JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---The central point involved in these writ petitions is two fold, firstly, whether the petitioners, who hold Diploma in Teaching awarded by the Dr. Harisingh Gaur University and Devi Ahilya University (both from Madhya Pradesh) are entitled for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the State of Maharashtra and secondly, non appointment of the petitioners, on the post of Assistant Teacher, infringes the mandate of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts, on basis of which these petitions are filed are identical and therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. There were about 369 posts to be filled in and therefore, in the year 1995 a mass recruitment was advertised from various Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run by the Zilla Parishad. An advertisement was issued on 18-5-1996 by the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Maharashtra State, inviting applications for these posts. On 4-8-1996, as per the advertisement written examination was fixed at District places. However, the petitioners who did not possess Diploma in Education of the Maharashtra State were not called for the written examination. The petitioners submit that they have been denied an opportunity of appearing in the written examination and ultimately for selection to the post of Primary Teachers in Zilla Parishads in State of Maharashtra. 4. In this context, the petitioners state that most of the petitioners have passed XII Standard Examination and further passed Diploma in Teaching awarded by Dr. Harisingh Gaur University and Devi Ahilya University of Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. One of the requirements of the advertisement was that the candidate must have passed Diploma in Education awarded by the Board in Maharashtra. The petitioners submit that the requirement of passing of D.Ed. examination in Maharashtra or recognition of such teachers training certificate course by the State of Maharashtra is not a sine qua non for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. In this context, the petitioners made a reference to the Rules, more particularly Rules 5 and 9 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as the "said Rules"). In this context, the petitioners made a reference to the Rules, more particularly Rules 5 and 9 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as the "said Rules"). Therefore, the petitioners not only challenged the advertisement dated 18-5-1996 but also the Government Resolution No. GAC-1081/326 SE-2 dated 4-2-1984 so also the Government Circulars dated 9-10-1987 and dated 5-7-1993, inter alia providing eligibility criteria for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the State of Maharashtra. 5. The petitioners have therefore prayed that the advertisement containing a condition that the candidate must possess D.Ed. of Government Examination Bureau be quashed and the petitioners be allowed to appear for written examination and oral interview for consideration of their claim for appointment as a Primary Teacher in Zilla Parishad. The petitioners also seek to quash the Government Circulars dated 5-7-1993 and 13-11-1995 as illegal and contrary to the Rules. 6. It is not out of place to mention that the controversy in regard to the recognition of the Diploma in Teaching from aforesaid Universities of Sagar, Madhya Pradesh was resolved by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3138 of 1995 dated 28-11-1995, which has also been concurred by us today, in our judgment and order in group of writ petition i.e. 517 of 1997 and other petitions. 7. Shri Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, argues the case, inter alia, on the ground that the judgment on the basis of which we have decided number of writ petitions today, is per incuriam and therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. 8. Shri Talekar, learned Counsel also made a great deal to emphasise on the Government Policy, prevailing from time to time, right from 1970 onwards in the matter of qualification to the post of Primary Teachers in Zilla Parishad Schools. He submits that under Rule 5 of the said Rules, provision is made in respect of age, education, experience etc. to be possessed by the candidates for appointments to the posts in District Services and posts thereunder. It is submitted that the Appendix IV of the said Rules lay down the qualifications of candidates for the methods of appointment to posts included in the District Technical Service (Class III) [(Educational)] and District Service [Class III (Subordinate Educational)] and item 9 provides for the Primary School Teachers appointments. It is submitted that the Appendix IV of the said Rules lay down the qualifications of candidates for the methods of appointment to posts included in the District Technical Service (Class III) [(Educational)] and District Service [Class III (Subordinate Educational)] and item 9 provides for the Primary School Teachers appointments. 9. It is further submitted that Rule 5 does not restrict the entry of the candidate who possesses such a qualification of passing the required examination from the State of Maharashtra. Rule 5, therefore, is open to every candidate possessing Diploma in Teaching from other States also. 10. In this context, it is submitted that since the authority is empowered to relax certain qualifications instead of relaxing the educational qualification, the respondent - State Government debarred the entry of the candidate who were qualified under Rule 5 of the said Rules to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, circulars laying down the educational qualification of holding Diploma in Education only from the Maharashtra is contrary to the Government Policy contained in the Circular dated 8-3-1995, and also the Statutory Rules and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for. 11. Shri Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners further urged that such a treatment in the matter of qualification for appointment of Primary Teachers in the State of Maharashtra restricting the qualifying examination only to the candidate holding Diploma in Education from Maharashtra alone is hit by Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that such restriction is violative of the fundamental rights of the candidates who possess equal qualification for appointment as a Primary Teacher. In support of his submission Shri Talekar, learned Counsel relied upon the decision in case of (Suresh Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others)1, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 327. 