-- 1 -- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1500 OF 2010 Kum. Shital d/o Sambhaji Kanjawane and another ... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for petitioners Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 23rd June, 2010 PER COURT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus for declaring clause 2(b) of the Government Resolution dated 16.12.2009 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the same and further pray that the respondents be directed to consider all candidates who have passed -- 2 -- D.Ed./T.C.H. Course from any State in India would be entitled for recruitment to the post of Shikshan Sevak in the State of Maharashtra. 2. The aforesaid Government Resolution, to which reference is made, particularly clause (2) of the Government Resolution, states that those candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from Maharashtra or from institutes to which equivalence has been made etc., would be eligible for being appointed as Shikshan Sevak in Maharashtra. Clause 2(b) of the said resolution further includes 835 villages in Karnataka for the reasons which are stated in that clause. It is contended before us that clause 2(b) is thus violative of Article 14 as it discriminates between candidates who have passed their D.Ed. or qualifying examination from places other than Maharashtra are not held eligible while those candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from the certain villages in Karnataka have been held eligible. 3. Article 14 does not prohibit classification. The petitioners and others obviously do not stand on equal footing. The petitioners i.e. candidates who have passed from institutes to which equivalence has not been given are in different class than those candidates who have passed their examination from Karnataka. In that light of the -- 3 -- matter, therefore, there cannot be any discrimination much less violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Government Resolution contemplates that unless and until the Government of Maharashtra grants equivalence to the course conducted by institutes outside Maharashtra, such candidates are not eligible for being appointed as Shikshan Sevak in the schools in Maharashtra. 4. We have heard Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.R. Nikam, learned counsel for respondents. According to us, no case for interference is made out and consequently, this petition, which is sans merits, is therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) fmp/wp1500.10