S.N. Jha, C.J.
1. The dispute in this group of writ petitions being the same they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. It may be stated at the out set that the petitions were allowed earlier on 25.11.2004 vide judgment reported in 2005(1) RLR 474. On application of the State, however, vide order dated 1.6.2005 the judgment was recalled in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 449/2005 (def) and analogous, and the petitions were restored for hearing on merits. That is how the petitions came up for hearing.
3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5504/2004 was argued as the representative case and facts of the case, therefore, have been noticed from the record of that case.
4. The dispute relates to appointment of B.Ed. Teachers on the post of Teacher Grade HI in upper primary schools in the State of Rajasthan.
5. Before stating the case of the petitioners it would be appropriate to briefly notice the scheme of recruitment of teachers in primary schools in the State of Rajasthan. The service conditions of teachers including recruitment in primary schools in the rural areas were earlier governed by the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 framed thereunder. The teachers in the primary schools situate in urban areas had a different cadre. The Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 was replaced by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Section 89 of the said Act provides for constitution of the State service called the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service. The service originally comprised of, amongst others, primary school teachers mentioned in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 89. By Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act 9 of 2000), among other amendments, Clause (iii) was amended substituting 'primary and upper primary schools' in place of 'primary schools'. Thus, the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service now comprises of, among other categories, primary and upper primary school teachers. Sub-section (1) of Section 89 was amended by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2004 (Act 8 of 2004) by inserting a proviso providing for selection for the post specified in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (2) i.e., the post of primary and upper primary school teachers at the State level in place of district level as originally provided in Sub-section (1). A new Sub-section (6A) was also inserted providing for appointment of primary and upper primary school teachers by direct recruitment by the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be, in accordance with the rules made in that behalf by the State Government from out of the persons selected for the post by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in accordance with the rules made by the State Government in that behalf. By virtue of these amendments Section 89, as it now stands, reads as under:
89. Constitution of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service.-There shall be constituted for the State service designated as the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service and hereafter in this section referred to as the service and recruitment thereto shall be made district-wise.
Provided that the selection for the post specified in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (2) shall be made at the State level.
(2) The service may be divided into different categories, each category being divided into different grades, and shall consist of-
(i) ...
(ii) ...
(iii) primary and upper primary school teachers
(iv) ...
(3) ...
(4) ...
(5) ...
(6) ...
(6A) Appointment by direct recruitment on the posts specified in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (2) shall be made by Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be, in accordance with the rules made in this behalf by the State Government, from out of the persons selected for the posts by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in accordance with the rules made by the State Government in this behalf.
Provided that in case of the posts reserved for widows and divorcee women, selection shall be made in such manner and by such Screening Committee as may be prescribed by the State Government;
6. It would not be out of place to mention here that these amendments were made in the light of challenge to the direct recruitment undertaken by the State Government which had come in under challenge in this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rugha Ram v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4583/2003. The petition was disposed of on the statement of the Advocate General to the effect that the entire process of selection on the post of teacher grade III would be reviewed. This led to promulgation of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 on 28.2.2004 later replaced by Rajasthan Act No. 8. of 2004, referred to above.
7. Section 90 of the Panchayati Raj Act was also suitably amended but it may not be necessary to notice those amendments for disposal of these writ petitions.
8. On 28.2.2004 the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 was also correspondingly amended. Among other amendments, Rule 266 which provides for the educational qualification for recruitment on various posts was amended adding the qualification of B.Ed. as an alternate qualification of BSTC - as originally provided. The rule as amended, so far as relevant, runs as under:
266. Academic qualifications.-A recruit must possess minimum qualification as under:-(1)(2)(3) Primary School (i) Senior Secondary under new (10 + 2)Teacher (100% by direct scheme or Higher Secondary under old recruitment) scheme from Rajasthan Board ofSecondary Education or equivalent and Secondary School Certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with 5 subjects, 3 of them shall be Mathematics, English and Hindi.(ii) B.S.T.C./B.Ed.Provided that for appointment of widow and divorce woman on the posts of teacher, required qualification of BSTC/ B.Ed. Shall be relaxed, if they are competent otherwise and they submit a bond to the effect that they will obtain thequalification of B.S.T.C./B.Ed. within a period of three years. They shall be entitled to receive leave for study to getB.S.T.C./B.Ed. qualification soon after their appointment.
