JUDGMENT : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The present are two sets of special appeals arising out two bunch of writ petitions. First set of writ petitions is of the petitioners whose writ petitions had been allowed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17833/2018 (Rajni Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) decided on 09.12.2019. Other set of writ petitions are those filed by the petitioners, which were dismissed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court, the lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23192/2018 (Usha Kumari & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) decided on 20.01.2020. 2. The first set of special appeals (being SAW Nos.357/20, 477/20, & 98/21) have been preferred by the State against the order whereby the writ petitions of the petitioners therein had been allowed whereas the special appeals (SAW Nos.148/22, 149/22, 150/22 & 151/22) against the second set of writ petitions which were dismissed, have been preferred by the petitioners therein. 3. There is also a special appeal (SAW No.86/20) preferred by the aggrieved persons/private respondents therein who were aggrieved of the judgment passed by the Court at Jaipur Bench while allowing the petitions. 4. As a common issue is involved in all the appeals, the appeals filed at Jaipur Bench were directed to be tagged with the appeals filed at Jodhpur and the same were ordered to be listed at Jodhpur. All the eight appeals having been heard together and are being decided by this Common judgment. 5. For the sake of convenience, the facts of D.B. Special Appeal No.149/2022 (Usha Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) are taken into consideration. 6. The issue in question is whether a person possessing qualification of B.Ed. (General Education) coupled with one year/two year diploma in Special Education would be entitled to be considered for the recruitment in question. As per the advertisement, the qualification required for Teacher Gr.III Level II in Special Education was graduation with atleast 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) (Special Education). The case of the petitioners before the writ Court was that they possess the B.Ed. Degree in General Education and a diploma course in Special Education therefore, the same be treated equivalent to B.Ed. (Special Education). The case of the petitioners before the writ Court was that they possess the B.Ed. Degree in General Education and a diploma course in Special Education therefore, the same be treated equivalent to B.Ed. (Special Education). The said ground of the petitioners was rejected by learned Single Judge at Jaipur Bench relying upon an earlier judgment passed in the case of Sarita Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20022/2012) decided on 22.02.2013. 7. On the other hand, the writ petitions filed at Principal Seat at Jodhpur were allowed relying upon an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Pritam Kumar Tak Vs. State of Rajasthan & others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14481/2012) decided on 26.08.2014. Both the judgments as passed in the cases of Sarita Sharma as well as Pritam Kumar Tak were affirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the appellants in the special appeals filed by the petitioners submitted that the ratio as laid down in Pritam Kumar Tak’s case should be followed whereas the appellants in the special appeals filed by the State as well as the private respondents submitted that the ratio as laid down in Sarita Sharma’s case should be followed. 8. Before adverting into the issue in question, it would be relevant to note the essential qualification as prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level II (Special Education). The qualification as prescribed for the Teachers (Special Education) was as under : ^^U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadks ds lkFk LUkkrd rFkk ,d o"khZ; ch-,M+¼fo'ks”k f'k{kk½ Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) (Special Education) rFkk vaxsth ds v/;kid ds fy;s] vH;FkhZ dks oSdfYid fo"k; ds :i esa vaxzsth fo"k; ds lkFk Lukrd ;k lerqY; ijh{kk mŸkh.kZ fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg, vkSj vkosfnr fo"k; lfgr fjV@vkjVsV 60 izfr'kr vadks ds lkFk mRrh.kZ fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg,A 9-2 v/;kid f'k{kk 'kkL= es fMIyksek %& bl vf/klwpuk ds lanHkZ esa dsoy jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj”kn ¼,ulhVhbZ½ }kjk ekU;rk&izkIr v/;kid f'k{kk 'kkL= esa fMIyksek ikB;Øe ekU; gksxkA f'k{kk 'kkL= esa fMIyksek ¼fo'ks"k f'k{kk½ ds fy, dsoy Hkkjrh; iquokZl ifj"kn ¼vkjlhvkbZ½ }kjk ekU;rk&izkIRk ikB;Øe ekU; gksxkA^^ 9. The case of the petitioners is that as provided in clause 9.2 of the advertisement, the qualifications as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’) would be applicable for the Teachers in General Education whereas the qualifications as prescribed by the Rehabilitation Council of India (‘RCI’) would be applicable for the Teachers in Special Education. 10. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners that the RCI, in unequivocal terms, vide various communications, specified that B.Ed (General Education) coupled with one year/two year diploma in Special Education would be equivalent to B.Ed (Special Education). Therefore, the petitioners being possessing B.Ed. (General Education) and a diploma in Special Education should be held entitled for consideration for the purposes of recruitment as Teachers (Special Education). The thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners has been on clause 9.2 of the advertisement which provides that the syllabus recognised by the RCI for diploma in Special Education would only be considered. Learned counsel submitted that said clause itself makes a stark distinction between the degree/diploma recognition by NCTE and diploma recognised by the RCI. Meaning thereby, for the purposes of General Education, the qualifications as provided by NCTE would prevail but for the purposes of Special Education, the qualifications as prescribed by the RCI would prevail and when the RCI has affirmed that the qualification of the petitioners would be equivalent to B.Ed. (Special Education), there is no reason why the State should not consider the same. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the private respondents submitted that the NCTE is the only body authorised to prescribe the qualifications for the Teachers of all levels and the RCI is only the regulatory body constituted for conducting all the educational programmes and courses in Special Education. RCI is not the authority to prescribe the qualifications for the purposes of recruitment as Teachers therefore, even if the qualification of the petitioners have been termed to be equivalent to B.Ed. (Special Education) by RCI, the same cannot be considered for the purposes of recruitment as a specific qualification has been prescribed by the NCTE for Teacher Gr.III Level II B.Ed.(Special Education) and the State has no authority or power to deviate from the qualifications/conditions as prescribed by the NCTE. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. In the Indian Constitution, after the Right to Education being included as a fundamental right, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act of 2009’) was enacted. Section 23 of the Act of 2009 provides for qualifications for appointment and terms of conditions of service for teachers. Section 23(1) of the Act provides 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." 14. Meaning thereby, the minimum qualifications for teachers are to be laid down by an academic authority authorised by the Central Government. The Central Government vide its notification, authorised NCTE to be the said academic authority. The NCTE, in exercise of its powers, issued notification dated 23.08.2010 and further notification dated 29.07.2011 prescribing the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Act of 2009, the NCTE having authorised by the Central Government vide gazette notification, is the only authority to prescribe the qualifications for the teachers. The RCI is a body constituted vide the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 ('the Act of 1992') for the purposes of regulating and monitoring the training of rehabilitation professionals and personnel, promoting research in rehabilitation and special education, the maintenance of a Central Rehabilitation Register and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 15. Admittedly, the RCI has not been constituted in terms of Act of 2009 and is not the body authorised by the Central Government in terms of Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009. The powers conferred upon the RCI in terms of Section 29 of the Act of 1992 are as follows : "29. 15. Admittedly, the RCI has not been constituted in terms of Act of 2009 and is not the body authorised by the Central Government in terms of Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009. The powers conferred upon the RCI in terms of Section 29 of the Act of 1992 are as follows : "29. Power to make regulations.--The Council may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, make, by notification, regulations generally to carry out the purposes of this Act, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for- (a) the management of the property of the Council; (b) the maintenance and audit of the accounts of the Council; (c) the resignation of members of the Council; (d) the powers and duties of the Chairperson; (e) the rules of procedure in the transaction of business under sub-section (3) of section 4; (f) the function of the Executive Committee and other committees, constituted under section 7; (g) the powers and duties of the Member-Secretary under sub-section (1) of section 8; (h) the qualifications, appointment, powers and duties of, and procedure to be followed by, Inspectors and Visitors; (i) the courses and period of study of of training, to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in any University or any institution for grant of recognised rehabilitation qualification; (j) the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for study or training of the rehabilitation professionals; (k) the conduct of examinations, qualifications of examiners, and the condition of the admission to such examinations; (l) the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics to be observed by rehabilitation professionals under sub-section (1) of section 21; (m) the particulars to be stated, and proof of qualifications to be given, in application for registration under this Act; (n) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which an appeal maybe preferred under sub-section (1) of section 22; (o) the fees to be paid on applications and appeals under this Act; (p) any other manner which is to be, or may be, prescribed." 16. A bare perusal of above power clarifies that it does not comprise of any authority or jurisdiction to prescribe qualifications for the teachers in Special Education. 17. A bare perusal of above power clarifies that it does not comprise of any authority or jurisdiction to prescribe qualifications for the teachers in Special Education. 17. In Sarita Sharma’s case (supra), dealing with the said issue, it was observed by learned Single Judge as under : "If the provision of the Act of 1992 and its objects are looked into, it is for the purpose of recognition of the qualification granted by the University, etc. for rehabilitation professionals and the Institutions. The further duty is to enroll them, thus purpose of the Act is to recognize the Institutions providing education for rehabilitation profession and to their degrees and further right is to enroll professionals. In view of above, to work as rehabilitation professional, one is to possess qualification from a recognized institution and the degree apart from enrollment with RCI. The petitioner has wrongly taken it to be an authority of the RCI to provide minimum qualification to the post of teacher. It is, no doubt true that Section 2(a) defines rehabilitation professionals and it includes even Special Teachers for Education and Training of Handicapped Persons but it cannot mean an authority in favour of RCI to provide minimum qualification for appointment to any post. Section 13 of the Act of 1992 caste a restriction to practice as rehabilitation professional unless enrolled but again it may be a bar to practice as rehabilitation professional but cannot mean authority to provide educational qualification for the post of teacher. The RCI provided minimum qualification for appointment of Special Education Teacher but it is not given as to under what provision, the RCI can provide minimum qualification for appointment to the post of teacher. In any case, even if it is presumed that RCI is having authority to provide qualification for the post of Teacher, the question for my consideration would be as to whether it can operate in violation of Section 23 of the Act of 2009. The perusal of Section 23 of the Act of 2009 reveals that Central Government alone can authorize an academic authority