JUDGMENT :

1. These petitions arise out of common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitions can be divided into two groups. Civil Writ Petition No. 6587/2021 filed by Mukesh Kumar Royal and others and connected petitions call in question the vires of the notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE', for short), by which the B.Ed. degree holders, subject to certain conditions, are made eligible for appointment to the post of primary school teacher grade-III (level-1) (classes-I to V), along with other qualifications already prescribed under its notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended from time to time. The writ petition No. 2108/2021 filed by Sunita and other connected petitions are filed by the B.Ed. degree holders. They support the notification dated 28.06.2018 and have challenged the advertisement issued by the Board of Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan inviting applications for Rajasthan Eligibility Entrance Test ('REET', for short) (level-1) in which the B.Ed. degree holders are excluded.

3. In brief, the controversy revolves around the question whether the NCTE had correctly and legally included B.Ed. as essential qualification for eligibility for appointment to the post of primary school teacher (level-I). The petitioner Mukesh Kumar Royal and others were qualified as per the unamended notification. They possess the basic educational qualification (Higher Secondary Examination pass) and the certificate of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) pass. They argue that B.Ed. course per se cannot be stated to be a higher qualification. According to them even the Ministry of HRD and NCTE have viewed the situation in this manner. It is, therefore, that while including B.Ed. degree as one of the eligibility criteria, the notification dated 28.06.2018 provides that such a candidate upon appointment shall have to pass a bridge course of six months within two years of the appointment. Counter petitioners Sunita and others contend that this amendment is proper and legal and the state government had no authority to ignore this additional qualification prescribed by NCTE while declaring the REET. It is a common ground that REET result is the source for appointment for the primary teachers in the State.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may note in brief the factual background as well as the statutory framework. Article 21A was inserted in the Constitution by Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 with effect from 01.04.2010 which provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. Long before the amendment of the Constitution and insertion of Article 21A, the right to primary education was recognized as a fundamental right being part of Article 21 by the Supreme court in the cases of Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka [(1992) 3 SCC 666] and in the case of Unni Krishnan J.P. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1993) 1 SCC 645]. With the insertion of Article 21A, this right was recognized as an independent fundamental right in the Constitution. To operationalise this valuable right, the Parliament framed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ('RTE Act', for short). The term 'school' has been defined in Section 2(n) as to mean any recognized school imparting elementary education and would include the schools established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or a local authority, schools receiving aid and even unaided schools. Clause (g) of Section 8 of the RTE Act, pertaining to duties of appropriate Government, requires that the appropriate Government shall ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and norms specified in the Schedule. Section 18 requires compulsory recognition of all schools. Section 19 of the RTE Act pertains