JUDGMENT : 1. The present bunch of 09 writ petitions give rise to same issue, therefore, they are being decided by this common order, however, the facts of SBCWP No.4089/2022 : Shrawan Godara & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are illustratively taken into consideration. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking declaration that they are eligible and entitled for appointment as Teacher Gr.III Level I (General Education) on the strength of their two years Diploma in Education (Special Education) subject to undergo, after appointment, in NCTE recognized six months special programme in elementary education. 3. Further, relief has been sought that the conditions prescribed for minimum qualification for Teacher Gr.III Level I (General Education) in advertisement dated 31/12/2021 (Annex.6) and relevant condition of order dated 3/3/2022 (Annex.10) which renders the petitioners ineligible for appointment as Teacher Gr.III Level I (General Education) be declared illegal and contrary to law. Consequential direction has been sought to the respondents not to reject the candidature of the petitioners and to permit them to participate in the selection process for Teacher Gr.III Level I (General Education) pursuant to the advertisement dated 31/12/2021 and offer appointment to them, if they fall in merit. 4. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioners have to their credit Diploma in Education (Special Education) [‘D.Ed. (Spl.Ed.’)], which diploma is recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India, and they have cleared Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher (‘REET’). 5. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 31/12/2021 for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III Level I. Total posts have been bifurcated into General Education & Special Education. The eligibility condition under clause (10) inter alia with reference to Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules, 1996’) and Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Fee & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘the RTE Act’) refer to the notifications dated 23/8/2010 & 29/7/2011 and indicated the requisite qualification, which inter alia included Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and two years Diploma in Education (Special Education), whereafter, in brackets it has been put (For Special Teachers). Further, in the note 10.4 it has been indicated that a candidate, who has passed D.Ed (Spl. Further, in the note 10.4 it has been indicated that a candidate, who has passed D.Ed (Spl. Ed.), after appointment, would be required to undergo 06 months special training programme as provided by National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’). 6. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners have applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level I (General Education). The respondents issued provisional merit list on 27/2/022 and candidates two times the posts advertised were provisionally selected for document verification, wherein, the petitioners were selected and placed in merit in their respective categories. Subsequent thereto, an order dated 3/3/2022 (Annex.10) was issued by the respondents providing for guidelines for scrutiny of eligibility pursuant to the advertisement dated 31/12/2021, wherein, it was indicated that a candidate holding D.Ed. (Spl.Ed.), if he has applied for General Education, he would not be eligible for any category. Whereafter, on 8/3/2022 (Annex.11) the candidates were required to upload their documents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in holding the petitioners having D.Ed. (Spl.Ed.) as ineligible for General Teachers is not justified and contrary to the notification dated 23/8/2010 (Annex.3) as amended by notification dated 29/7/2011. It is submitted that under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996, the qualification for Teacher in General Education has been prescribed as laid down by NCTE under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the RTE Act from time to time and the candidates must have passed REET. The minimum qualification as prescribed under the notification for Class I to V inter alia provides the qualification held by the petitioners and that it further provides the requirement for candidates like the petitioners to undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized special programme in elementary education. The petitioners are prepared to undergo the requisite special programme and being qualified in terms of the Rules as well as the notifications issued by the NCTE, the action/decision of the respondents in denying the said eligibility to the petitioners is not justified. 8. Reliance has been placed on Harsh Kumar & Anr. vs. State of U.P. : Special Appeal Defective No.130/2014 decided on 5/2/2014 by Allahabad High Court. 9. 8. Reliance has been placed on Harsh Kumar & Anr. vs. State of U.P. : Special Appeal Defective No.130/2014 decided on 5/2/2014 by Allahabad High Court. 9. Further submissions have been made that against the decision in the case of Harsh Kumar (supra), when Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, counsel appearing for NCTE, on instructions, supported the decision of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court claiming that the judgment rendered by the High Court is absolutely correct and does not warrant any interference, whereafter, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 13/1/2015. 10. It is submitted that once the NCTE itself has categorically conceded that the petitioners fulfill the eligibility conditions for appointment as Teachers (General Education), there is no reason for the respondents to deny the said eligibility to the petitioners and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be set aside. 11. Further reliance has been placed on Ram Sharan Maurya & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : AIR 2021 SC 954 in support of the contention that the NCTE is specifically empowered to determine the qualification of the appointee. 12. