K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – The writ petitions agitate the issue of consideration of candidates having B.Ed from any National Council of Teacher Education, (hereinafter for short ‘NCTE’) recognised institution for appointment as Teachers in primary schools holding classes between 1 to 5. The stipulation to entitle B.Ed qualified candidates made applicable for teacher’s post in primary schools came by way of a notification issued by ‘the NCTE’ on 28.06.2018; which has now been set at naught by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985.

2. The writ petitioners challenged the notification before this Court by the aforesaid petitions of the year 2021. In the meanwhile, a similar challenge raised before the Rajasthan High Court was allowed by judgment dated 25.11.2021 rendered by a Division Bench of that Court (produced as Annexure-10 in C.W.J.C. No. 5053 of 2021). It was the said judgment challenged in Special Leave Petition, which resulted in the decision in Devesh Sharma (supra).

3. In the above writ petitions, by order no.3 dated 16.07.2021, a Division Bench of this Court permitted the respondents to carry on with the process of selection and appointment during the pendency of the writ petition but made it subject to the outcome of the writ petition and also stipulated that the candidates selected and appointed shall be made aware of the pendency of the writ petition.

4. I.A. No. 01 of 2021, filed on behalf of the Intervenors, who were B.Ed qualified, for impleadment as party respondents in the main writ application was disposed of without allowing the prayer for impleadment, but reserving liberty to file afresh if the need so arises. However, the applicants were permitted to assist in the matter and it was also directed that the learned counsel would be sent a link of the proceedings for online hearing. A further impleading petition seeking permission to be impleaded as petitioners, to support the cause of those qualified with a Diploma in Elementary Education, was rejected by yet another Division Bench, as per order no.6 dated 10.10.2023.

5. The Counsel representing the petitioners in I.A. No. 01 of 2021, Shri. Ashish Giri is before us. Learned Senior Counsel Shri. Mrigank Mauli appeared in I.A. No. 02 of 2021, again seeking intervention to oppose the prayer in the writ petition, the petitioners being B.Ed qualified candidates. The same was allowed by order no. 7 dated 29.11.2023. We heard learned Senior Counsel Shri. Rajendra Narain and learned Counsel Shri. Abhinav Srivastava for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel Shri. Apurv Kumar appearing for the State of Bihar, Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for ‘the NCTE’ as also Shri. Mrigank Mauli and Shri. Ashish Giri for the intervenors.

6. A preliminary objection was raised insofar as the selection having been proceeded with and appointments having been carried out; none of whom are before this Court. However, it has to be noticed that the selection was proceeded with on the basis of the amendments made to the rules of the State, in accordance with the modification brought about to the essential qualification, by ‘the NCTE’ in the year 2018, by virtue of interim order no.3 referred to above. The Division Bench had categorically observed in the said interim order that the pendency of the writ petition shall be intimated to the candidates selected and appointed and that they shall not claim any equity since that selections and appointments were directed to be carried out only subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

7. The intervenors, who support the cause of the B.Ed candidates are before us and despite the pendency of the writ petition having been communicated to the appointed candidates; as vouched by the Government Advocate, none except the intervenors herein have sought impleadment in the writ petition. Their cause being adequately agitated before this Court, there is no scope for any further di