9. Insertion/prescription of B.Ed. as a qualification for recruitment in primary schools, among other things, has given rise to the controversy which is subject matter of these writ petitions.
10. At this stage it may be mentioned that the aforesaid amendments in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 were challenged in a number of writ petitions which were dismissed by a Division Bench vide judgment titled Richhpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan on 4.1.2005 reported 2005(1) WLC 548. Special Leave Petitions being SLP (Civil) No. 3535-3542/2005 preferred against the said judgment were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.2.2005.
11. In the meantime in the light of the aforesaid amendments and the observations/directions of the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Rugha Ram (supra) dated 28.2.2004, referred to above, 'that the respondents will now proceed as per the amendments made in the rules vide notification dated 28.2.2004 and the requisitions may be sent to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission at the earliest so that the recruitment withheld for a long time may take place at the earliest', on 2.6.2004 25, 172 posts of Teacher Gr. III were advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. On 31.5.2004 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3689/2004 Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan was filed in this Court challenging the amendments in Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules and a conditional order was passed on 2.6.2004 to the effect that process of selection shall continue subject to the decision of the writ petition but appointments shall not be made. Accordingly, on 12.9.2004 written examination for recruitment was held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Meanwhile, other writ petitions were also filed in which similar interim orders as in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) were passed.
12. The writ petitions were allowed by the Division Bench on 25.11.2004. It was held that B.Ed. qualification was different from BSTC qualification and, therefore, Rule 266 making the B.Ed. qualification holders eligible for recruitment at par with BSTC was wholly arbitrary and unjustified. The rule was accordingly struck down to that extent. The Court however clarified that striking down of the amended portion of Rule 266 shall not debar the respondent authorities from determining vacancies of primary and upper primary school teachers and making selection of primary school teachers in accordance with their eligibility as provided in Rule 266 prior to its amendment.
13. It is relevant to mention here that the petitions were allowed in absence of the reply of the State. The State later filed petitions seeking review of the judgment, inter alia, on the ground that one of the premises on which the judgment was founded was that Rule 266 had been amended without corresponding amendment in Sub-section (2) of Section 89 but the fact was that Sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act had also undergone amendment. The Division Bench vide order dated 1.6.2005 took the view that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and accordingly recalled the judgment and restored the writ petitions for hearing on merits as mentioned at the outset.
14. It may not be out of place to mention here that against the said order dated 1.6.2005 of the Division Bench, Special Leave Petition being SLP (Civil) No. 13330/2005 was filed in the Supreme Court by one Bhagwan Sahai and others which was disposed of on 21.7.2005 with observation that the High Court may dispose of the writ petitions as soon as it is conveniently possible. The petitions were accordingly taken up for hearing on 2.1.2006.
15. The case of the petitioners so far as relevant is that the NCTE has framed regulations titled the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') laying down the minimum qualifications for recruitment of teachers in all formal schools established, run or aided or recognised by Central or State Government and other authorities for imparting education at elementary (primary and upper primary/middle school), secondary and senior secondary stage. As per the qualifications mentioned in the First Schedule appended to the said Regulations, apart from basic academic qualification of senior secondary school certificate or intermediate or its equivalent, those having the professional qualification of diploma or certificate in Basic Teachers' Training of a duration of not less than two years or Bachelor of Elementary Education alone are eligible for recruitment in primary schools. The scheme of training/education imparted in basic teachers' training course (BSTC) in different from the training/education imparted for Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) course and, therefore, the B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a substitute or a higher qualification for the purpose of eligibility for recruitment in primary schools. According to the petitioners the point is not res integra in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT Delhi : [2003]2SCR662 , P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala : [2003]2SCR653 and Dilip Kumar Ghosh v. Chairman : AIR2005SC3485 amongst other cases. The petitioners have brought on record the syllabi of the BSTC and B.Ed. Courses to highlight that the nature of BSTC training/course being entirely different, juxtaposed with B.Ed. course, only those possessing BSTC qualification can be eligible for recruitment on the post of teachers in primary schools.