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners have been vehemently opposed by learned Advocate General. It is inter alia submitted that D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) is imparted in different streams, inasmuch as a person who is to teach visually impaired students is required to have D.Ed. in Visual Impairment (V.I.), one who is to teach mentally retarded students is required to have D.Ed. in Mental Retardation (M.R.) and one who is to teach students suffering from hearing impairment, D.Ed. has to be in Hearing Impairment (H.I.), which aspect is apparent from the perusal of mark sheets produced by the petitioners showing their Diploma certificates in different streams of Special Education. 13. It is submitted that the Diploma courses undergone by the petitioners do not impart education in general techniques of teaching, which are required for training of General Education Teachers. 14. Submissions have been made that the claim made based on the 06 months’ bridge course is not tenable as the said bridge course is for the purpose of upgrading teaching techniques for specially abled persons. Submissions have also been made that till date as the NCTE has not designed the bridge course of 06 months, the holders of D.Ed. (Spl. Submissions have been made that the claim made based on the 06 months’ bridge course is not tenable as the said bridge course is for the purpose of upgrading teaching techniques for specially abled persons. Submissions have also been made that till date as the NCTE has not designed the bridge course of 06 months, the holders of D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) cannot make any claim for consideration to the post of General Education Teacher. 15. Further submissions have been made that the category of General Teachers and Special Teachers have been separately categorized under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 with qualifications as prescribed by NCTE, which Rule has not been challenged. 16. Learned Advocate General also emphasized that if the plea as raised by the petitioners that by mere indication in the notifications issued by the NCTE make them eligible for General Education is accepted, then in that case, even those, who have Diploma in General Education would be eligible for the posts meant for Special Education and that even a candidate having qualification in one stream of special education can claim appointment in another stream, which will frustrate the very purpose of recruitment for General Teachers and Special Teachers in specific streams. It was emphasized that purposive interpretation has to be given to the notifications issued by NCTE so as to ensure that only those eligible for General Teacher and Special Teacher, respectively, are recruited for the said posts. 17. Learned Advocate General also emphasized that after 2010 (after NCTE issued notification) the respondents have held 04 recruitments, wherein, neither any candidate having D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) applied nor anyone was appointed and that the past practice in this regard has to be followed/respected. 18. Submissions have also been made that Section 23 of the RTE Act provides for qualifications for appointment and requires that any person possessing such minimum qualification as laid down by an academic authority, NCTE is alone eligible. As admittedly, the qualification in this regard has to be seen on the last date of application, the prescription made in the notification providing for 06 months bridge course after appointment falls foul of the said provision and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard should not be accepted. 19. Learned Advocate General referred to a Division Bench Judgment in Rajendra Singh Chotiya & Anr. vs. NCTE & Ors. 19. Learned Advocate General referred to a Division Bench Judgment in Rajendra Singh Chotiya & Anr. vs. NCTE & Ors. : D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1853/2021 decided on 25/11/2021, wherein, part of the NCTE notification making those holding B.Ed. as eligible has been struck down by the Division Bench and it was prayed that the petitions be dismissed. 20. Reliance has been placed on Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Deokar’s Distillery : (2003) 5 SCC 669 , Amarjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Devi Ratan & Ors. : (2010) 1 SCC 417 , N.Kannadasan vs. Ajoy Khose & Ors. : (2009) 7 SCC 1 , Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Union of India & Ors. : (2018) 8 SCC 501 , H. Suresh Nathan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 584, Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. : (2008) 2 SCC 254 . 21. Learned counsel appearing for the NCTE, though did not file any reply to the writ petitions, only made a statement indicating that he has instructions to submit that in terms of the statement made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harsh Kumar (supra) by counsel for the NCTE on 26/11/2014, the petitioners are eligible. 22. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 23. At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the qualification, insofar as relevant, indicated in Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996: “Rule 266. Academic qualification – A recruit must possess minimum qualification as under: (3) Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher (100%) by direct recruitment) (a) General Education Level - (i) Classes I to V Qualifications as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) 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. (b) Special Education Level (i) Classes I to V Qualifications as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) 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. 24. (b) Special Education Level (i) Classes I to V Qualifications as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) 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. 24. A perusal of the above would reveal that the Legislature in the Rules has clearly bifurcated the post of Teacher (General Education) and Teacher (Special Education) and has prescribed the academic qualification as laid down by the NCTE under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the RTE Act from time to time. Providing of two different sub-cadres under the cadre Primary & Upper Primary School Teacher as General Education and Special Education under the provision by itself is significant and, therefore, the qualification prescribed in the notification, apparently has to be read to the extent the same is meant for the said post only. 25. The respondents issued the advertisement (Annex.6) and indicated the posts advertised as under: 2- xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= vrZxr v/;kid ysoy&izFke] lkekU; f'k{kk ,oa fo'ks"k f'k{kk ds fofHkUu inksa dk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gS%& Ø-l-+ Iknuke inks dh la[;k lkekU; f'k{kk MR VI HI ;ksx 1- v/;kid] ysoy izFke 11500 233 64 143 11940 26. A perusal of the posts advertised indicates that the name of the post has been indicated as Teacher Level I and posts have been bifurcated into General Education & Special Education, which has further been bifurcated into the streams of Mental Retardation, Visual Impairment & Hearing Impairment. 