ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. Petitioners before this court seek appropriate directions commanding the respondents to consider them eligible for competing/appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III, Level-2 (Special Education) by recognizing their Diploma in Special Education with degree, being in consonance with the minimum qualifications as prescribed pursuant to advertisement dated 16.12.2022 (Annex-3). 2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts are as follows: 2.1 An advertisement dated 16.12.2022 was issued by the respondent department for the recruitment of Teacher Grade-III, Level-2 (Special Education). The petitioners hold a degree in graduation with a diploma in education (special education) and they claim that that Pupil Teacher (Special Education Tencher) Ratio for Regular (Inclusive they meet the eligibility criteria as per the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) for appointment as Teacher Grade III level 2, therefore, they are eligible as per the guidelines issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) and the notification issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). However, the qualification prescribed in the advertisement renders them ineligible. 2.2 The NCTE also provided information vide its communication dated 29.12.2017 admitting the equivalency of a diploma in special education with a two-year diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed), which shows that a diploma in special education is equivalent to the diploma in elementary education, subject to undergoing an NCTE-recognized six-month special program in elementary education after appointment. 2.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court has also directed all the States/UTs, etc., to accept the recommendations made by the RCI, and such recommendations are to be treated as directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the recommendation of RCI, the petitioners are thus eligible for appointment as Teacher Grade-III Level 2. 2.4 Consequently, the petitioners were/are eligible to participate in the selection process of Teacher Grade-III Level 2. Hence, they were permitted to participate in earlier selection processes like 2016, 2018 & 2021. Furthermore, the petitioners also rely on the advertisement dated 31.12.2021, in which the same qualification was prescribed as in the present advertisement dated 16.12.2022. 2.5 In pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.12.2021, the respondent had provided a portal to fill the qualification of “diploma in elementary education (special education)” for Level-2 teachers. However, in the present selection process, the respondents did not provide such a portal. 2.5 In pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.12.2021, the respondent had provided a portal to fill the qualification of “diploma in elementary education (special education)” for Level-2 teachers. However, in the present selection process, the respondents did not provide such a portal. Being aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the petitioners approached them and raised their grievances, but no action was taken by the respondents. Hence the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. 3. Defense taken in the reply is that the facts in the instant writ petition are not same as in the case of those with whom they seek parity. Petitioners belong to different Special Education categories like Mental Retardation and Hearing Impairment, etc. The issue raised in the instant writ petition is no more res integra and the same was put to rest vide judgment rendered in Sarita Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 20022/2012). Recently again the issue came up before this Court in the case of Usha Kumari (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 149/2022). Hence, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed in the light of judgments in aforesaid two matters. 4. In the above backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsels and perused the case file. 5. In fact, at the very outset, what is being agitated by the petitioners herein does not require any further adjudication on the merits thereof or giving any opinion on the rival claims in view of the clear directions already issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in pending Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 vide its order dated 10.06.2022. Relevant thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:- “Our attention has been invited to the communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Education, Department of School Education and Literacy dated 10.06.2022 informing all the State Governments and Union Territories about the acceptance of the recommendation made by the Rehabilitation Council of India by the department and urging the concerned States/ Union Territories to give effect to the said decision in right earnest and adhere to the direction given by this Court in judgment dated 28.10.2021. The communication reads thus: “F.No.3-5/2021-IS.18 Government of India Ministry of Education Department of School Education & Literacy Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi Dated: 10th June, 2022 To, 1. Education Secretaries of all States and Uts. 2. The communication reads thus: “F.No.3-5/2021-IS.18 Government of India Ministry of Education Department of School Education & Literacy Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi Dated: 10th June, 2022 To, 1. Education Secretaries of all States and Uts. 2. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18, Institutional Area, Sheheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016 3. The Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201 307 Subject: Compliance of judgment dated 28.10.2021 in the matter of W.P© 132 of 2016 titled as Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – reg. Sir / Madam I am directed to refer to the judgment dated 28.10.2021 of W.P(C) 132 of 2016 titled as Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it directed Central Government to forthwith notify the norms and standards of pupil teacher ratio for special schools and also separate norms for special teachers who alone can impart education and training to Children with Special Needs (CWSN) in the general schools. 