16. The case of the State is that both B.Ed. and BSTC courses are aimed at imparting training to the prospective teachers. The courses of studies for both of them are moulded in such a way as to maximise training aspect possessed of educational background. If BSTC syllabus has been prepared in such a way that one single teacher is able to teach all subjects of a particular class, the B.Ed. Syllabus is also prepared in the same manner. Merely because syllabus for B.Ed. course contemplates specialisation in two subjects it does not mean that the person cannot teach other subjects. The fact is that syllabus for the B.Ed. course includes rigorous training of other subjects such as Indian Society Development, Democratic Social Order, Application of Psychology, Educational Psychology, Management problems of education, Core programme for prospective teacher etc.-which are compulsory in nature. Merely because BSTC course has duration of two years it does not mean that it is a separate class by itself, and whatever is taught in the BSTC course in two years is taught in B.Ed. course in one year at the same and higher level. The decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, referred to above, are sought to be distinguished on the ground that in those cases, B.Ed, was not a prescribed qualification in the recruitment rules unlike the present case where B.Ed has been included and brought at par as an alternate qualification of BSTC for the purpose of eligibility for recruitment.
17. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT Delhi : [2003]2SCR662 (supra), P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala : [2003]2SCR653 (supra) and Dilip Kumar Ghosh v. Chairman : AIR2005SC3485 (supra), it is well settled that B.Ed qualification cannot be treated at par with BSTC qualification for recruitment of teachers at primary school level. It is true that the NCTE Regulations provides for 'minimum qualifications' and at the first instance it does appear that a higher qualification cannot be regarded as disqualification for recruitment but considering the nature of training imparted in the BSTC course the conclusion is irresistible that only BSTC trained teachers can be appointed and they alone can impart better education to students of tender age at the primary level of education. As observed in Dilip Kumar Ghosh case (supra).
In the case of junior basic training and primary teachers training certificate the emphasis is on the development of child. The primary education is upto IV standard. Thereafter there is middle education and then the secondary and higher secondary education. But in the primary school one has to study the psychology and development of child at tender age. The person who is trained in B.Ed. Degree may not necessarily be equipped to teach a student of primary class because he is not equipped to understand psychology of a child at that early stage.
To accept a proposition that a candidate who holds a B.Ed Degree, that is, higher degree cannot be deprived appointment to the post of primary school teacher would negate the aims and objects of the rules for the purpose for which it is framed.
18. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents tried to wriggle out of the situation submitting that the impugned appointments have been made for upper primary schools and not primary schools; in the upper primary schools teaching is imparted from class I to VII, and as would appear from the Schedule of the Regulations, graduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent is one of the alternate qualifications for appointment of teachers in upper primary schools. Learned Advocate General submitted that the State Government is competent to fix the qualification and also lay down the manner of recruitment. The amendments made in the Panchayati Raj Act and the Panchayati Raj Rules permit composite selection for upper primary schools from amongst candidates possessing BSTC or B.Ed. Qualification. The advertisement was issued accordingly. The amendments having been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned selection/appointments do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
19. Shri Manish Bhandari appearing for the selected candidates made an alternative argument. He submitted that even if it is held that B.Ed. teachers can not be appointed in primary schools or primary section of the upper primary schools, in terms of Regulation 4 of the Regulations, recruitment could be made within three years from coming into force of the Regulations in accordance with the existing recruitment rules without adhering to the qualifications fixed by the Regulations, and as the recruitment process commenced on 2.6.2004 i.e., within three years of the coming into force of the Regulations on publication in the official gazette on 3.9.2001, the selections/appointments are not contrary to the Regulations. Thus even if the Court were to hold otherwise, on merit of the B.Ed. qualification for the purpose of appointment in primary/primary section of upper primary schools, the selection process does not warrant any interference by this Court.