to provide minimum qualification. The RCI has not been authorized by the Central Government for the aforesaid purpose but authorization is in favour of NCTE. In view of the aforesaid, authority to provide minimum qualification is now with the NCTE and not with any other authority. The RCI has not been authorized by the Central Government for the aforesaid purpose but authorization is in favour of NCTE. In view of the aforesaid, authority to provide minimum qualification is now with the NCTE and not with any other authority. The issue aforesaid was dealt with and decided by this Court in the case of Vikas Kumar Agarwal (supra) where even the State Government was not held competent to provide conditions for appointment other than what has been provided by the NCTE. The ratio and analogy drawn therein applies to the issue raised by the petitioner herein. In the background aforesaid, if any qualification is prescribed by the RCI, it cannot be taken for appointment of Special Teacher the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level – II) under the Act of 2009 and if it is applied then would be in conflict with the Notification of NCTE. It is for the reason that different exists in the qualification prescribed by the different authorities." 18. As noted earlier, the above view of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench and holds good till date. So far as the view taken in Pritam Kumar Tak’s case is concerned, the same would not apply to the facts of the present case as the issue therein was related to qualifications for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level I (Special Education) wherein the qualification prescribed included a diploma in Special Education. The dispute was only regarding one year and two year diploma in Special Education. 19. It is relevant to note that for Teacher Gr.III Level I, the qualifications as prescribed by the NCTE itself includes a diploma certificate in Special Education therefore, the candidates possessing a Diploma in Special Education were found to be eligible for the said post as the advertisement itself did not prescribe the specific period of diploma. Consequently, both one year diploma holders as well as two year diploma holders were declared to be held eligible for appointment by the Court. In view of above distinction, it can be safely concluded that the ratio as laid down in Pritam Kumar Tak’s case (supra) would not apply to the present case and rather there is no conflict between the ratio of Pritam Kumar Tak and Sarita Sharma’s case as tried to be portrayed by learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners. 20. In view of above distinction, it can be safely concluded that the ratio as laid down in Pritam Kumar Tak’s case (supra) would not apply to the present case and rather there is no conflict between the ratio of Pritam Kumar Tak and Sarita Sharma’s case as tried to be portrayed by learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners. 20. Sarita Sharma’s case was specifically related to the Teacher Gr.III Level II (Special Education) and the issued involved therein was the issue akin as involved in the present matter. The Judgment of Sarita Sharma being affirmed by the Division Bench would definitely apply to the present matter and this Court is bound to follow the same. 21. So far as other judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners are concerned, all of them pertain to the recruitment qua Teacher Gr.III Level I (Special Education) and have been decided relying upon Pritam Kumar Tak’s case (supra). As observed above, Pritam Kumar Tak’s ratio would not be applicable in the present matter as the same is clearly distinguishable. 22. So far as clause 9.2 is concerned, the same specifies that the syllabus prescribed for diploma certificate/degree recognised by the RCI for the purposes of special education would only be applicable and cannot be read to mean that the qualifications itself would be prescribed by the RCI. The only intent of the clause which can be concluded is that a diploma/degree in special education which is recognised by the RCI would only be termed to be a valid diploma/degree. There can be no quarrel over the said proposition. RCI is definitely the authority to recognise the diploma courses as well as the degree courses pertaining to Special Education and therefore, the degrees or certificates issued/recognised by the RCI could only be considered for the purposes of appointment. But by virtue of said authority, it cannot be concluded that RCI is authorised to prescribe qualification itself. 23. As observed in the preceding paras, NCTE is the only authority authorised to prescribe the qualifications and the State is bound to follow the same. 24. Admittedly, the NCTE has prescribed B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification for Teacher Gr.III Level II (Special Education) and Diploma (Special Education) for Teacher Gr.III Level I (Special Education). 23. As observed in the preceding paras, NCTE is the only authority authorised to prescribe the qualifications and the State is bound to follow the same. 24. Admittedly, the NCTE has prescribed B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification for Teacher Gr.III Level II (Special Education) and Diploma (Special Education) for Teacher Gr.III Level I (Special Education). As held in Sarita Sharma’s case (supra), providing two different qualifications for two different level of Teachers is with a specific intent and the NCTE being the final authority to provide the same, the same cannot be disputed. Moreover, the validity of notifications dated 23.08.2010 and 19.07.2011, whereby the NCTE had provided for the said qualifications was challenged in past and the said challenge was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court. Meaning thereby, the qualifications as prescribed are valid in eyes of law and cannot be questioned/disputed now. 25. In view of above observations, we are of the specific opinion that the judgment as passed in the case of Usha Kumari is perfectly in consonance with law and therefore, deserves to be affirmed. Resultantly, (i) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.357/2020, 477/2020, 98/2021 and 86/2020 are hereby allowed. The common impugned order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.16488/2018, 17833/2018 and 16619/2018 is set aside. (ii) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.148/2022, 149/2022, 150/2022 and 151/2022 are hereby dismissed and the impugned order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.23192/2018 is affirmed.