2. The Norms and Standards of Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) for special school and also separate norms for special teachers who alone can impart education and training to CwSN in the general schools, as recommended by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPID), Government of India, have been accepted by this Department, and are detailed as under- Pupil Teacher (Special Education Tencher) Ratio for Regular (Inclusive) School Levels Qualifications Recruitment Process Minimu No. of Spl. Ed. Teacher (s) Recommende d PTR Remark Foundation al Stage (Pre-school Class 1 & 2). Primary Level 1. D.Ed. In Special Education from a RCI approved Institute and possess a valid RCI CRR number or Through CTET/TET/NT A Score+ Demonstratio n of Class room teaching + Interview or as per the recruitment process and apted from time to time 10:1 (Pupils with disabilities enrolled and special teacher) Availabilit y of service of special education teacher should be mandator y even if the school has one student with disability. Preparation Stage (Class 3 to 5) D.El.Ed. With a recognized qualification (Certificate/Diploma *) from a RCI approved institution equivalent to D.Ed. In Special Education and possess a valid CRR number 2. Preparation Stage (Class 3 to 5) D.El.Ed. With a recognized qualification (Certificate/Diploma *) from a RCI approved institution equivalent to D.Ed. In Special Education and possess a valid CRR number 2. Six-month training of teaching in cross disability area in inclusive education (**) One (***) Middle Stage (Class 6 to 8) Upper Primary +Secondar y + Higher Secondary 1. B.Ed. in Special Education from a RCI Approved Institute and possess a valid RCI and CRR number or B.Ed. with a recognized qualification (Certificate/Diploma *) from a RCI approved institution equivalent to B.Ed. in Special Education and possess a valid RCI CRR number 2. Six-month training of teaching in cross disability area in inclusive education (**) 15:1 (Pupils with disabilities enrolled and special education teacher). Secondary Stage Class 9 to 12) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4. Regarding RCI recommendation contained in Note 2 (#) of para 2 above, i.e. "the parity of pay and service conditions should be adhered to for special education teachers as done for general education teachers at national and state levels", it is related to respective State Governments/ UT Administrations as Education being in the concurrent list of subjects. Therefore, State Governments/ UT Administrations may ensure. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8. States Governments and UT Administrations may take further necessary action in the light of judgment dated 28.10.2021 of Hon'ble Supreme Court and furnish the action taken report to this Department by 25th June, 2022 to enable this department to submit compliance affidavit before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Anil Gairola) Under Secretary to the Government of India Email: iedeis18@gmail.com” [emphasis supplied] The highlighted portion of this communication be treated as directions given by this Court to the States/Union Territories in terms of this order. The concerned States/Union Territories shall submit compliance report through Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Education, Department of School Education and Literacy before the next date.” 6. In view of the unambiguous directions issued by the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms, it is most certainly not for this Court, at this stage, to decide as to whether NCTE or the RCI is to determine the eligibility of the education qualification possessed by the petitioner. The said issue is sub judice before Hon’ble the Apex Court. In view of the unambiguous directions issued by the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms, it is most certainly not for this Court, at this stage, to decide as to whether NCTE or the RCI is to determine the eligibility of the education qualification possessed by the petitioner. The said issue is sub judice before Hon’ble the Apex Court. However, in the interregnum, in view of the aforesaid directions, it is expected of the competent authority to revisit its administrative decision qua the eligibility criteria to be applied across board to all the candidates who are similarly situated as the petitioners herein. 7. The position has, in fact, been amplified by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, presided over by my learned brother Dinesh Mehta, J, who was the author of the Single Bench judgment which was upheld earlier in Usha Kumari by making following subsequent observations: “1. The petitioners having completed graduation and diploma in Special Education, have approached this Court with the case that they possess requisite educational qualification in light of the communication dated 05.12.2006 (Annex.-8), issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), so also clause (6) of the advertisement No.13/2022, dated 16.12.2022. 2. It is asserted by Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Special Teachers, the qualification prescribed or conclusion drawn by the Rehabilitation Council of India are binding irrespective of the educational qualification prescribed by the NCTE. 3. Mr. Bishnoi invited Court's attention towards the proceedings dated 21.07.2022 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Writ Petition Civil No.132/2016 : Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India : 2021 and argued that in the above referred order of the Supreme Court, the communication/notification issued by the RCI has been treated to be a direction by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and thus, the respondents cannot deny petitioners' rights to be given appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II Special Education, when the RCI has clarified that the Diploma done by the petitioner is equivalent to CTT course. 4. Mr. D.S. Beniwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Selection Board, relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 14.12.2022 in Usha Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4. Mr. D.S. Beniwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Selection Board, relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 14.12.2022 in Usha Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.149/2022 and submitted that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable in light of the adjudication made by the Division Bench on the issue involved in the present case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the grant of interim relief. 6. Prima facie, arguments of Mr. Beniwal appears to be correct that the issue has been decided against the petitioners by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 14.12.2022, but then, it is to be noted that order dated 21.07.2022 of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Division Bench when the above referred case of Usha Kumari (supra) was decided. 7. Issue notice to the respondents. 8. Mr. D.S. Beniwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.4. 9. Let notices returnable on 22.02.2023 be issued to the remaining respondents. 10. Notices be filed in two sets, out of which one set be given dasti to Mr. Bishnoi for effecting service through speed post. 11. Meanwhile, respondent Selection Board is directed to permit the petitioners to file their online/offline forms, in case they are submitted by 25.01.2023. 12. On the application form being submitted, the respondent - Selection Board shall issue admit cards to the petitioners and permit them to appear in the examinations as and when held, however, their result shall not be declared without the leave of the Court.” 8. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. Suffice, for the purpose of adjudication of the claim of the petitioners to observe that, the respondents are since bound by the directions issued by the Supreme Court, they shall consider the respective eligibilities of all the petitioners in terms thereof and take decision qua each petitioner by giving specific reasons. With these observations, the instant bunch of petitions are disposed of. 10. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to take an appropriate decision within a period of three months, which shall be applicable in rem qua all the candidates. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.