JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. These Contempt Petitions inter alia seek enforcement of interim orders dated 17.12.2014, 25.2.2015 and 7.12.2015 and the judgment and final order dated 25.7.2017, (2018) 12 SCC 595 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 and other connected matters.

2. The facts leading to the filling of aforesaid Civil Appeals were set out in the judgment and final order dated 25.07.2017 as under: -

“4. In the wake of Eighty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of India inserting Article 21A for providing free and compulsory education to children of age of 6 to 14 years, the RTE Act was enacted. The RTE Act inter alia lays down qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, issued Notification dated 31^st March, 2010 authorising the NCTE as the “academic authority” to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The NCTE thereafter issued Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 laying down qualifications for appointment of teachers for elementary education. The NCTE also issued guidelines dated 11^th February, 2011 for conduct of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and also providing for weightage to the marks in the said test for recruitment of teachers. The 1981 Rules of the State were amended on 9^th November, 2011 (the 12^th Amendment) to bring the same in consonance with the Notifications dated 23^rd August, 2010 and 11^th February, 2011. Accordingly, the TET was held on 13^th November, 2011 and result thereof was declared on 25th November, 2011. Thereafter on 30^th November, 2011, an advertisement was issued for appointment of ‘trainee teachers’ in primary schools. The candidates submitted their applications. However, the said advertisement was cancelled and a fresh advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 was issued which came to be challenged and has been set aside by the impugned judgment. The justification given by the State of Uttar Pradesh for such cancellation is that the result of TET was influenced by the money consideration. On 31^st December, 2011 the amount of several lacs was seized with lists of candidates. FIR No. 675 of 2011 was lodged. Residence of Director of Secondary Education was also searched leading to recovery of certain lists and cash. The State constituted a high powered committee headed by the Chief Secretary on 10^th April, 2012 which gave its report dated 1^st May, 2012. It was recommended that candidates found involved in any irregularity/criminal activity in the TET examination be prohibited from the selection. The State Government took a decision dated 26^th July, 2012 which was followed by 15^th Amendment to the 1981 rules on 31^st August, 2012 to the effect that instead of giving weightage to the TET marks as per 12^th Amendment, the criteria of ‘quality point marks’ as prevalent prior to 12^th Amendment was adopted. This amendment was challenged on the ground that it rendered the rules inconsistent with the NCTE guidelines referred to above.

5 . Writ petitions were filed by the affected candidates against the cancellation of advertisement dated 30^th November, 2011 and the new advertisement dated 7^th December, 2012 incorporating the criteria by way of 15^th Amendment to the Rules which was at variance with the guidelines of the NCTE dated 11^th February, 2011, supra to the extent that weightage for marks in TET was not contemplated.

6 . The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions vide order dated 16^th January, 2013., WP No.39674 of 2012 Akhilesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Appeal against the said judgment has been allowed by the Division Bench by the impugned order. The Division Bench inter alia followed the judgment dated 31^st May, 2013 by three Judges (Full Bench) in Shiv Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and ors., 2013 (6) ADJ 310 The High Court held that the decision dated 26^th July, 2012 of the State