JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Heard learned Counsel for respective parties, school managements and learned Additional Government Pleader for the State Authorities.

2. The petitioners are untrained primary teachers employed in private recognized schools which are either aided or unaided by the Government. They are challenging the instructions issued by the Government of Maharashtra vide communication dated 5th November, 1997 and 13th April, 1998 regarding the admissions to the Postal Course of Diploma in Education. By these petitions, they have prayed for a declaration that these communications are illegal, ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners are entitled for admission to the Postal D.Ed. Course, in pursuance of the rules framed by the State of Maharashtra and they have further prayed for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Education Officers/Deputy Director of Education to grant approval to their service as Primary Teachers and the consequential relief of pay scales.

3. By a communication dated 5-11-1997, the State Government informed the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, that no approval should be granted to the appointments of untrained teachers by the Education Officer/Deputy Director of Education, as there were adequate number of trained candidates available for such posts and it was further warned that if such cases of approval to the appointments of untrained teachers were brought to the notice of the Government, serious action will be initiated against such officers and this should be informed to the officers concerned. Similarly, if the private schools had appointed such untrained teachers, it was directed that such schools should not be granted recognition. So as to regularize the services of the untrained teachers whose appointments have been approved, the Director was advised to take such steps as were set out in the said communication and one of such steps, against which the petitioners have approached this Court, is regarding the admissions to the Postal D.Ed. Course. Clause 'A' of the said communication states that untrained teachers whose appointments have been approved, who are in uninterrupted service in recognized schools, would be considered for admission to Postal D.Ed. Course even though their appointments have been made after April, 1989. By the next communication dated 13-4-1998, the Government has clarified that if the approval to the appointment of such untrained teachers has been granted by the Education Officer or Deputy Director of Education at least once any time from the date of appointment till June 1997, such teachers who are working in recognized private schools and were in uninterrupted service, would be eligible for admission to the Postal D.Ed. Course. The challenge of the petitioners is regarding this condition of approval to the appointment by the Education Officer or Deputy Director of Education.

PETITIONER'S CASE

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to be admitted to the Postal D.Ed. Course even though their appointment as Primary School Teacher has not been approved by the Education Officer or any other competent authority at any time. The condition of approval to their services, as set out in communication dated 5-11-1997 and a further clarification that at least approval of one year, vide circular dated 13-4-1998, is illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, in as much as there is no nexus between the action of approval and admission to D.Ed. Course so as to provide them an opportunity to obtain requisite qualification of Diploma in Education and there cannot be a distinction between such untrained primary teachers on the basis of approval to their services by the competent authority. The Postal D.Ed. Course scheme has been incorporated by the Government, so as to provide training facilities to all the untrained primary school teachers and to put a restriction of ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document