1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3306 OF 2006 Shaheed Abdul Hameed Edu. Society & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Z.A. Haq, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. R.A. Wasnik, AGP for respondent No.1. Shri Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. MARCH 28, 2008. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the communication of Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, dated 12.7.2004, rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of various candidates including petitioner No.3. The proposal of petitioner No.3 was rejected for the reason “since the professional qualification of the Assistant Teacher at Sr. No.3 is B.Ed., he does not fulfill the requirement of having professional qualification necessary for the post of Shikshan Sevak”. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this question has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari, reported at 2007 AIR SCW 1321, where the same controversy was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to State of Maharashtra and Supreme Court held that B.Ed. qualification was graduation in Education whereas D.Ed. qualification was acquired after 10th class. B.Ed. in a sense was post graduation which was acquired after degree, as such was higher qualification and a person with D.Ed. qualification could not be disqualified to be appointed on the ground that he has acquired B.Ed. Qualification. Since the issue is directly covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, the order impugned in the present petition cannot sustain. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has, however, submitted that there were other reasons for not granting approval to the appointment of petitioner No.3, but those reasons were not communicated in the order rejecting the proposal for approval of petitioner No.3. Therefore, this court is not in a position to 3 go into those reasons although the same grounds are raised in the counter affidavit. Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order to the extents it relates to petitioner No.3 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant the approval for appointment of Respondent No.3. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.