20. We will first consider the submission of the learned Advocate General. It is true that by amendment in Section 89(2)(iii) of the Panchayati Raj Act the primary and upper primary schools were clubbed as one category and similarly by amendment in Rule 266 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, B.Ed was brought at par with BSTC as the requisite qualification for appointment in the upper primary schools. However, upper primary school comprises of two sections-primary section consisting of classes 1 to V and middle section consisting of classes VI to VIII. It is called upper primary school, because besides the primary level, classes VI to VIII are there in the school. But though by upgrading the school-adding classes VI to VIII, it may become upper primary school, primary section of the school does not lose its character, at least not for the purpose of recruitment of teachers. If B.Ed teachers are not eligible to teach students at the primary level they can not be appointed on the specious ground that it is an upper primary school, that would be circumventing the prohibition in his appointment for primary school. If he cannot properly teach the students at the primary level-whether the school is a primary school or an upper primary school, he cannot be held to be eligible for appointment in an upper primary school unless the vacancies - depending on requirement at the primary level and middle level - are identified and appointments are made against them strictly against the vacancies meant for the middle section of the upper primary schools. This is what this Court held in its judgment dated 25.11.2004 and what follows from the Schedule, which may at this stage be quoted as follows:
Recruitment qualifications for recruitment of teachers in educational institutions mentioned in Section 2 of the Regulations.I. Elementary (i) Senior Secondary School certificate or(a) Primary Intermediate or its equivalent; and(ii) Diploma or certificate in basic teachers'training of a duration of not less than two yearsORBachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)(b) Upper (i) Senior Secondary School certificate or Primary (Middle Intermediate or its equivalent; and school section) (ii) Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers training of a duration of not less than two years. ORBachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed) ORGraduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or itsequivalent.II. Secondary Graduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its /High School equivalent.Four years' integrated B.Sc. B.Ed or an equivalent course.III. Senior Master's Degree in the relevant subject with Secondary/ Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent PUC/ ORIntermediate Two years' integrated M.Sc.Ed. Course or anequivalent course.
From a bare glance it would appear that the minimum academic and professional qualifications as mentioned in second column are referable to the level of education or school. The elementary level of education, as is well known and also recognised by the NCTE, comprises of two levels-primary and upper primary. While at the primary level teaching is imparted from classes I to V, at the upper primary level or middle level, teaching is imparted from classes VI to VIII. But though in the upper primary school teaching may be imparted at the lower level i.e., from classes I to V also, it does not mean that the distinction between primary and upper primary levels disappears. It is clear from the fact that while describing the level of education/school the upper primary level is described as 'middle school section' in the Regulations. The use of the word 'section' leaves no room for doubt that though it is a part of same (elementary) level or school, it continues to have a separate entity. We are, therefore, inclined to think that even though primary and upper primary schools have been treated as one class in Section 89(2)(iii) of the Panchayati Raj Act, for the purpose of eligibility for appointment of teachers, B.Ed cannot be treated at par with BSTC notwithstanding that it is shown as alternate qualification in Rule 266 of the Panchayati Raj Rules.
21. Learned Advocate General submitted that the decisions in Yogesh Kumar, P.M. Latha and Dilip Kumar Ghosh (supra) were rendered in the context of rules which did not provide for B.ed. as requisite qualification for appointment in primary schools, whereas in the State of Rajasthan, B.Ed. has been prescribed as requisite qualification, and, therefore, ratio of the said decisions is not applicable in these cases. Learned Advocate General also referred to the observations (in para 8 of the judgment in Yogesh Kumar and para 10 of the judgment in P.M. Latha) to the effect that fixing of qualification is a matter of recruitment policy and it is for the authorities to consider whether B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed as qualification for appointment of primary school teachers. Heavy reliance was placed on these observations and they may usefully be quoted as under:
Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Whether for a particular post the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for post of primary teachers as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed. Qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. Candidates for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible.
Indeed, the above observations were noticed in Dilip Kumar Ghosh also with approval.
22. The abservations-as would appear from the discussions a little hereinafter-do lend support to the case of the respondents in a different context and for a different reason but on that basis the prescription of B.Ed. as the requisite qualification for appointment in primary/primary section of upper primary schools cannot be held. The decisions were rendered prior to coming into force of the Regulations and there was no occasion to consider whether it is open to the State to fix any qualification contrary to the norms laid down by the NCTE. We may deal with this aspect at this stage.
23. The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 under which the NCTE has been established has been enacted with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. Under Section 12 of the Act, it is the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and the determination and maintenance of standards of teacher education, and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act the Council may, among other things-vide Clause (d) 'lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions'. Section 32 of the Act confers powers upon the Council to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of the Act and in particular to provide for - vide Clause (d)(i) of Sub-section (2)-'the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher under Clause (d) of Section 12'.
24. On a conjoint reading of the above provisions it is manifest that the Council is competent to fix minimum qualifications for employment as a teacher in educational institutions covered under the NCTE Act. Reference may be made to Union of India and Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College : [2002]SUPP3SCR220 wherein the status of the Council as an expert body whose function is to maintain standard of education in relation to teachers' education was upheld, and Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. : AIR2005SC2540 wherein the decision of the Allahabad High Court holding that Special Basic Teachers' Certificate training course is not the requisite qualification as it is not recognised by the NCET Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, was upheld by the Supreme Court.