27. The NCTE qualification, in terms of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 have been prescribed in notifications dated 23/8/2010 & 29/7/2011, which insofar as relevant, reads as under: “1. Minimum Qualifications.- (i) Classes I to V (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulation, 2002. or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 – year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Education (Special Education) AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. 2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education .-For the purpose of this Notification, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education), course recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered. 3. Training to be undergone.-A person (a) ………. (b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme in Elementary Education.” 28. A perusal of the posts advertised and the minimum qualification as prescribed by the NCTE would reveal that while the posts have been specifically bifurcated in General Education & Special Education with further streams in terms of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996, the minimum qualification indicated in NCTE notification is seemingly common for both the posts. 29. The petitioners seek to emphasize that as the qualification held by them i.e two years Diploma in Education (Special Education) has been indicated as one of the alternate qualifications without any restriction as to General Education/Special Education, by a plain reading of the notification the petitioners after undergoing an NCTE recognized 6 months special programme, after appointment, are eligible. 30. It is an admitted fact that NCTE has not prescribed any separate qualifications for Teacher (Special Education) other than those prescribed by the above notification. 30. It is an admitted fact that NCTE has not prescribed any separate qualifications for Teacher (Special Education) other than those prescribed by the above notification. Therefore, in case the argument of the petitioners regarding plain reading of the notification for qualification purposes for the post of General Teacher is to be read, in that case for Special Teachers, even those, who have not done Diploma in Education (Special Education) would also be qualified for the said posts and besides that as the qualification as prescribed by NCTE does not restrict those holding Diploma in Special Education in a specific stream i.e. either Visual Impairment or Mental Retardation or Hearing Impairment, all those holding Diploma in any of the streams would be eligible for all the three streams, which cannot be the intention insofar as the notification prescribing the qualification for the posts is concerned. 31. As such, the interpretation as canvassed by the petitioners, requiring plain reading of the notification, if similarly read for the posts of Teachers (Special Education), will lead to the consequences, wholly undesirable. 32. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the qualification as prescribed in the notification has to be read only for the particular post for which the eligibility has been created i.e. those holding Diploma in Education (Special Education) would be eligible as per their stream for the post of Teacher (Special Education) and those holding qualification other than Diploma in Special Education would be eligible for the post of Teacher (General Education). In fact, the sum & substance is that the qualification prescribed by the NCTE vide its notifications is common for respective recruitments i.e. qua Teacher (General Education) and Teacher (Special Education) and, therefore, the same has to be applied to the extent as applicable to the recruitment/post. 33. The fact that Teachers having D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) in any particular stream would be confined to the said stream, also essentially is based on logic and not on the basis of any restriction in the notification relied on by the petitioners for claiming eligibility for the post of Teachers with Diploma in Special Education or General Education. 34. 33. The fact that Teachers having D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) in any particular stream would be confined to the said stream, also essentially is based on logic and not on the basis of any restriction in the notification relied on by the petitioners for claiming eligibility for the post of Teachers with Diploma in Special Education or General Education. 34. It would also be relevant to quote by way of an example the semester wise training being imparted for Diploma in Special Education (Hearing Impairment), which reads as under: Semester - I T01 Introduction to Disabilities I Teaching Practice TO5 Education of Children with Hearing Impairment III Skill Development (Indian Sign Language) T06 Language and Communication IV Audiology T07 Fundamentals of Hearing, Hearing Impairment & Audiological Management IV Audiology (VIVA) Semester – II Subject Code Theory AREA Practical T02 Educational Pshychology I Teaching Practice TO8 Fundamentals of Speech and Speech Teaching II Communication Options III Skill Development IV Speech and Language IV Speech and Language (VIVA) Semester – III Subject Code Theory AREA Practical T03 Education in the emerging Indian society & School Administration P01 Practical Area – I (Teaching Practice) TO9 Curriculum strategies and Adaptations of Lessons for Children with Hearing Impairment P02 Practical Area – II (Communication Options) T011 Content & Methodology of Teaching Science & Mathematics P03 Practical Area – III (Skill Development) T012 Content & methodology of Teaching Social Science P04 Practical Area – IV (Psychology) Semester – IV Subject Code Theory Practical Code Practical T04 Inclusive Education for Children with disabilities P01 Practical Area – I (Teaching Practice) T10 Family, Community and the children with hearing impairment. P03 Practical Area – III (CBR) P04 Practical Area – IV (Audiology & Speech) P05 Practical Area – V (Full Time Teaching Practice) P06 Practical Area – I (Teaching Practice Final Session VIVA) P02 Practical Area – II (Individulaised Teaching VIVA) P07 Practical Area – III (CBR Activities VIVA) 35. In the same manner specific training is imparted for other two streams i.e. M.R. & V.I. 36. The above training being imparted to the candidates of D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) clearly reveals that the entire emphasis is on preparing them for teaching the specially abled students. 