IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that qualifications recognized by the RCI and NCTE must be honored in recruitment processes for special education teachers, as per the Supreme Court's directives.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. Petitioners before this court seek appropriate directions commanding the respondents to consider them eligible for competing/appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III, Level-2 (Special Education) by recognizing their Diploma in Special Education with degree, being in consonance with the minimum qualifications as prescribed pursuant to advertisement dated 16.12.2022 (Annex-3).

2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts are as follows:

2.1 An advertisement dated 16.12.2022 was issued by the respondent department for the recruitment of Teacher Grade-III, Level-2 (Special Education). The petitioners hold a degree in graduation with a diploma in education (special education) and they claim that that Pupil Teacher (Special Education Tencher) Ratio for Regular (Inclusivethey meet the eligibility criteria as per the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) for appointment as Teacher Grade III level 2, therefore, they are eligible as per the guidelines issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) and the notification issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). However, the qualification prescribed in the advertisement renders them ineligible.

2.2 The NCTE also provided information vide its communication dated 29.12.2017 admitting the equivalency of a diploma in special education with a two-year diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed), which shows that a diploma in special education is equivalent to the diploma in elementary education, subject to undergoing an NCTE-recognized six-month special program in elementary education after appointment.

2.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court has also directed all the States/UTs, etc., to accept the recommendations made by the RCI, and such recommendations are to be treated as directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the recommendation of RCI, the petitioners are thus eligible for appointment as Teacher Grade-III Level 2.

2.4 Consequently, the petitioners were/are eligible to participate in the selection process of Teacher Grade-III Level 2. Hence, they were permitted to participate in earlier selection processes like 2016, 2018 & 2021. Furthermore, the petitioners also rely on the advertisement dated 31.12.2021, in which the same qualification was prescribed as in the present advertisement dated 16.12.2022.

2.5 In pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.12.2021, the respondent had provided a portal to fill the qualification of “diploma in elementary education (special education)” for Level-2 teachers. However, in the present selection process, the respondents did not provide such a portal. Being aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the petitioners approached them and raised their grievances, but no action was taken by the respondents. Hence the petitioners filed the instant writ petition.

3. Defense taken in the reply is that the facts in the instant writ petition are not same as in the case of those with whom they seek parity. Petitioners belong to different Special Education categories like Mental Retardation and Hearing Impairment, etc. The issue raised in the instant writ petition is no more res integra and the same was put to rest vide judgment rendered in Sarita Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 20022/2012). Recently again the issue came up before this Court in the case of Usha Kumari (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 149/2022). Hence, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed in the light of judgments in aforesaid two matters.

4. In the above backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsels and perused the case file.

5. In fact, at the very outset, what is being agitated by the petitioners herein does not require any further adjudication on the merits thereof or giving any opinion on the rival claims in view of the clear directions already issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in pending Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 vide its order dated 10.06.2022. Relevant thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Our at