1. Writ petitions raising eligibility for teacher appointment with B.Ed General and Diploma in Special Education, covered by prior Division Bench judgment. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 627
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Anil Singh Son Of Shri Jay Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10871 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11516 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11718 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14245 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14901 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15532 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16185 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16272 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16344 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16601 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16643 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16777 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17170 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17341 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17385 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17386 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17454 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17535 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17795 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17981 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18838 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19350 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 441 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2026
Important Points
For Level-II teacher appointments, candidates must possess either a B.Ed in Special Education or a B.Ed in General Education combined with a Diploma in Special Education. Additionally, a Single Bench is legally barred from reviewing a judgment passed by a Division Bench.
Subject
Service Law - Public Employment
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Appointment of Teachers - Qualifications for Level-II (Middle Stage Class 6 to 8) - For appointment to Level-II, a candidate must possess a B.Ed qualification, whether in General Education or Special Education. A candidate possessing a B.Ed in General Education along with a recognized Diploma or Certificate Course in Special Education is considered sufficiently qualified for appointment. However, a graduate who possesses a Diploma in Special Education but lacks a B.Ed qualification is not eligible for appointment at Level-II. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Single Bench vs. Division Bench - A Writ Court sitting as a Single Bench does not have the jurisdiction to review or vary a judgment passed by a Division Bench of the same court. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed by candidates seeking appointment to Level-II teacher positions for middle school (Classes 6 to 8). The petitioners challenged the interpretation of eligibility criteria, specifically regarding the sufficiency of a Diploma in Special Education for graduates and the combination of B.Ed in General Education with a Diploma in Special Education.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issues involved in the petitions were squarely covered by a prior judgment of a Division Bench. The Division Bench had concluded that B.Ed in General combined with a Diploma in Special Education is a sufficient qualification, but a Diploma in Special Education alone (without B.Ed) is not sufficient for a graduate to be eligible for Level-II.
Issues: Whether a candidate possessing B.Ed in General along with a Diploma in Special Education is eligible for appointment as a Level-II teacher, and whether a Single Bench can review the interpretation of circulars as decided by a Division Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the qualification for Level-II teachers requires either a B.Ed in Special Education or a B.Ed in General Education paired with a recognized Diploma or Certificate in Special Education. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the judgment of a Division Bench is binding on a Single Bench, and the latter cannot review it.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of accordingly in light of the judgment of the Division Bench.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Single Bench vs. Division Bench - A Writ Court sitting as a Single Bench does not have the jurisdiction to review or vary a judgment passed by a Division Bench of the same court. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed by candidates seeking appointment to Level-II teacher positions for middle school (Classes 6 to 8). The petitioners challenged the interpretation of eligibility criteria, specifically regarding the sufficiency of a Diploma in Special Education for graduates and the combination of B.Ed in General Education with a Diploma in Special Education.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issues involved in the petitions were squarely covered by a prior judgment of a Division Bench. The Division Bench had concluded that B.Ed in General combined with a Diploma in Special Education is a sufficient qualification, but a Diploma in Special Education alone (without B.Ed) is not sufficient for a graduate to be eligible for Level-II.