25. The binding nature of the NCTE Regulations cannot be doubted. After the 42nd Amendment in the Constitution the power to legislate on professional and technical institutions and determination of standards of education therein can be traced to entries 65 and 66 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution (See the decision in Union of India v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College : [2002]SUPP3SCR220 (supra)). By the 42nd amendment, the subject of 'education including universities' which figured at Entry 11 in List II was deleted and substituted as Entry 25 in List III but subject to the provisions of Entries, 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. By virtue of re-allocation of power the State also have power to legislate on education, regulate the establishments and maintenance of educational institutions but in exercise of the power can not make rule contrary to standards prescribed under the Central legislation. The following observations in Union of India v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers' College are apposite-
the NCTE is an expert body created under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the Parliament has imposed upon such expert body the duty to maintain the standards of education particularly, in relation to the teachers education.
The NCTE established under an Act of Parliament enacted in terms of Entries 65 and 66 of List 1 having fixed the norms and qualification, it is not open to the State Government to fix any qualification contrary to those laid down by the NCTE. Indeed, as provided in regulation 4 of the Regulations, the States are supposed to modify/frame recruitment rules in conformity with the qualifications prescribed in the schedule. Regulation 4 runs as under:
The existing recruitment rules may be modified within a period of three years so as to bring them in conformity with the qualifications prescribed in the Schedules. Meanwhile, teachers appointed as per the existing recruitment qualifications, subsequent to the issue of these Regulations, will be required to acquire qualifications as prescribed in the Schedule.
We have therefore, no doubt in our mind that the qualifications fixed by the State under Rule 266 of the Panchayati Raj Rules cannot govern appointment of teachers in primary/primary section of upper primary schools teachers to the extent it is contrary to the Regulations of the NCTE and the observations relied upon by the learned Advocate General led no support to his argument.
26. We however, find sufficient force in the submissions that notwithstanding the fact that B.Ed. cannot be treated as the prescribed qualification for appointment in primary section of upper primary schools, the impugned selections and appointments are saved by the Regulations. Regulation 4 contemplates framing of recruitment rules in conformity with the qualifications prescribed in the schedules. At the same time it also allows the States time to modify the existing recruitment rules within a period of three years. In other words, the existing recruitment rules would continue to hold the field for three years from the date of coming into force of the regulations. It means that recruitment can be or could be made within this period in accordance with the existing recruitment rules. That recruitment can be made despite coming into force of the Regulations, in accordance with the existing recruitment rules, becomes further evident from the words 'subsequent to the issue of these regulations' occurring in the latter part of regulation 4. Thus on a close reading of Regulation 4 we have no doubt that notwithstanding coming into force of the Regulations, the recruitment could be made in the schools in accordance with the existing recruitment rules within a period of three years. The regulations came into force on their publication in the official gazette on or about 3.9.2001. The process of recruitment having commenced on 2.6.2004 i.e., well within three years, therefore, cannot be invalidated on the ground of B.Ed. not being the valid qualification for recruitment in the primary schools or primary section of the upper primary schools. The impugned selections and appointments being otherwise in accordance with the recruitment rules contained in Rule 266 of the Panchayati Raj Rules read with Section 89 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the observations of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Advocate General, quoted hereinabove, would seem to lend support to the respondents' case to that extent.
27. In course of hearing it transpired that reference is proposed to be made to the NCTE to relax the qualification in view of paucity of BSTC pass candidates for appointment in the primary schools or primary section of upper primary schools in the State. It was stated that on similar reference made by the Government of Uttar Pradesh the NCTE has relaxed the qualification. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that the fact that the Government itself proposes to make reference and seek relaxation of qualification shows that even according to the State B.Ed. teachers are not eligible for appointment in primary schools or primary section of upper primary schools. In view of our conclusion that the impugned selections/appointments are saved by Regulation 4 it is not necessary to make any comment. The period of three years envisaged in Regulation 4 has since came to an end that it goes without saying that the State Government is required to modify/frame its recruitment rules in conformity with the qualifications prescribed in the schedules and make selections/appointments in accordance with them subject of course to relaxation by the NCTE in future in terms of Regulation 5 of the Regulations.
28. In the result, we are satisfied that no case is made out for interference with the impugned selection/appointments of primary school teachers. The petitions are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.