition has been incorporated in the advertisements that for the teacher of language for Class VI to Class VIII, the candidate must have passed graduation or equivalent examination with the corresponding language as an optional subject. Although as per Ordinance 203-I, Clause (8)(i), a candidate who has passed the graduation has been permitted to take examination in any one of the optional subject in a subsequent year, if he is not registered for any other examination of the University in the same year. Such a candidate will be given a certificate to that effect and would be required to appear in all the papers of that subject in one and the same year. The said additional optional subject has also been treated as a teaching subject for Bachelor of Education course as per Ordinance 322 reproduced above. Such a candidate will be given a certificate to that effect and would be required to appear in all the papers of that subject in one and the same year. The said additional optional subject has also been treated as a teaching subject for Bachelor of Education course as per Ordinance 322 reproduced above. But the fact remains that so far as the rules are concerned, the fact that a person who qualifies the concerned language by way of additional optional subject after qualifying Bachelor’s Degree, would also be eligible to be appointed as a language teacher for Class VI to Class VIII, is not specifically reflected in the Rules. Rather as per the Rules, for the teacher of language, the candidate must have passed graduation with the corresponding language as an optional subject. Thus, the requirement of the rule is that a candidate must have studied the subject concerned as an optional subject for three years while pursuing graduation course. 17. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the idea was that a teacher, who is to teach a particular subject to the concerned students, should have undergone the course of duration of three years degree. In case the additional degree in the subject concerned was treated as good and sufficient educational qualification, then the same would destroy the standard of education. In case the State wanted that a candidate, who had got one year additional degree in the subject concerned, was also eligible for appointment as a teacher in the said language, the necessary addition to this effect would have been made in the Rules. 18. Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others vs. Sachin Gupta (supra), in respect of Snehlata had held that a candidate, who had not studied language in any year of the graduation course undertaken by him/her and had passed subsequently, examination conducted by the University by clearing three papers of the subject in one year, was not eligible for appointment to the post of TGT (Sanskrit). Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26351/2013 filed by Snehlata against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.03.2017. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26351/2013 filed by Snehlata against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.03.2017. So far as writ petition filed against Neelam Rana was concerned, it was observed by the Division Bench that the said candidate had done Post Graduation in English, although she had never studied English in her graduation course and, therefore, she would be better equipped to teach English to students. She was held eligible for being appointed on the post of TGT (English). 19. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Shaik Mahibulla Sharief (supra) is concerned, the issue involved in the said case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as to whether the Bachelor’s Degree in Telugu Literature as a single subject from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University was equivalent to a Bachelor’s Degree with Telugu from other Universities. So far as the controversy involved in the present case is concerned, the same had not been raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case. Hence, the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case (supra) fails to advance the case of the appellants. 20. So far as the decision given by Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Baboo Lal Sharma (supra) in review petition is concerned, the said decision fails to advance the case of the appellants, as Baboo Lal Sharma was having a post graduation degree in the subject concerned. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of arguments, submitted that so far as the candidates, who have acquired post graduation degree in English, are concerned, their appointment/consideration for the post of Teacher was not under challenge, as the said candidates had got higher qualification in the concerned subject. Learned counsel submitted that the dispute was only with regard to the candidates, who had taken up English subject by way of an additional subject after completion of graduation and had taken the examination in the subject concerned in one year. 22. After carefully examining the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge had, thus, rightly allowed the writ petitions filed by private respondents keeping in view the relevant rules. 22. After carefully examining the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge had, thus, rightly allowed the writ petitions filed by private respondents keeping in view the relevant rules. Learned Single Judge had rightly held that the candidates, who had acquired certificate/degree as “additional” in the concerned subject were liable to be excluded from the select list. The candidates, who were in possession of graduate degree as optional subject of three years Bachelor’s Degree with English as an optional subject in all the three years, were to be treated as eligible and entitled for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II (English), as per their merit. The advertisements-in-question have also been issued as per Amended Rule 266(3) of the Rules. 23. In view of above discussion, all the appeals are dismissed. 24. All the pending applications stand disposed of.