Issues: Whether a candidate possessing B.Ed in General along with a Diploma in Special Education is eligible for appointment as a Level-II teacher, and whether a Single Bench can review the interpretation of circulars as decided by a Division Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the qualification for Level-II teachers requires either a B.Ed in Special Education or a B.Ed in General Education paired with a recognized Diploma or Certificate in Special Education. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the judgment of a Division Bench is binding on a Single Bench, and the latter cannot review it.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of accordingly in light of the judgment of the Division Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. Amitesh Rana Mr. Aamir Khan for Mr. Ankit Agarwal
For the Respondent: Mr. Narendra Singh Chaudhary, Mr. Manish Bhardwaj for Mr. Nalin G. Narain Mr. Ajay Khedar with Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC Mr. Surendar Meel with Ms. Manisha Yogi Mr. Ashish Kumar for Ms. Manjeet Kaur Mr. Amit Lubhaya with Mr. Shreyash Jain Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda with Mr. Anshu Kanwar Mr. Yuvraj Samant Ms. Aditi Chorasiya Mr. Nikhil Pal Singh Mr. Hamir Singh Shekhawat with Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG Mr. Manoj Sharma Ms. Pooja Sharma Mr. Stuti Dave for Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG
For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. Amitesh Rana Mr. Aamir Khan for Mr. Ankit Agarwal
For the Respondent: Mr. Narendra Singh Chaudhary, Mr. Manish Bhardwaj for Mr. Nalin G. Narain Mr. Ajay Khedar with Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC Mr. Surendar Meel with Ms. Manisha Yogi Mr. Ashish Kumar for Ms. Manjeet Kaur Mr. Amit Lubhaya with Mr. Shreyash Jain Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda with Mr. Anshu Kanwar Mr. Yuvraj Samant Ms. Aditi Chorasiya Mr. Nikhil Pal Singh Mr. Hamir Singh Shekhawat with Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG Mr. Manoj Sharma Ms. Pooja Sharma Mr. Stuti Dave for Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contended Division Bench wrongly interpreted RCI circular; State agreed issue covered by prior judgment. (Para 2 )
3. Single Bench cannot review Division Bench judgment; qualifications require B.Ed General or Special, with Diploma in Special Education as alternative. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. For teacher appointment, B.Ed General with Diploma in Special Education suffices; D.Ed Special Education alone insufficient. (Para 1 )
5. Writ petitions disposed of in light of Division Bench judgment; pending applications disposed; copy placed on each record. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. Is a candidate with B.Ed in General Education and Diploma in Special Education eligible for teacher appointment?
Yes, per Division Bench, such qualification is sufficient and candidates must be considered according to merit. (Para 1 )
7. Can a Single Bench review a Division Bench judgment?
No, a Single Bench cannot review or reinterpret a Division Bench judgment; it is bound by it. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in these writ petitions are squarely covered by judgment dated 28.11.2025 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 214/2025 wherein, following directions have been given as under:
"8. We are, however, not in agreement with the submissions raised by the learned Senior Counsel that even a graduate who has not done B.Ed in General Education, but has done Diploma in Special Education would be eligible for appointment as Level- II. The correct interpretation of the letter issued by the RCI to the State Government dated 26.07.2024 has to be read in consonance with the earlier letter dated 10.06.2022 issued by the RCI as quoted in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge wherein, it has been clearly specified that for the middle stage Class 6 to 8 teachers, the qualifications would be as under:
9. Thus, what is necessary is that a person must possess a B.Ed qualification whether General or Special Education, if he posses B.Ed in Special Education, he need not further have any other requirement, however, he may be B.Ed in General plus he has recognized qualification namely Diploma or Certificate Course in Special Education for the purpose. The letter also reiterates the same, it only it reiterates that the candidate who possesses a Diploma in Education (Special Education B.Ed) would be also eligible for consideration for appointment. It does not in any manner say that the other qualifications would not be looked into. Thus, apart from D.Ed Special Education, the State would also examined whether the candidate possess B.Ed in General or not apart from being graduate.
10. We therefore, conclude that the Sate Government shall now consider all the candidates who have applied for the post who possess B.Ed in General along with Diploma in Special Education as a sufficient qualification for appointment, all such candidates would be considered according to their merit, and be given appointment as soon as possible, preferably, the exercise may be done within a period of two months henceforth.
11. In accordance with the litigation policy, we would advise the State Government to apply this judgment to all the candidates who have applied in stead of forcing them to come for further litigation before this Court, therefore, this judgment shall be applied to all the candidates.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the appeals stand disposed of accordingly."
2. Shri Sandeep Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10871/2015, although accepted the fact that the Division Bench has decided the issue vide judgment dated 28.11.2025, yet contended that the relevant circular has wrongly been interpreted by the Division Bench. In this regard, it is sufficient to observe that the Writ Courts sitting in Single Bench cannot review the judgment passed by the Division Bench.
3. In view of above consensus between learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of accordingly in light of the above judgment of the Division Bench.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
5. A copy of this order be placed on record of each writ petition.
