IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:36449 of 1998 Between: M.B.Padmaja, W/o. Ch.Srinivasa Murthy, R/o. 10-70, Gokul Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Governemnt of Andhara Pradesh, Rep. Principal Secretary, College Education, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Intermediate Education A.P., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 3 Principal, Nrupathunga Junior College, Baglingampally, Hyderabad-27 .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for Respondent No.3: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare memo, dated 20.04.1998 issued by respondent No.1 and consequential proceedings, dated 18.06.1998 and 02.12.1998 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education and perused the record. The petitioner is a Junior Lecturer in Commerce in respondent No.3 Junior College. She is working in an aided post. She applied for sanction of maternity leave for 120 days as applicable to all the Government servants for delivery of her first issue. Her request was partly accepted by respondent No.3 vide his proceedings, dated 02.12.1998 by sanctioning leave only for 90 days commencing from 01.12.1998. The said proceedings were issued based on memo, dated 20.04.1998 and consequential proceedings, dated 18.06.1998 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner called in question the validity of the above said memo and proceedings on the ground that the Government cannot classify the employees of Government Colleges and Aided Colleges into two different groups, while sanctioning the maternity leave. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Director (FAC), Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, he sought to justify the differential treatment on the ground that the Government servants and the staff of Aided Colleges are governed by separate rules and that only certain provisions of Fundamental Rules were made applicable to the staff of Aided Colleges unlike the Government servants to whom all the Fundamental Rules are made applicable. Though the purpose of leave in case of both the categories of employees may be similar, but the employees of Aided Colleges are governed by different sets of Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are entitled to all the benefits, which are made applicable to the Government employees. The doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India can be pressed into service only if equals are treated unequally. As the employees of Aided Colleges are governed by different sets of Rules, they cannot claim that they are equally situated as the employees of the Government. In this view of the matter, I do not find that prescription of lesser number of days of maternity leave to the employees working in the Aided Colleges violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni