ORDER :

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The writ-petitioners' grievance is that State of Rajasthan's position that its policy does not permit any relaxation to persons with disabilities, is arbitrary and untenable.

2. The Rajasthan Netraheen Seva Sangh - who has approached this Court in two writ petitions and one National Federation Of The Blind, which is petitioner in the third proceeding, submit that interpretation given by the State of Rajasthan is untenable.

3. According to the petitioners, the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Teachers for 1st level and 2nd level, inasmuch as, they do not prescribe any specific relaxation in passing/qualifying marks in the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET), is arbitrary. The petitioners rely upon a ruling of Supreme Court in Vikas Sankhala & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 350. It is pointed out that the State of Rajasthan had, in the past - with respect to same post - in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013, granted relaxation to the tune of 20% marks in passing/qualifying marks in REET Examination held for those years. Therefore, it is submitted that the State cannot now turn around and contend that such policy of relaxation does not exist and cannot be now directed by the court.

4. The State in its response urged in the counter affidavit that the policy of relaxation - i.e. granting 20% marks in the qualifying REET Examination, was confined to the two years i.e. 2011 - 2012. Its argument in short is that there is no general relaxation policy and that in the past, having regard to the peculiar circumstances, relaxation was given on year by year basis.

5. In Vikas Sankhala (supra), this issue engaged the attention of the Supreme Court, which inter alia had occasion to deal with Clause 9(c) of the Notification issued by the State of Rajasthan on 11.2.2011.

6. We notice, at the outset, that the same Clause 9 is also subject matter of the present controversy. The Supreme Court held, as follows:-

"60. In fact, it hardly needs to be emphasised that the Government may prescribe relaxed standards for such reserved categories, as it is in conformity with the spirit of the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 read with Articles 38, 39(a) and 46 of the Constitution, which are enabling provisions permitting the State to make special provisions and provide relaxed standards for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes.

61. Keeping in mind the aforesaid ethos of the Constitution, we proceed to interpret Clause 9(a) of the Notification dated 11-2-2011 which permits concessions to be given to certain clauses "in accordance with their extant reservation policy". The question here is as to whether it was necessary that there had to be an "existing" policy before the State Government issued its letter dated 23-3-2011 or laying down of such a policy in communication dated 23-3-2011 itself, may be for the first time, would fulfill the requirement of "extant policy". We do not find any condition in Clause 9(a) for "pre-existing" reservation policy. On the contrary, the provision only mentions that if there is a reservation policy providing concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently-abled persons, etc., concessions can be given in accordance with the said policy. Even if there was no such policy in existence as on the date when NCTE issued the Guidelines dated 11-2-2011, it would not mean that the State Governments are precluded from formulating such reservation policy even thereafter. Para 9(a) uses the expression "extant" reservation policy and not "pre-existing" reservation policy. Mr. Mata, learned Senior Advocate is right in submitting that a holistic reading of Para 9 of the Guidelines would mean that at the time of recruitment process, the school managements were being given liberty to consider and provide for concessions to reserved category candidates in TET qualify