Briefly, the essential skeletal materials facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are, that an advertisement number 01/2016, was issued for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III on 6th July, 2016, for Rajasthan Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Direct Recruitment Examination, 2016, for Non-TSP area to fill up 6299 posts for Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) (Class I to V) and 6045 posts of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) (Classes VI to VIII), which was subjected to challenge. The controversy was eventually resolved by the Division Bench of this Court vide adjudication dated 27th April, 2017, in a batch of intra-court appeals lead case being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1464/2016 (Sher Singh & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors.); leading to amendment vide notification dated 29th August, 2017, in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules (Forth Amendment) Rules, 2017 of Rule 266(3) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short ‘Rules of 1996’), which provided for qualifications for post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) (Class VI to VII), of ‘Mathematics’ and ‘Science’, separately.

2. The State-respondents issued advertisement number 01/2017, inviting applications from eligible candidates. The minimum educational qualifications as contemplated under Clause 6.1, of the advertisement for Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) for Class VI to VII, specifically contemplated under Clause 6.1 B (ii) and (iii) that for the post of teacher of Mathematics, the candidates must have passed graduation or equivalent examination of mathematics as an optional subject. Similarly, for the post of teacher of Science, the candidate must have passed graduation or equivalent examination with at least one subject as an optional subject from Chemistry, Physics, Botany, Zoology, Micro-Biology, Bio-technology and Bio-chemistry.

3. Referring to criteria for selection as contemplated under the advertisement under Clause 10(2) and 11; learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the State-respondents have not drawn the merit list of the participating candidates in accordance with amendment made vide notification dated 29th August, 2017. It is further pointed out that the State-respondents have proceeded contrary to the minimum qualifications as contemplated by Section 23(1) of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the Act of 2009) and Notification issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dated 29th July, 2011, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section 1 of Section 23 of the Act of 2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to advertisement dated 13th July, 2016, issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, wherein separate vacancies were identified for the post of teachers of mathematics and teachers of Science, in consonance with the Act of 2009 so also the Notification dated 29th July, 2011, issued by the NCTE. Reference has also been made to the recruitment process of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti of the year 2016, to the same effect.

5. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the adjudication by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sher Singh & Ors. (supra), which has also been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11012/2016; Ajay Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 29th May, 2017, asserted that RTET/REET contemplates a bench mark which prospective teachers must achieve before they can claim appointment to the respective post. Thus, a teacher seeking appointment in a particular subject must have knowledge of that subject and training to teach that subject. Specific reference has been made to paragraph 15, 16, 20, 22, 34 and 35 of the adjudication in the case of Sher Singh & Ors. (supra).

6. Reference has also been made to the text of amendment of Rule 266(3) vide Notification dated 29th August, 2017, which provides for qualifications as laid down by NCTE un