REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4347-4375 OF 2014

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. …Appellants Versus

SHIV KUMAR PATHAK AND ORS.ETC. ETC. … Respondents

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4376 OF 2014  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9530 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 19087 OF 2017 @ SLP(C)……. CC 10408 OF 2014,  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9704 OF 2017 @ SLP(C)No. 11671 OF 2014

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9705 OF 2017 @ SLP(C)NO. 11673 OF 2014  

W.P.(C)No. 135 OF 2015,    W.P.(C)No. 89 OF 2015,  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9707 OF 2017 @ SLP(C)No. 62 OF 2014

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9708 OF 2017@ SLP(C)No. 1672 OF 2014

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9709 OF 2017@  SLP(C)No. 1674 OF 2014,  

CONT. PETN(C)NOS. 199 OF 2015, 399 OF 2015, 262 OF 2016, 265 OF 2016, 264 OF 2016, 263 OF 2016, 266 OF 2016, 192 OF 2016, 191 OF 2016, 189 OF 2016, 190 OF 2016, 287 OF 2016, 286 OF 2016, 285 OF 2016, 290 OF 2016, 452 OF 2016, 454 OF 2016, 538 OF 2016, 537 OF 2016, 752 OF 2016, 776 OF 2016, 780 OF 2016, 607 OF 2017, 626 OF 2017, 627 OF 2017, 652 OF 2017 AND 651 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4347-4375 OF 2014 AND  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)No. 100 OF 2016

J U D G M E N T ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This batch of cases arises out of judgment of the Allahabad

High Court dated 20th November, 2013 in  Shiv Kumar Pathak 1

and Ors.  v. State of U.P. and ors.1 and involves the question

of validity of decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh in prescribing

qualifications  for  recruitment  of  teachers  at  variance  with  the

guidelines of the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE)

dated 11th February, 2011 under Section 12(d) read with Section

12A  of  the  National  Council  for  Teachers  Education  Act,  1993

(NCTE Act) and Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory  Education  Act,  2009  (RTE  Act)  on  the  ground  of

repugnancy of State law with the Central law on a subject falling

in concurrent list.

2. The  following  questions  for  consideration  were  framed  by

this Court vide its order dated 2nd November, 2015:

a) Whether the NCTE guidelines fixing the minimum qualification are arbitrary and unreasonable?

b) Whether  the  marks  obtained  in  the  TET Examination is the sole criterion for filling up the vacancies?

c) Whether the High Court is justified in declaring [sic quashing]  the  15th Amendment  brought  in  on

1  2013(10) ADJ 121

2

31.08.2012 to the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981?

d) Assuming, the guidelines framed by the NCTE are treated as  intra  vires,  the question will  be what interpretation would be placed by the Court on the concept  of  weightage  as  mentioned  in  the guidelines of the NCTE?

3. It will be appropriate to mention the background facts briefly

for  deciding  the  above  questions.   The  Uttar  Pradesh  Basic

Education Act, 1972 was enacted by the State of Uttar Pradesh to

regulate basic education.  The Act sets up a Board which is to

organize, coordinate and control the imparting of basic education

and teachers’ training.  The State of Uttar Pradesh framed 1981

Rules under the Act to deal with the appointment of teachers.     

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.

3

The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section

23  of  the  Act,  issued  Notification  dated  31st 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  11th 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  9th November,  2011  (the  12th

Amendment)  to  bring  the  same  in  consonance  with  the

Notifications  dated 23rd August,  2010 and 11th February,  2011.

Accordingly, the TET was held on 13th November, 2011 and result

thereof was declared on 25th November, 2011.  Thereafter on 30th

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

4

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 31st 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  10th April,  2012

which gave its report dated 1st 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 26th July, 2012 which was

followed by 15th Amendment to the 1981 rules on 31st August,

2012 to the effect that instead of giving weightage to the TET

marks as per 12th Amendment, the criteria of ‘quality point marks’

as  prevalent  prior  to  12th 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 30th November, 2011 and 5

the new advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 incorporating

the criteria by way of 15th Amendment to the Rules which was at

variance  with  the  guidelines  of  the  NCTE dated  11th 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 16th January, 20132.  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 31st May, 2013 by three Judges (Full  Bench) in

Shiv Kumar Sharma and Ors.  v.  State of U.P. and ors.3  The

High  Court  held  that  the  decision  dated 26th July,  2012 of  the

State Government to change the criteria of selection by way of

15th Amendment  in  the  Rules  to  make  TET  as  a  minimum

qualification (without giving weightage for the marks in the said

qualification  as  per  NCTE  guidelines)  and  cancelling  the

advertisement dated 30th November,  2011 was not  sustainable

and  that  the  NCTE  guidelines  were  binding.   Accordingly,  the

2  WP No. 39674 of 2012  Akhilesh Tripathi  v.  State of U.P. 3  2013(6) ADJ 310

6

State was directed to proceed and conclude the selection as per

advertisement dated 30th November, 2011.

7. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to reproduce

the  statutory  provisions  and  the  notifications  to  the  extent

relevant which are as follows:

“Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act

12. Functions of the Council. – It shall be 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 for  the determination and maintenance of standards  for  teacher  education  and  for  the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may –  

(a) …

(b) …

(c) …

(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognized institutions.

… … …

… … …

12A.  For the purpose of maintaining standards of  education  in  schools,  the  Council  may,  by regulations,  determine  the  qualifications  of persons for  being recruited as teachers  in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior  secondary  or  intermediate  school  or college,  by whatever name called,  established, run,  aided  or  recognized  by  the  Central

7

Government or a State Government or a local or other authority:

Provided  that  nothing  in  this  section  shall adversely affect the continuance of any person recruited  in  any  pre-primary,  primary,  upper primary,  secondary,  senior  secondary  or intermediate schools or colleges, under any rule, regulation  or  order  made  by  the  Central Government,  a  State  Government,  a  local  or other  authority,  immediately  before  the commencement  of  the  National  Council  for Teacher Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 solely on  the  ground  of  non-fulfilment  of  such qualifications  as  may  be  specified  by  the Council:

Provided further that the minimum qualifications of a teacher referred to in the first proviso shall be acquired  within  the  period  specified in  this Act or under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.”

Section 23 of the RTE Act “23.  Qualifications  for  appointment  and  terms and  conditions  of  service  of  teachers.-(1)  Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as  laid  down  by  an  academic  authority, authorised  by  the  Central  Government,  by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

(2)  Where  a  State  does  not  have  adequate institutions  offering  courses  or  training  in teacher  education,  or  teachers  possessing minimum  qualifications  as  laid  down  under sub-section  (1)  are  not  available  in  sufficient numbers,  the  Central  Government  may,  if  it deems  necessary,  by  notification,  relax  the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five

8

years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided  that  a  teacher  who,  at  the commencement  of  this  Act,  does  not  possess minimum  qualifications  as  laid  down  under sub-section  (1),  shall  acquire  such  minimum qualifications within a period of five years.

… … …

… … …”

8. Notifications dated 31st March, 2010 and 23rd August, 2010  

issued by the NCTE are as under:

Notification dated 31  st   March, 2010

“NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2010

S.O.750(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Central Government hereby authorizes the National Council for Teacher Education as the academic  authority  to  lay  down  the  minimum qualifications  for  a  person  to  be  eligible  for appointment as a teacher.    

Notification dated 23  rd   August, 2010

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2010

F. No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N & S).-In exercise of the  powers  conferred  by  Sub-section  (1)  of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory  Education  Act,  2009 (35 of  2009),

9

and in pursuance of Notification No. S.O. 750(E) : MANU/HRDT/0013/2010 dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the  Department of School Education and  Literacy,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council  for  Teacher  Education  (NCTE)  hereby lays down the following minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, with effect from the date of this notification:-

1. Minimum Qualifications:-

(i) CLASSES I-V

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least  50%  marks  and  2  year  Diploma  in Elementary  Education  (by  whatever  name known)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education  (by  whatever  name  known),  in accordance  with  the  NCTE (Recognition  Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary  Education (B.El.Ed.)  

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Education  (Special Education)  

10

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance  with  the  Guidelines  framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

(ii) Classes VI-VIII

(a) B.A/B.Sc. and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

OR

B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year  Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)

OR

B.A/B.Sc.  with  at  least  45% marks  and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the  NCTE  (Recognition  Norms  and  Procedure) Regulations  issued  from  time  to  time  in  this regard.  

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)  

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/B.Sc. Ed or  B.A.Ed./B.Sc. Ed.

OR

B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year  B.Ed. (Special Education)

11

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance  with  the  Guidelines  framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

2.  Diploma/Degree  Course  in  Teacher Education:- For the purposes of this Notification, a  diploma/degree  course  in  teacher  education recognized by the National  Council  for Teacher Education  (NCTE)  only  shall  be  considered. However,  in  case  of  Diploma  in  Education (Special Education) and B.Ed (Special Education), a  course  recognized  by  the  Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.

3.  Training to be undergone:- A person-(a) with B.A/B.Sc.  with  at  least  50%  marks  and  B.Ed. qualification  shall  also  be  eligible  for appointment  for  class  I  to  V  upto  1st  January, 2012,  provided  he  undergoes,  after appointment,  an  NCTE   recognized  6  month special programme in Elementary Education.  

