The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Government Resolution did not create discrimination as the conditions of service and incidents in private sector were fundamentally different from the Government sector, forming different and mutually exclusive classes.

JUDGMENT

M.G.Sewlikar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

3. This is a petition seeking quashing of Government Resolution dated 27th February, 2017 to the extent that it provides husband wife aggregation benefit only to those couples who are in Government and Semi Government service and not to those employees, whose spouse/s are engaged in private service or profession and also seeking direction that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 27th February, 2017 be extended to the petitioner.

4. Factual matrix involved in this petition is that petitioner joined services with respondent No.4 as 'Shikshan Sevak' on 11th October, 2007, whereafter, she was posted at Pishor in Tahsil of Kannad, District Aurangabad. Petitioner was confirmed as Assistant Teacher on 16th October, 2010. After serving for four years at Pishor, petitioner was transferred to Ranjangaon (SP), Tq.Gangapur, District Aurangabad. Husband of petitioner is in a private profession at Aurangabad. Family of petitioner consists of her husband, her five year old son and her in laws and all of them live at Aurangabad.

5. It is the case of petitioner that in the transfer process of May, 2018, petitioner was placed in category 4. This is the category meant for junior most Teachers. Petitioner further submits that the Government by Resolution dated 27th February, 2017 foated a scheme called 'Husband Wife Aggregation Policy' by which husband and wife can be posted within a distance of 30 kms. However, this scheme covers only Zilla Parishad employees, State Government employees, Central Government employees, employees in Autonomous Bodies, employees in Public Sector Undertakings or employees in Government Recognized Institutions. Spouses of Zilla Parishad employees, who are working in private profession or in private service are excluded from the purview of this resolution. It is alleged that this resolution is discriminatory as it has left out the spouses of Zilla Parishad employees, who are employed in private sector or engaged in a profession. This policy is arbitrary. It has created two classes (i) Zilla Parishad employees, whose better halves are in Central/State Government/Public Sector Undertakings/ Autonomous Bodies etc. (ii) Zilla Parishad employees, whose better halves are serving in private sector or engaged in a profession. Such classification is not based on any intelligible differentia and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, this policy is arbitrary and violates the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Petitioner, therefore, made an application making a request that benefit of 'Husband Wife Aggregation Policy' be extended to her for the reason set out in the application dated 25th May, 2018. According to the petitioner, the postings within 30 kms. distance from Aurangabad have been given to senior Teachers. Petitioner figures at Sr.No.2968 in total strength of Teachers of 3137. Petitioner was transferred to Amkheda, Tq.Soygaon, Dist.Aurangabad. During the pendency of this petition, petitioner was transferred to Waluj, Tq.Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad, which is 65 kms. From Aurangabad. She has, therefore, sought quashing of Government Resolution dated 27th February, 2017 as discriminatory and impugned communications of transfers.

7. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 fled their affidavit in reply contending therein that Government Resolution dated 27th February, 2017 does not apply to petitioner. Vide Government Resolution dated 15th April, 2017, it is provided that if any employee/teacher has any grievance against the orders of transfer or any other grievance, it should be agitated before respective Divisional Commissioner of the Revenue Division. Petitioner has not availed this alternative efficacious remedy and for this reason also this petition is not maintainable. This resolution is not applicable to petitioner as her husband is a practicing Advocate in