JUDGMENT : (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) Petitioner feels aggrieved against the action of respondents No. 1 to 4 in withdrawing her appointment as Junior Basic Trained Teacher (JBT), hence, this writ petition. 2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 undertook an exercise for filling up the posts of JBT on batch-wise basis. Pursuant to the selection process, petitioner was issued appointment letter as JBT on 08.06.2023. She joined as such on 12.06.2023. Seven days later, i.e. on 19.06.2023, respondents cancelled her appointment on the ground that she does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of JBT as she did not have required 50% marks in her graduation degree. The decision was communicated to the petitioner on 21.06.2023. Petitioner instituted CWP No. 4098 of 2023, seeking quashing of the orders dated 19.06.2023 and 21.06.2023. The writ petition was disposed of on 12.07.2023 by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with notification dated 13.11.2019 and to convey such decision to the petitioner. In compliance thereto, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and vide order dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P-13) rejected the same. In the foresaid background, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case record. 4. Since both the sides have placed reliance upon several notifications issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section 1 of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Complusory Education Act, 2009, and decisions rendered thereupon, therefore, in order to avoid repetition, the same are being discussed hereinafter: - 4(i) Notification No. 23.08.2010. Under this notification NCET proscribed minimum qualifications inter alia for Classes I-V as well as Classes VI-VIII. The relevant portion thereof reads as under:- “1. Minimum Qualifications. - (i) Classes I-V 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), Regulations 2002 OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El. Ed.). Ed.). 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. (ii) Classes VI-VII B.A/B.Sc and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1- year Bachelor in Education (B. Ed)" OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1- year Bachelor in Education (B. Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El. Ed) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed./BSc. Ed. OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 - year B.Ed. (Special Education) AND 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.” Instant case pertains to appointment against the post of JBT (who impart teaching to Classes I-V). Petitioner did not possess two years diploma in Elementary Education, required by the aforesaid notification for becoming eligible for the post of JBT. She was, thus, not eligible for the post of JBT under this notification. There is no dispute amongst the parties that the petitioner was not eligible for the post of JBT under the aforesaid notification. 4(ii) Notification dated 29.07.2011 As per this notification, the main criteria laid down in notification dated 23.08.2010 was not changed, however, in addition, “graduation and two years diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)” was inserted as an alternate eligibility condition to become eligible for the post of JBT. The petitioner for want of possessing two years’ diploma in Elementary Education remained ineligible for the post under JBT even under notification dated 29.07.2011. There is no dispute amongst the parties on petitioner’s ineligibility for the post of JBT under this notification. The petitioner for want of possessing two years’ diploma in Elementary Education remained ineligible for the post under JBT even under notification dated 29.07.2011. There is no dispute amongst the parties on petitioner’s ineligibility for the post of JBT under this notification. 4(iii) Notification dated 28.06.2018 The relevant portion of this notification, which amended the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of JBT (Classes I-V) laid down in the notification dated23.08.2010 goes as under: - “(1) In the said notification, in para I in sub-para (i), in clause (a) after the words and brackets. "Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), the following shall be inserted, namely:- OR "Graduation with at least 50 % marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed)" (2) In the said notification in para 3, for sub-para(a), the following sub-para shall be substituted namely:- "(a) who has acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education from any NCTE recognized institution shall be considered for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo a six month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognized by the NCTE, within two years of such appointment as primary teacher” The petitioner did not have 50% marks in his graduation. Petitioner had secured 45.65% marks in B.Sc. Medical degree obtained by her in 1998. Petitioner does not dispute that for want of possessing 50% marks in Gradation, as required under notification dated 28.06.2018, she remained ineligible for being appointed as JBT i.e. a teacher for imparting teaching for Classes I-V. 4(iv) Notifications dated 13.11.2019 &13.10.2021 Petitioner seeks applicability of these notifications to demonstrate her eligibility for the post of JBT at the time of her selection on 08.06.2023. This notification amended the notification dated 23.08.2010 as under:- “1. In the said notification in paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph(ii),-(A) in clause (a) for the words, figures. brackets and letters "Graduation with at least 50% marks and I year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)", the words, figure and letters "At least 50% marks either in Graduation or in Post-Graduation and B.Ed," shall be substituted. (B) After clause (b), at the end. In the said notification in paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph(ii),-(A) in clause (a) for the words, figures. brackets and letters "Graduation with at least 50% marks and I year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)", the words, figure and letters "At least 50% marks either in Graduation or in Post-Graduation and B.Ed," shall be substituted. (B) After clause (b), at the end. the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- "Provided that minimum percentage of marks in graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents who had already taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to the 29th July. 2011.” 2. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force on the 2th July, 2011.” As per the amendment carried for classes VI- VIII, the minimum required percentage of marks was not to be made applicable to those incumbents who had taken admission to Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to 29.07.2011. The notification dated 13.11.2019 was to be deemed to have come into force on 29.07.2011. According to the petitioner, her gradation and B.Ed. degrees are prior to 29.07.2011, therefore condition of 50% marks in graduation degree cannot be imposed upon her for becoming eligible to be considered as JBT Teacher. Notification dated 13.10.2021 This notification amended the notification dated23.08.2010 as under: - “1. In the said notification, in paragraph 1, in sub- Paragraph (i) in Clause (a) after the words/figures and brackets "Graduation with at least 50% a marks and bachelor of Education (B.Ed)” the following shall be inserted, namely:- "OR Post-Graduation with a minimum 55% marks or equivalent grade and three-year integrated B.Ed.-M.Ed." (2). In the said notification, in paragraph 1, in sub- paragraph (ii), in clause (a), after the words/figures and brackets "Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 - year B.Ed. (Special Education)", the following shall be inserted, namely: - "OR Post-Graduation with a minimum 55% marks or equivalent grade and three-year integrated B.Ed.-M.Ed." (3). In the said notification, in paragraph 1, in sub- paragraph (ii), in clause (a), after the words/figures and brackets "Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 - year B.Ed. (Special Education)", the following shall be inserted, namely: - "OR Post-Graduation with a minimum 55% marks or equivalent grade and three-year integrated B.Ed.-M.Ed." (3). In the said notification, in paragraph 3, after clause (b), the following clause shall be inserted, namely: - he has acquired the qualification of three-year integrated B.Ed.-M.Ed, from any National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution shall be considered for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V. Provided that the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo a six-month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, within two years of such appointment as primary teacher.” Since the case of the petitioner revolves around aforesaid notifications, therefore, they are being deliberated hereinafter: - 4(iv)(a) Neeraj Kumar Rai and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2017)14 SCC 608 , was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: - “9. In view of fair stand of learned Additional Solicitor General and the view of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, we do not find any reason to deny similar relief to the appellants. No doubt, as rightly held by the High Court the NCTE ought to have issued a clarification by way of a supplementary notification but the NCTE may now do so within one month from today. Accordingly, we direct that if the appellants or any other similarly placed persons are entitled to any further relief in terms of judgments of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, they will be at liberty to put forward their claim before the concerned authorities who may take a decision thereon in accordance with law within one month. We have not examined any such claim in these proceedings except what has been stated hereinabove.” Pursuant to the above directions, respondent No.5-NCTE came with the afore extracted notification dated 13.11.2019. As per this notification, an amendment was carried out for appointment of teachers for Classes VI-VIII. As per the amendment, the minimum required percentage of marks in graduation (50%) was not to be made applicable to those incumbents who had taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or the Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to 29.07.2011. As per this notification, an amendment was carried out for appointment of teachers for Classes VI-VIII. As per the amendment, the minimum required percentage of marks in graduation (50%) was not to be made applicable to those incumbents who had taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or the Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to 29.07.2011. The notification was to be deemed to have come into force on 29.07.2011. However, instant case does not pertain to Classes VI-VIII. The case pertains to the appointment against the post of JBT i.e. Classes I-V. Therefore, the aforesaid notification dated 13.11.2019 will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the eligibility criteria remained the same i.e. 50% marks in Graduation or Bachelor in Education or Bachelor in Elementary Education. The petitioner does not satisfy the criteria of 50% of marks in Graduation. 4(iv)(b) At this juncture, it will also be pertinent to refer to Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India, AIR 2023 SC 3895 , whereunder, the NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 was quashed and set aside. It was, inter-alia held that B.Ed. degree should not be included as qualification for appointment to the post of primary teacher; A teacher must be trained to teach students at ‘primary level’ and this is precisely what the training of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El Ed.) does. B.Ed is not a ‘higher qualification’ or a better qualification while comparing it with Diploma in Elementary Education’ B.Ed. is a different qualification, a different training. Relevant paras of the decision read as under: - “32. In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. (supra) this Court while upholding the validity of the RTE Act, held that primary education, which is now a part of fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, has to be a meaningful education, and not just a formality. When Diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed.), was placed as an essential qualification for teachers in Primary school, it was with a purpose, and the purpose was to declare only such teachers as qualified who are trained to impart education to children at ‘primary level’. The pedagogy for a child who has just entered the school, is an important consideration. A child has come to face a “teacher”, so to speak, for the first time in a class room. The pedagogy for a child who has just entered the school, is an important consideration. A child has come to face a “teacher”, so to speak, for the first time in a class room. It is the beginning of a journey for the child student and therefore world over great care is taken in laying down proper foundations in these formative years. Well qualified and trained teacher in elementary school is an extremely vital aspect. A teacher must be trained to teach students at “primary level”, and this is precisely what the training of Diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed.) does; it trains a person to teach children at primary level. B.Ed. is not a ‘higher qualification’, or a better qualification, as is being canvassed in its favour, while comparing it with ‘Diploma in elementary education’. B.Ed. is a different qualification; a different training. Even assuming it is a higher qualification, it would still not be a suitable qualification for primary level of classes. Unlike Diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed.), B.Ed. does not equip a teacher to teach at primary level. This fact is implicitly recognised in the Notification as well (notification dated 28.06.2018), which still requires a person, who is appointed as a teacher with B.Ed. qualification to ‘mandatorily undergo a six-month Bridge Course in Elementary Education’. This defeats the very logic of including B.Ed. as a qualification, as the very notification which pushes for the inclusion of B.Ed., also recognises its inherent pedagogical weakness in its relation to primary classes. It is to cover this defect, that all such candidates, must undergo a mandatory six months Bridge Course in elementary education! The irony here is that all this is being done when the State of Rajasthan already has more than the required number of Diploma qualified candidates available. This is besides the fact that there is presently no such “bridge course” available; at least there was none till the disposal of the petition by the Rajasthan High Court. 33. Under these circumstances, we are unable to comprehend as to what was the pressing need to include B.Ed. candidates, who are admittedly not fully trained to take up Primary Classes! Consequently, the decision of the NCTE to include B.Ed. 33. Under these circumstances, we are unable to comprehend as to what was the pressing need to include B.Ed. candidates, who are admittedly not fully trained to take up Primary Classes! Consequently, the decision of the NCTE to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers in a primary school seems arbitrary, unreasonable and in fact has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act i.e. Right to Education Act, which is to give to children not only free and compulsory but also ‘quality’ education. 34. In our considered opinion therefore NCTE was not justified in including B.Ed. as a qualification for appointment to the post of primary school teacher (Level-1), a qualification it had so far consciously kept out of the eligibility requirement. The Rajasthan High Court by way of the Impugned Judgement had rightly struck down the notification dated 28.06.2018, on the following grounds:- “(i) The impugned notification dated 28.06.2018 is unlawful because: - (a) it is under the direction of the Central Government, which power the Central Government under Subsection (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act did not have; and (b) it is not in exercise of power of the Central Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of RTE Act relaxing the eligibility criteria prescribed by the NCTE, nor there has been any exercise for ascertaining existence of the conditions precedent for exercising such power. (ii) The petitioners have locus standi to challenge the notification dated 28.06.2018. Merely because an additional qualification is recognized as one of the eligibility criteria, the petitioners cannot be prevented from challenging it. (iii) Accepting a candidate with B.Ed. degree as eligible for appointment and thereafter subjecting him to complete the bridge course within two years of appointment is in the nature of relaxing the existing eligibility criteria, which the Central Government could have done only within Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and subject to existence of circumstances necessary for exercise of such power. (iv) The State Government could not have ignored the notification of NCTE dated 28.06.2018 while issuing advertisement for REET. However, when we have declared that this notification is illegal and are in the process of setting aside, the issue becomes one of academic value. 35 & 36 ……. 37. Consequently, the Appeals are dismissed and the judgement dated 25.11.2021 of the Rajasthan High Court is upheld. However, when we have declared that this notification is illegal and are in the process of setting aside, the issue becomes one of academic value. 35 & 36 ……. 37. Consequently, the Appeals are dismissed and the judgement dated 25.11.2021 of the Rajasthan High Court is upheld. The notification dated 28.06.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Writ Petitions and all pending applications stand disposed of in light of the above order.” In view of quashing of notification dated 28.06.2018, the respondents had to consider the case of the petitioner in light of previous applicable notification keeping in view the decision in Devesh Sharma3. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in possession of two years’ diploma in Elementary Education. She possesses B.Ed. degree. Further, petitioner had not qualified the graduation with minimum 50% marks. She did not satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down for appoint as JBT. Petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility conditions for appointment as JBT teacher in light of law laid down in Devesh Sharma3. The respondents had justly withdrawn the appointment from the petitioner. No other point was urged. 5. For the forgoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.