1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4496/2008 ( Keshav Jyotiba Mane and others . .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : JULY 22, 2009. Heard Shri P.S. Wathore, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mirza, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no. 3. Question is whether qualification obtained by the petitioners from Chattisgarh is equivalent to D.Ed. Qualification of Maharashtra Government. The respondent no.3 is relying upon the Government resolution dated 31.05.1993 by which all the government resolutions granting equivalence prior to the said date have been cancelled and Shri Patil, the learned counsel states that subsequently no government resolution granting equivalence to Chattisgarh qualification has been issued. Shri Wathore, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the second sub-clause of paragraph 2 no.3 of said government resolution to contend that, if such dispute of equivalence is raised, the decision is required to be taken on the basis of merit. The reading is after putting a full stop in earlier sentence, which reads that “this equivalence was limited to such class of teachers only..” At this stage, Marathi government resolution is produced by Shri Patil, wherein said portion appears as clause 4 and it further clearly states that if any dispute about equivalence arises in future, the matter will be decided independently on merits. It is therefore, apparent that the Competent Authority in this respect has to take decision about the equivalence of the diploma obtained by the petitioners. Respondent no.1 is stated to be that Authority. Advocate Shri Wathore has prayed for leave to add a prayer for necessary direction to the respondent no.1 in this respect. In the interest of justice, leave to add that prayer is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. The petitioners have alleged that course completed by them from Chattisgarh is recognized by N.C.T.E. The respondent no.1 is therefore, directed to look into the controversy and take appropriate decision about the equivalence or otherwise, as early as possible and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Certified copy is thus expedited. In view of this, the learned counsel for the 3 petitioner states that other challenges should be left open and Writ Petition should be disposed of. Leaving other challenges open, Writ Petition is disposed of, without any order as to cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.