Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 639 (RAJ)

Chetan Datla v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-02-22

MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
JUDGMENT Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J. - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13837/2020 1. Although, the matters came up on various applications filed therein but, on the joint request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petitions were heard finally at this stage on their merit. 2. Since, all these writ petition involve similar facts and common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided vide this common order. 3. To appreciate the factual matrix, the facts from the file of SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13837/2020, Chetan Datla & Others are being considered. 4. Challenge in the writ petition is to the result dated 10.11.2020 issued by the respondent No. 3, the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board whereby, the petitioners have not been selected for appointment on the post of Pre-Primary Teacher (NTT). A direction has also been sought for the respondents to consider them as eligible for appointment on the aforesaid post and to accord them appointment with all consequential benefits. 5. The facts in brief are that the petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Pre-Primary Teacher (NTT) in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.08.2018. The selection criteria was written examination which was conducted on 24.02.2019. Vide provisional select list dated 31.07.2019, candidates including the petitioners to the extent of 1.5 times the number of vacancies, were called for document verification from 03.09.2019 till 18.09.2019. Final result was declared on 10.11.2020 wherein roll number of the petitioners did not figure. It is averred that their candidature was rejected on account that they did not possess certificate of two years diploma of Pre-Primary Education with nomenclature of Nursery Teacher Training, the minimum eligibility prescribed under the Rajasthan Women and Child Development (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 1998 and Amended Rules, 2011 (for brevity "the Rules of 2011"). It is also averred that the petitioners have acquired qualification of Pre-Primary Teacher Training course (PPTC) of two years duration from an institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (for brevity-'NCTE') and in pursuance of the advertisements dated 06.03.2012 and 27.08.2013 issued on earlier occasion by the respondents prescribing the same eligibility criteria, the candidates having PPTC qualification were given appointment. It is stated that the NCTE is a statutory body constituted under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for brevity-'the Act of 1993') with main objective to achieve planned and coordinated development of the Teacher Education System throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the Teacher Education System and for matters connected therewith. Section 12(d) of the Act of 1993 mandates the NCTE to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualification for a person to be employed as a teacher in a recognised institution. As per Section 12A, for the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools, the NCTE may, by regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college, by whatever name called, established, run, aided or recognised by the Central Government or a State Government or a local or other authority. 6. It is pleaded that under Section 32, the NCTE is empowered to make Regulations by notification in the official gazette to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1993. Section 32(2)(d)(i) authorises the NCTE to frame Regulations laying down the norms and standards in respect of minimum qualification for a person to be employed as a Teacher under Section 12(d). It is averred that the NCTE having been established under an Act of Parliament enacted in terms of Entries 65 and 66 of List-I, it is not open to the State Government to fix any qualifications contrary to those laid down by the NCTE and the State Government is bound to follow the mandate of the Act of 1993. It is stated that vide Regulations framed from time to time, the NCTE has provided for two years pre-primary teachers training courses under different nomenclature with NTT nomenclature in the year 2002 only and, therefore, the petitioners with two years Pre-Primary Teachers Training course with nomenclature different from NTT, are also entitled for appointment. 7. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have stated in their reply that since the petitioners did not meet the requisite eligibility criteria, their candidature was rejected. 7. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have stated in their reply that since the petitioners did not meet the requisite eligibility criteria, their candidature was rejected. It is averred that column No. 1 of the application form provides for Secondary/equivalent qualification and similarly, column No. 2 provides for the Senior Secondary/equivalent qualification but, there is no corresponding equivalent qualification under column No. 3 which provides for details regarding certificate of training in NTT from an institution recognized by the NCTE. It is stated that the petitioners erroneously indicated their eligibility as NTT in the application form, which, as a matter of fact, they were not holding. It is submitted, based on a communication dated 14.10.2016 by the NCTE, that on account of an inadvertent error, the respondents considered the PPTC qualification equivalent to NTT qualification on earlier occasions. 8. The respondent No. 3 has stated in its reply that the petitioners having participated in the examination process with knowledge of the requisite qualification, are estopped from raising contention against the same. It is averred that in absence of challenge to the validity of the eligibility criteria as prescribed under the Rules of 2011, the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. The respondent no. 4 has, in its reply, referring to the provisions of the Act of 1993, submitted that since the council is constituted under an Act of Parliament covered by Entries 65 & 66 of List-I of Schedule 7, it is not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the council to lay down minimum eligibility for appointment as pre-primary teacher. It is averred that Rules framed by the State Government relating to eligibility of the teachers has to be in tune with the Regulations/notifications issued by the answering council from time to time. It is submitted that under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for brevity-'the Act of 2009'), the NCTE has been declared as the academic authority by the Central Government to decide the minimum qualification for the persons to be appointed as Teacher and also to decide the name of the courses to be used for particular post in different Regulations. It is submitted that two years teachers training course with NTT nomenclature was used only in the year 2002 and thereafter, its name has been changed to PTEP/NTEP (2005), Certificate in Education C.Ed. It is submitted that two years teachers training course with NTT nomenclature was used only in the year 2002 and thereafter, its name has been changed to PTEP/NTEP (2005), Certificate in Education C.Ed. (2007), D.E.C. Ed.(2009) & D.P.S.E. (2014) respectively. 10. The petitioners, in rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent no. 1 and 2, submitted that the State is acting malafidely and arbitrarily by not appreciating that PPTC and NTEP courses are the same course as NTT course albeit with different nomenclature. It is stated that the State Government was also running NTT course with different nomenclature till the year 2010 as is evident from the letter dated 5.7.2005 issued by the NCTE to Mewar Girls Institute of Technology and the order dated 25.10.2005 issued in respect of Geeta Bajaj Pre-Primary Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyalaya. It is averred that since the year 2010, the State of Rajasthan has stopped running the NTT course whereas, the other States are still awarding certificate of NTT course. It is pleaded that the advertisement provides that candidates studying in final year of the qualifying examination can apply; meaning thereby, the candidates while pursuing their NTT course from States other than the State of Rajasthan can apply in the selection process. 11. The petitioner no. 2, Rajesh Dhanki has, vide his additional affidavit dated 12.1.2022, submitted that vide order dated 17.3.2021 issued by the respondents, 52 candidates having acquired diploma in Pre-Primary Course (for short-'PPC') from the Geeta Bajaj Pre-Primary Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyalaya, have been given appointment. 12. The respondents have, in their reply to the additional affidavit, submitted that though 52 persons who have been accorded appointment, have done two years diploma course in PPC; but, since NTT course certificate was issued to them by the Education Department, Rajasthan, they have been accorded appointment. 13. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, submitted that since the NCTE has been established under a Central Act of 1993 enacted under Entries 65 and 66 of List-I of Schedule-7, it has primacy over the State legislation in respect of area covered under its jurisdiction. He submitted that the NCTE has, vide Regulations issued from time to time, provided for two years Pre-Primary Teachers Training Courses under different nomenclature such as NTT (2002), PTEP/NTEP (2005), Certificate in Education C.Ed. (2007), D.E.C. Ed.(2009) and D.P.S.E. (2014) respectively. He submitted that the NCTE has, vide Regulations issued from time to time, provided for two years Pre-Primary Teachers Training Courses under different nomenclature such as NTT (2002), PTEP/NTEP (2005), Certificate in Education C.Ed. (2007), D.E.C. Ed.(2009) and D.P.S.E. (2014) respectively. He submitted that even in the State of Rajasthan, the 2 years course was being reckoned with nomenclature different from the NTT as is evident from the permission granted by the NCTE for opening of new institutions in the State of Rajasthan; such as, Pre-Primary Course (PPC) of two years by Geeta Bajaj Pre-Primary Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyalaya and Pre School Teacher Education Programme of one year duration by Maulana Azad Pre School Teacher Training School. 14. Learned counsel submitted that since in the earlier two recruitment vide advertisements dated 6.3.2012 and 27.8.2013, the candidates with two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training Course with nomenclature other than the NTT, were accorded appointment, the petitioners were under a legitimate expectation that their candidature would also be entertained by the respondents and, therefore, did not assail the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement. 15. He submitted that petitioners have obtained PPTC certificate from the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and have completed their course from the institutions recognised by the NCTE. Drawing attention of this Court towards the Circular dated 23.6.2015 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P., learned counsel submitted that nomenclature of the course from the PPTC was changed to DPSC from the Session 2015-2016 keeping in view the Regulation 2014 of the NCTE. Referring to the letters dated 31.8.2016, 18.10.2016 and 14.10.2016 issued by the NCTE, he submitted that the authorities in the State of Rajasthan were duly informed that the PPTC course was a duly approved two years Teachers Training Course by it. He, therefore, submitted that since the petitioners possess the two years' Pre-Primary Teacher Training Course from the institutions recognised by the NCTE albeit with different nomenclature from the NTT, they are eligible and entitled for appointment on the post of Pre-Primary Teacher in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following judgments: 1. Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash Samiti v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Ors. 2. Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors. 3. Ram Sharan Maurya & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 4. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following judgments: 1. Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash Samiti v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Ors. 2. Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors. 3. Ram Sharan Maurya & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 4. Kailash Chand Harijan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.-(2006) 4 WLC 337 5. State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidhyalaya- (2006) 9 SCC 1 . 6. State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. 16. Learned counsels for rest of the petitioners adopted the submissions made by Mr. Vigyan Shah. 17. Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, learned AAG, drawing attention of this Court towards Entry-41 of List-2, submitted that, to provide for eligibility for appointment in the State Public Services is in the exclusive domain of the State Government in furtherance whereof, Rules of 2011 have been enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. She submitted that Schedule-2 under the Rules of 2011 specifically stipulates two years Nursery Teacher Training (NTT) course from the institution recognised by the NCTE as one of the requisite eligibility for appointment as Pre-Primary Teacher. She submitted that the Act of 1993 authorises the Council to prescribe minimum eligibility for appointment which has not been tinkered with under the Rules of 2011 and the respondents have taken a conscious decision to restrict entry to the candidates having passed NTT course only well within its competence. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners well aware of the requisite eligibility, erroneously represented themselves to have acquired NTT qualification in their application form which did not provide for any equivalent qualification. Referring to the letter dated 12.2.2021 issued by the NCTE addressed to the Director, Samekit Bal Vikas Sewa (Women and Child Development Department), Government of Rajasthan, learned AAG submitted that since there is no course in the nomenclature of PPTC in the NCTE Regulations, the petitioners were not entitled for appointment. 18. She submitted that petitioners are seeking equivalence of other two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training courses with the NTT course and this Court, not being an expert academic body, should refrain itself from venturing into this aspect. 19. Ms. Mirdha submitted that there cannot be any estoppel against the law and the petitioners are not entitled for appointment on the premise that on earlier occasions, ineligible persons came to be extended appointment. 19. Ms. Mirdha submitted that there cannot be any estoppel against the law and the petitioners are not entitled for appointment on the premise that on earlier occasions, ineligible persons came to be extended appointment. She submitted that the petitioners are barred from assailing the eligibility on the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. She, in support of her submissions, relies upon following judgments. 1. Virendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttrakhand & Ors.- (2011) 1 SCC 150 . 2. D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom & Ors.- (2017) 9 SCC 478 . 3. Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors.- (2019) 6 SCC 362 . 4. State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty- (2011) 3 SCC 436 . 5. Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors.- (2015) 8 SCC 484 . 6. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors.- (2003) 3 SCC 548 . 7. V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation & Ors.-1993 Suppl (3) SCC 9. 20. Ms. Shweta Pareek, learned counsel on behalf of the Council submitted that the Act of 1993 being a Central Act enacted under Entries 65 and 66 of List-I of Schedule-7, has primacy over the State legislation. She submitted that the State Government is bound to have its Rules and Regulations laying down eligibility for appointment to the post of Teachers including Pre-Primary Education Teacher in tune with the Rules and Regulations issued by it from time to time under the Act of 1993. Learned counsel submitted that the Council runs two years Pre-Primary Teachers Training Course from time to time under different nomenclature and the course undertaken by the petitioners under the nomenclature of PPTC, B.P. Ed., DPSC or any other nomenclature as per the Regulations issued by the Council, from the recognised institutions, are eligible for appointment despite not having certificate of NTT course. She, in support of her submissions, relied upon the judgment in case of the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Kumar-(2018) 12 SCC 595. 21. Mr. Sandeep Taneja, learned counsel on behalf of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, adopting the submissions made by Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, added that the eligibility prescribed under the advertisement is in perfect consonance with the eligibility laid down under the Rules of 2011. 21. Mr. Sandeep Taneja, learned counsel on behalf of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, adopting the submissions made by Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, added that the eligibility prescribed under the advertisement is in perfect consonance with the eligibility laid down under the Rules of 2011. He submitted that having participated in the recruitment process fully aware of the eligibility criteria, it is not open for the petitioners to turn around and challenge the same after remaining unsuccessful in it. He further submitted that since the qualification prescribed under the Rules of 2011 is not under challenge, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief claimed. 22. Heard and considered. 23. The core question involved in these writ petitions is to the entitlement of the petitioners with two years Pre-Primary Teachers Training Course from the institutions recognised by the NCTE, though, with nomenclature different from the NTT, for appointment on the post of Pre-Primary Teachers in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018. 24. First, this Court examines the Scheme of the Act of 1993 enacted by the Parliament under Entries 65 and 66, List-I of Schedule-7 of the Constitution of India. "12. Functions of the Council.--It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may--(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; 12A. Power of Council to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers.--For the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools, the Council may, by regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college, by whatever name called, established, run, aided or recognised by the Central Government or a State Government or a local or other authority: Provided that nothing in this section shall adversely affect the continuance of any person recruited in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate schools or colleges, under any rule, regulation or order made by the Central Government, a State Government, a local or other authority, immediately before the commencement of the National Council for Teacher Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 (18 of 2011) solely on the ground of non-fulfilment of such qualifications as may be specified by the Council: Provided further that the minimum qualifications of a teacher referred to in the first proviso shall be acquired within the period specified in this Act or under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009).] 32. Power to make regulations.--(1) The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of this Act. Power to make regulations.--(1) The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (d) the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of-- (i) the minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher under clause (d) of section 12; (ii) the specified category of courses or training in teacher education under clause (e) of section 12; (iii) starting of new courses or training in recognised institutions under clause (f) of section 12; (iv) standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications referred to in clause (g) of section 12; (v) the tuition fees and other fees chargeable by institutions under clause (h) of section 12; (vi) the schemes for various levels of teacher education, and identification of institutions for offering teacher development programmes under clause (l) of section 12; 1[(dd) the qualifications of teachers under section 12A." Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 reads as under: "23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.--(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed." 25. The NCTE has been declared as "academic authority" under Section 23 of the Act of 2009. 26. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed." 25. The NCTE has been declared as "academic authority" under Section 23 of the Act of 2009. 26. Although, this Court does not find any conflict in the qualification prescribed by the NCTE and the State Government for appointment of Pre-Primary Teachers, which would be referred at appropriate place; however, from the conspectus of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is apparent that the NCTE is the competent authority empowered to lay down the minimum eligibility for appointment of the Teachers throughout the country including the Pre-Primary Teachers. In this regard, reference may also be have to the following judgments: 1. State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sansthan-(2006) 9 SCC page 1. 2. Kailash Chand Harijan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.-(2006) 4 WLC 337. 3. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Kumar-(2018) 12 SCC 595. 27. The NCTE has, vide Regulations issued from time to time, provided different nomenclature to Pre-Primary Teacher Education course which is summarised as under: Regulation and year Level Duration Nomenclature 2005 i) Age Group 4-6 years (Appendix-3) One Year Pre-School Teacher Education Programme ii) Age Group 4-6 years extended for Class 1&2 (age group 6-8 years) (Appendix4) Two Years Nursery Teacher Education Programme 2007 Age Group 0-6 years (Appendix-1) One year Certificate in Education (C.Ed.) 2009 Early Childhood Education including Class 1 & 2 of the Primary Education (Appendix-1) Two years Pre School/Nursery Teacher Education Programme known as:- Diploma in Early Childhood Education (D.E.C.Ed.) 2014 Early Childhood Education (Appendix-1) Two years Pre-School Education Programme for nursery schools etc. earlier known as D.E.C.Ed. Renamed as:- Diploma in Pre School Education (DPSE) 28. Under the Schedule appended with the Rules of 2011, one of the eligibility criteria for appointment as Pre-Primary Teacher is two years diploma of Pre-Primary Education with nomenclature of Nursery Teacher Training. The material on record reveals that the NCTE has recognised two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course with nomenclature of NTT in the year 2002 only; but, State of Rajasthan continued to issue NTT certificate till the year 2010. The material on record reveals that the NCTE has recognised two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course with nomenclature of NTT in the year 2002 only; but, State of Rajasthan continued to issue NTT certificate till the year 2010. Diploma certificate in two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course has been granted in the State of Rajasthan under nomenclature different from the NTT such as PPC as is evident from the order dated 25.10.2005 issued by the NCTE to Geeta Bajaj Pre-Primary Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyalaya, Moti Doongri, Jaipur. The respondent-State has not disputed competence of the NCTE to provide minimum eligibility for appointment on the post of Pre-Primary Teacher. However, it was urged on its behalf that without tinkering with the minimum eligibility laid down by the NCTE, it has consciously chosen the NTT course only as the eligibility out of many two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training Courses being run by NCTE; but, the original record of the proceedings submitted by the State for perusal of this Court does not substantiate the submission inasmuch as it does not reveal any deliberation on this aspect. Even during the course of arguments, the learned AAG could not offer any explanation as to why and how the State is insisting upon the NTT certificate course as the only essential eligibility in absence of its case of this course being, even if not better than the other two years teacher training courses with different nomenclature in any manner, at least, distinct from the courses with different nomenclature. As a matter of fact, it has been case of none of the parties that the two years teacher training courses with the nomenclature different from the NTT certificate course are in any manner different and distinct from it or from each other. There is not even a shred of material on record to show that the change in nomenclature of the two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course by the NCTE from time to time entails any corresponding fundamental or substantial change or for that matter, any change in the syllabus or curriculum or in the basic or salient features of the course so as to make it distinct from each other, in absence whereof, this Court finds action of the respondents in restricting eligibility to the candidates having NTT certificate only, to be unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary. 29. 