37. In the same manner specific training is imparted for other two streams i.e. M.R. & V.I. 36. The above training being imparted to the candidates of D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) clearly reveals that the entire emphasis is on preparing them for teaching the specially abled students. 37. The above aspect gains great significance once it has been pointed out by the respondent -State that so called special programme in elementary education recognized by the NCTE required to be undergone after appointment by Teachers holding D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) has not even been prescribed by the NCTE, which deficiency essentially would be fatal, as even after appointment, if at all the same is granted, there would be no bridge course available to be undergone by the candidates with D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.). 38. So far as the judgment in the case of Harsh Kumar (supra) is concerned, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court essentially was concerned with the qualification prescribed for the special drive initiated by the Government for BTC qualified candidates, wherein, those with D.Ed. (Spl. Ed.) were held ineligible. Wherein, the Division Bench held that once the qualification has been prescribed by the NCTE, the same would necessarily be binding and it is not for the State to exclude from the zone of eligibility the candidates, who are otherwise qualified in terms of the notification dated 23/8/2010 as amended by notification dated 29/7/2011. However, the aspect in terms of the recruitment Rules prescribed therein i.e. where the post of Teacher (Special Education) was separately indicated and/or the anomaly which is likely to arise in case plain interpretation is given to the notification making all those holding the qualification eligible for all the posts has not been considered. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, wherein, besides the fact that the Rules prescribe for separate posts and the advertisement also indicates recruitment for General Teacher & Special Teacher separately and the fact that part of the qualification prescribing six months special programme, being not available, having not been considered, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 39. 39. Further, the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the NCTE with reference to the submissions made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26/11/2014 that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court do not call for any interference and, therefore, the candidates with Diploma in Special Education would be eligible for General Education is too general a statement without adverting to/examining the issue as raised by the State in its submissions. Further, the aspect of not designing of the 6 months’ bridge course has also not been denied. 40. As the plain reading of the notification, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners would lead to a strange situation, as noticed hereinbefore, the notification has to be given a purposive interpretation as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Kannadasan (supra), wherein, under the heading ‘Purposive interpretation’, it was laid down as under: “55. Construction of a statute, as is well known, must subserve the tests of justice and reason. It is a well-settled principle of law that in a given case with a view to give complete and effective meaning to a statutory provision, some words can be read into; some words can be subtracted. Provisions of a statue can be read down (although sparingly and rarely).” 41. In the case of Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (supra), again the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that the theory of purposive interpretation has gained importance where the courts have to interpret the provision in a purposive manner so as to give effect to its true intention. 42. The submission made by learned Advocate General that the provision of the notification providing for bridge course, after appointment, falls foul of the provision of Section 23(1) of the RTE Act cannot be considered in response to the plea raised by the petitioners without there being any foundation in this regard and/or challenge laid by way of a cross case. This is besides the fact that the jurisdiction with regard to examination of the validity of the notification is with the Division Bench only. 43. So far as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute that the NCTE under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act is empowered to provide for the qualifications. 43. So far as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute that the NCTE under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act is empowered to provide for the qualifications. However, the qualifications as prescribed have to be applied to the facts of the case and cannot be followed mechanically only so as to lead to an undesirable conclusion. 44. In view of the above discussion, as the NCTE has prescribed qualifications for the post of Teacher (General Education) and Teacher (Special Education) by a single notification, the qualification as prescribed by the NCTE in its notification dated 23/8/2010 as amended by notification dated 29/7/2011 by itself does not make the petitioners eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher (General Education) and the qualification held by the petitioners only make them eligible for the post of Teacher (Special Education) in terms of Rule 266 of the Rules and the advertisement dated 31/12/2021. 45. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.