(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 386 OF 1997 Prabhu s/o. Limbraj Bagal, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Service, resident of Kol-Kanadi, Taluka : Ambejogai, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education & Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. Shri Virbhadreshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Parali-Vaijanath, through its Secretary, Office situated at Virbhadreshwar Vidyalaya, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent no.4 served (Absent). ........................ W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 387 OF 1997 1. Miss. Krishna Ganpatrao Morale, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, R/o. Vidyanagar, Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. 2. Sugriv s/o. Narayan Ghadge, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, R/o. Wadar Galli, Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. .. Petitioners. versus (3) 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education and Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. Shri Sant Dnyanesh Shikshan Pratisthan, Beed, C/o. Shri Shivchatrapati Vidyalaya, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed, through its Secretary. 5. The Head Master, Shri Shivchatrapati Vidyalaya, Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. .. Respondents. .............................. Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent nos.4 and 5 served (Absent). ............................ (4) W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 388 OF 1997 1. Ravindra s/o. Shamrao Deshmukh, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Service, Resident of Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. 2. Sidheshwar Gurulingappa Tilkari, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, R/o. Peth Galli, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education and Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. Shri Gajanan Shikshan Sanstha, through its Secretary, Office situated at Swami Vivekanand Vidya Mandir, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. (5) 5. Swami Vivekanand Vidya Mandir, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed, through its Head Master. .. Respondents. ........................... Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent nos.4 and 5 served (Absent). .......................... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 389 OF 1997 Prakash s/o. Govindrao Bandapalle, Aged : 33 years, Occupation : Service, resident of Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus (6) 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education and Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. Shri Sant Dnyanesh Pratisthan Sanchalit, Beed, through its Secretary. Office situated at Shri Shivchatrapati Vidyalaya, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. 5. Shri Shivchatrapati Vidyalaya, Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed, through its Head Master. .. Respondents. ........................... Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent nos.4 and 5 served (Absent). (7) ............................. W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 391 OF 1997 Pandharinath s/o. Nivrutti Munde, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Saradgaon, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education & Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. Bhatkya Va Vimukta Jatiche Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed, through its Secretary. Office situated at Shriram Primary School, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. (8) 5. Shriram Primary School, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed, through its Head Master. .. Respondents. ........................... Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent nos.4 and 5 served (Absent). ............................ W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 392 OF 1997 Vaijanath s/o. Shesharao Bhosale, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Service, Resident of Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus (9) 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education and Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. Shri Sant Dnyanesh Pratisthan, through its Secretary. Office situated at Shri Shivchatrapati Vidyalaya, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. 5. Shri Shivchatrapati Vidyalaya, Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed, through its Head Master. .. Respondents. ............................ Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent nos.4 and 5 served (Absent). ............................. (10) W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 393 OF 1997 1. Sambhaji s/o. Hanumantrao Chappe, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, R/o. Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. 2. Santaram s/o. Narayanrao Dhawale, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, R/o. Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education & Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. Shri Sant Dnyanesh Shikshan Pratishtan, through its Secretary, C/o. Shri Shivchatrapati Vidyalaya, Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. (11) 5. Head Master, Shri Shiv Chatrapati Vidyalaya, Parali-Vaijanath, Taluka : Parali-Vaijanath, District : Beed. .. Respondents. ............................. Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent nos.4 and 5 served (Absent). ............................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, seeking a direction to the respondents, to the effect that they should be treated as trained Teachers. 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are (12) possessing qualification of graduation with B.Ed. degree. The petitioners, therefore, submit that since the degree of B.Ed. stands on a higher pedestal than the degree of D.Ed., they should have been treated as trained Teachers and the action on the part of the respondents, in treating them as untrained Teachers, is not sustainable in law. 3. A Full Bench of this court, in the case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2000(3) Mh.L.J. 605), has held that in so far as Primary School Teachers are concerned, the necessary qualification is that of D.Ed. and unless a person possesses D.Ed. qualification, he cannot be treated as a trained Teacher. In that view of the matter, we find that the contention raised by the petitioners is devoid of substance. However, it is stated, that by now, most of the petitioners have acquired D.Ed. qualification. 4. In the result, the petitions are partly allowed. The respondents are directed to treat such of the petitioners, as trained Teachers, who have acquired D.Ed. qualification and the date for treating them as trained Teachers would be the date on which they acquired the qualification of D.Ed. Needless to state, that such of the petitioners, who have not obtained D.Ed. qualification, would be continued to be (13) treated as untrained Teachers. 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp386etc