29. Petitioners' claim for appointment on the strength of two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training Course with nomenclature different from the NTT gets emboldened from the appointment order dated 17.3.2021 whereby, 52 candidates having acquired their diploma in two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training under the nomenclature of "PPC", have been given appointment in pursuance of selfsame advertisement dated 21.8.2018. Contention of learned AAG that these persons were extended appointment despite having diploma in PPC as Education Department has issued them certificate of NTT course flies in the face of certificate dated 25.7.2009 placed on record by the respondents as Annexure-R/AA/1 issued in favour of one of such appointees which does not reveal that the Education Department has reckoned his two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course as NTT course. This fact speaks volume about the highly unreasonable and arbitrary manner in which the respondents have conducted themselves. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that the candidates having NTT certificate course only are entitled for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018. 30. There is another important aspect of the matter. As submitted by the State Government, no NTT course is being conducted in the State of Rajasthan since the year 2010. Note under clause-7 of the advertisement provides that a candidate who has appeared or is appearing in the last year examination of the requisite eligibility qualification, shall also be entitled to apply for appointment; meaning thereby, the candidates who are pursuing two years teachers training course with NTT nomenclature from the States other than the State of Rajasthan are entitled to apply for appointment but, not the candidates from the State of Rajasthan where certificate with NTT nomenclature is not being awarded, undisputedly, since the year 2010. Thus, the candidates pursuing same two years teachers training course in Rajasthan which is being pursued by the candidates from outside the Rajasthan albeit with different nomenclature, have been put to hostile discrimination. It also does not have any reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. to have meritorious candidates available for appointment and this artificial classification based on nomenclature of the course only, is unintelligible. 31. It also does not have any reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. to have meritorious candidates available for appointment and this artificial classification based on nomenclature of the course only, is unintelligible. 31. This Court does not agree with the respondents' contention that it being a case of equivalence, this Court should refrain from interfering as, the petitioners are not claiming equivalence of the two years diploma course done by them with the NTT course; rather, they have been able to establish that in absence of any difference in the two years diploma training courses done by them from the NTT course, except that in nomenclature, they are eligible and entitled for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018. 32. Contention of the learned State Counsel as to validity of PPTC course relying on the letter dated 12.2.2021 issued by the NCTE does not merit acceptance in view of overwhelming evidence on record to show that PPTC course has been a recognised two years Pre-Primary Teacher Course by the NCTE. In para 32 of the writ petition, a specific averment has been made on the strength of letters issued by the NCTE that in other State viz. Madhya Pradesh, NCTE has recognised the 2 years Pre-Primary Teacher Course in the nomenclature of PPTC for appointment as Pre-Primary Level Teacher which has not been disputed and denied by the NCTE in its reply. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for NCTE categorically stated that NCTE adheres to its reply to para 32 of the writ petition. In view thereof, no credence can be given to letter dated 12.2.2021. 33. In view of aforesaid analysis of the material on record, this Court does not deem it necessary to make reference of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels for the respective parties which mainly pertain to discretion of employer to prescribe minimum eligibility for appointment, estoppel, acquiescence, equivalence. 34. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 35. The writ petitions are allowed accordingly. It is held that the petitioners with two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course from the institutions recognised by the NCTE with nomenclature different from the NTT course, are entitled for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018. 34. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 35. The writ petitions are allowed accordingly. It is held that the petitioners with two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course from the institutions recognised by the NCTE with nomenclature different from the NTT course, are entitled for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018. The respondents are directed to accord them appointment with all consequential benefits from the date persons less meritorious than them have been given appointment barring actual monetary benefits. Compliance to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.