(b)  with  D.Ed.  (Special  Education)  or  B.Ed. (Special  Education)  qualification  shall  undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme in Elementary Education.”

9. Notifications issued by the NCTE on 11th February, 2011 and

29th July, 2011 are as follows:

Notification dated 11  th   February, 2011

“The implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 requires  the  recruitment  of  a  large  number  of

12

teachers  across  the  country  in  a  time  bound manner. Inspite of the enormity of the task, it is desirable to ensure that quality requirement for recruitment  of  teachers  are  not  diluted at  any cost.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  ensure  that persons  recruited  as  teachers  possess  the essential  aptitude  and  ability  to  meet  the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary level.

2.  In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of sub-section  (1)  of  section  23  of  the  Right  of Children  to  Free  and  Compulsory  Education (RTE) Act, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education  (NCTE)  has  laid  down  the  minimum qualifications  for  a  person  to  be  eligible  for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII, vide its Notification dated August 23, 2010. A copy of the Notification is attached at Annexure 1. One of the essential qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in any of the schools referred to in clause (n) of section 2 of  the RTE Act  is  that  he/she  should  pass  the Teacher  Eligibility  Test  (TET)  which  will  be conducted by the appropriate Government.

3.  The  rationale  for  including  the  TET  as  a minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher is as under:  

i.  It  would  bring  national  standards  and benchmark of teacher quality in the recruitment process;

ii. It would induce teacher education institutions and students  from these institutions  to  further improve their performance standards;

iii.  It  would  send  a  positive  signal  to  all stakeholders  that  the  Government  lays  special emphasis on teacher quality  

13

Qualifying marks

9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will  be  considered as  Teachers  Eligibility Test  pass.  School  managements  (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)  

(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging  to  SC/ST,  OBC,  differently  abled persons,  etc.,  in  accordance  with  their  extant reservation policy;

(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment.”

Notification dated 29  th   July, 2011

“(i) Training to be undergone,-A person-

(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed.  qualification  or  with  at  least  45% marks and  1-year  Bachelor  in  Education  (B.Ed.),  in accordance with NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in  this  regard,  shall  also  be  eligible  for appointment to Class I  to V up to 1st January, 2012,  provided  he/she  undergoes,  after appointment,  an  NCTE  recognized  6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education;

(b)  with  D.Ed.  (Special  Education)  or  B.Ed. (Special  Education)  qualification  shall  undergo, after appointment an NCTE recognised 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education....”

14

10. Though the State Government made an amendment in the

1981 Rules on 9th November, 2011 by providing that the names of

the candidates shall be placed in descending order on the basis of

the marks obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the

Government of Uttar Pradesh, this scheme was given a go bye by

withdrawing the amendment of Rule 14 and restoring the position

as it stood prior to 12th Amendment [of selecting teachers on the

basis  of  ‘quality  points’  as  per  appendix  to  Rule  14(3)]  by

Amendment dated 31st August, 2012 to the following effect:

“(3) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality  points  specified in appendix.  In  the  said  rules  the  following appendix shall be inserted at the end.  

Provided that if  two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher.”

11. Rule  14(4)  of  the  1981  Rules  of  the  State  prior  to  the

Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 which was restored in 2012

was as follows:

“(4) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) shall then be arranged in such manner  that  the  candidates  who  have  passed the  required training  course  earlier  in  point  of time shall be placed higher than those who have

15

passed  the  said  training  course  later  and  the candidates who have passed the training course in  a  particular  year  shall  be  arranged  in accordance with the quality  points  specified in the Appendix.

”

16

12. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties.   Main

contention raised on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh is that while

it  was  permissible  for  the  Central  Government  to  lay  down

eligibility  qualifications  for  appointment  of  a  teacher  for

elementary education by virtue of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the

NCTE could not lay down any guideline so as to affect the power

of a State to prescribe norms for selection of a teacher consistent

with the qualifications under Section 23 of the RTE Act.  

13. On the other hand, the stand of the original writ petitioners

is that the subject of education falls under Entry 25 of List III of 7th

Schedule of the Constitution after the 42nd Amendment.  Thus, by

virtue of  Article  254 of  the  Constitution,  the law made by the

Parliament  prevails  over  any  law  made  by  the  State.   It  was

submitted that The NCTE Act has been enacted by the Parliament

to achieve ‘planned and coordinated development of the teacher

education  system’.    The  Council  constituted  under  the  Act  is

empowered to  issue guidelines  under  Sections  12 and 12A for

ensuring  planned  and  coordinated  development  of  teacher

education and also to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum

qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher.  Further, 17

vide Notification dated 31st March, 2010 under Section 23 of the

RTE Act, the Central Government has authorized the NCTE as the

‘academic  authority’  to  lay  down minimum qualifications  for  a

person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.   

