HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15876/2018 Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Bal Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Ward No.2, 2-H Bada Maderan, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Panchayati Raj And Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Hanumangarh. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh. 5. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 13/01/2025 1. Mr. Deepak Chandak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the controversy has been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 14.12.2022 rendered in the case of Usha Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ. No.149/2022). 2. The Division Bench in the case of Usha Kumari (supra) has held thus:- (2 of 4) [CW-15876/2018] “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. 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. 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. 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. 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. (3 of 4) [CW-15876/2018] 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.” 3. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submitted that the Division Bench’s judgment of Usha Kumari (supra) has been challenged by the concerned litigants by way of filing Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.27041/2023 and the matter is pending consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 4. He prayed that untill the matter is finally decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the present petition be kept pending. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the present writ petition pending as the Division Bench of this Court has already decided the issue against the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and in a bid to save the petitioners & State from the cost of litigation, the present writ petition stands disposed of in light of Division Bench’s judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed in the case of Usha Kumari (supra). 7. With the consent of both the parties, it is hereby ordered that in case, judgment of Division Bench in the case of Usha Kumari (supra) is reversed/modified by Hon’ble the Supreme (4 of 4) [CW-15876/2018] Court, petitioner’s right shall be considered and decided in terms of such order to be passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 8. In the eventuality of the order of Division Bench being reversed/modified, the petitioner shall move a representation before the competent authority within a period of three months of the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, which representation shall be considered in light of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the SLP referred in para No.5 above. 9. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. (DINESH MEHTA),J 63-Arun/-