14. Learned  counsel  for  the  NCTE  submitted  that  notification

dated 11th February,  2011 suggesting  weightage to  TET  marks

was merely a guideline and was not intended to be binding on the

States.  While TET was a mandatory requirement, weightage to

the marks in the TET was merely a suggestion.  This stand has

also  been taken by some of  the learned counsel  in  connected

matters.   Reliance was placed on the stand of the NCTE in its

affidavit  dated  1st May,  2014  in  CWP  346  of  2013  before  the

Punjab and Haryana High Court as follows:

“That in view of the said recommendations of the Committee,  it  is  stated  that  the  guidelines contained in Clause 10 and 11 of NCTE guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 are directory in nature. Appropriate Government may in its own wisdom decide as to the eligible candidates on the basis of having qualified the Central Teachers Eligibility Test.   However,  education  being  the  subject matter of concurrent list of the power to frame appropriate  legislation/regulations/rules  works with  the  appropriate  legislature  of  the  State Government  and  as  such  State  Government  is

18

well within as rights to prescribe the qualification of  eligibility  in  the  form  that  the  candidates wanting  to  apply  for  the  said  post  must necessarily qualify the Teachers Eligibility Test of said  State.   There  would  be  no  legality  in  the same  and  merely  because  a  state  government had failed to conduct the State Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) in a given year would not amount to taking a decision not to hold the exams and to hold  the  candidates  having  qualified  Central Teacher Eligibility Test as eligible.”

15. Reliance  was  also  placed  on  clarification  dated  2nd

September, 2016 by NCTE in reply to a question under the Right

to Information Act, 2005(at page no. 733 of the SLP paper book in

SLP(Civil)No. 1121 of 2017) as follows:

“1. CTET/TET  is  an  examination  to  qualify  to become eligible   for  appointment  as  a  teacher from classes I to VIII.

2. There  is  no  binding  to  State/Central Government to select the candidate as a teacher basis on TET marks.  TET is just eligibility for the appointment of teachers.”

16. There is  no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an

‘academic authority’ under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the

Notification  dated  31st March,  2010  issued  by  the  Central

Government as well as under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE

19

Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010

and  11th February,  2011.   The  State  Government  was  under

obligation  to  act  as  per  the  said  notifications  and  not  to  give

effect to any contrary rule.  However, since NCTE itself has taken

the stand that notification dated 11th February, 2011 with regard

to the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not

mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the

High Court in quashing the 15th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has

to be interfered with.  Accordingly, while we uphold the view that

qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding, requirement of

weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement.    

17. As a result of above, in normal course the State would have

been  at  liberty  to  proceed  with  the  selection  in  terms  of

advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 in accordance with the

amended  rules  by  way  of  15th amendment,  in  view  of

developments which have taken place during pendency of these

appeals,  the  said  advertisement  cannot  proceed  and  while

upholding the said advertisement, relief has to be moulded in the

light of developments that have taken place in the interregnum.  

20

18. Vide interim  order  dated  25th March,  2014,  this  Court

directed  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  to  fill  up  the  vacancies  of

Assistant  Teachers  in  terms  of  the  impugned  judgment.

Thereafter, on 17th December, 2014, the said order was modified

and the State was directed to appoint candidates whose names

were not involved in malpractices in the TET test and who had

obtained  70%  marks  (65%  for  SC,  ST,  OBC  and  physically

handicapped or any other category covered by the Government

policy for reservation). 54,464 posts have already been filled up in

compliance of the orders of this Court.  The said appointments

were subject to result of these matters. It was also observed that

if anyone without TET qualification is appointed his services will

be terminated.  Vide order dated 2nd November, 2015 it was noted

that  against  72,825  posts  which  were  advertised,  43,077

candidates  had  completed  training  and  were  working  while

15,058  candidates  were  undergoing  training.   Around  14,690

posts were vacant.  It was further observed that candidates who

had the required percentage of marks in terms of order dated 27th

July,  2015  were  to  file  their  applications  and  a  Committee

21

constituted for the said purpose could verify such percentage and

if parity was found the same benefit could be extended.  

19. We have been informed that 66,655 teachers have already

been appointed in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court.

Having  regard  to  the  entirety  of  circumstances,  we  are  not

inclined to disturb the same.  We make it clear that the State is at

liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law

after issuing a fresh advertisement.   

20. The matters will stand disposed of in above terms.  

…………………………………….J. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

…………………………………….J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi; 25th July, 2017.

22