12. We have considered the arguments of Shri Talekar with great anxiety. At the outset we may take advantage of what we have observed in our judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 2921 of 1997 decided on 9-8-1998 in regard to the principle of "equality" as underlined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. We have considered the arguments of Shri Talekar with great anxiety. At the outset we may take advantage of what we have observed in our judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 2921 of 1997 decided on 9-8-1998 in regard to the principle of "equality" as underlined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equality as underlined under Article 14 does not mean that every law must have a universal application for all persons, who are not by nature; attainment or circumstances in the same position, as the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. The principle does not take away from the State its power to classify the persons for legitimate purposes. It is well settled that the classification is in some degree likely to produce some inequality, and mere production of inequality is not enough. In other words, differential treatment does not 'per se' constitute violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It denies equal protection only when there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation. This rule of interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution which is applicable in enactment challenged on the basis of the discrimination is equally applicable to regulation or ordinance or circular as the case may be. 13. The Government Resolution or the Circular which are challenged in these petitions relate to the educational qualification for employment in the State of Maharashtra for the post of Primary Teachers. The education is "State" subject and one of the Directive Principles declared in Part IV of the Constitution is that the State should make effective provisions for education within the limits of its economy. Therefore, where the classification is made and it relates to the education, which is the main and primary concern of the State, we feel that the contention that qualification for the post of Primary Teacher as laid down in the Government Resolution or Circular which are impugned in this petition, does not suffer from the vice of infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be denied that it is an obligation on the State to provide employment to the citizens residing in the State of Maharashtra. The policy of the State Government in the matter of employment in discharging its obligations necessarily empowers the State Government to put reasonable restrictions in the matter of qualification for the employment. 14. It cannot be denied that it is an obligation on the State to provide employment to the citizens residing in the State of Maharashtra. The policy of the State Government in the matter of employment in discharging its obligations necessarily empowers the State Government to put reasonable restrictions in the matter of qualification for the employment. 14. In case of (Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others)2, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 it is clearly observed by the Apex Court: "The citizens have a fundamental right to education. The said right flows from Article 21. This right is, however, not an absolute right, its content and parameters have to be determined in the light of Arts. 45 and 41..... Right to education is subject to the limit of economic capacity and development of the State..." 15. The qualification for the post of Primary Teacher to the effect that candidate must have passed Diploma in Education from the State of Maharashtra, therefore, has some object to be achieved in the light of obligation of the State to provide employment to the persons having possessed the Diploma in Education. Therefore, fixing the qualification for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers is not violative or discriminatory within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the case, we may point out that under the orders of the Court, an Experts' Committee was appointed to examine the question of equivalence of Diploma in Teaching from the aforesaid Universities of Sagar, Madhya Pradesh and Diploma in Education from Maharashtra. The report of the said committee shows that the Diploma in Education of Maharashtra and Diploma in Teaching from the Sagar, Madhya Pradesh are not equivalent. In our opinion, this ground itself is sufficient to uphold the validity of the Government Circular and Government Resolution which are impugned in this writ petition. When the subjects of Education and providing employments are related to primary obligations of the State, we do not think that the Government Resolution or Circular is either contrary to the rules or policy or violative of the Constitutional provisions. 17. When the subjects of Education and providing employments are related to primary obligations of the State, we do not think that the Government Resolution or Circular is either contrary to the rules or policy or violative of the Constitutional provisions. 17. There is hardly any merit in the contention of Shri Talekar, learned Counsel that the Government Resolution or the Circular making it mandatory to possess Diploma in Education from the institutions recognized in the State of Maharashtra as a condition precedent for applying to the post of Primary Teacher is contrary to the provisions of the Rules. The policy of education is flexible policy and it is clear that from 1970 onwards, the State Government has taken review and modified the said policy from time to time. We also do not find any fault with the said policy as the policy requires to be amended according to the needs of the day. Therefore, the petitioners who have possessed Diploma in Training not equivalent to Diploma in Education, as recognized by the State of Maharashtra in no way, complain for not calling them for the written examination and oral interview, in pursuance of the impugned advertisement for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers. 18. To achieve excellence in the field of education it is very essential to have good primary teachers in the schools. The standards of education and the betterment of the pupils depends on the quality of teaching which in turn depends on the merits of the teaching class. It cannot be denied that the standard and level of education do vary from State to State and University to University and even from College and School to College and School. We find that the students or pupils from a particular College/School/University are better than some other counter parts. The education standards in some States need much more improvement. It is found from record that the State of Maharashtra has been trying to achieve betterment in the field of education and, therefore, as we have seen from the different Government Resolutions the administration goes on introducing new policy and changing the existing one for an achievement of higher ends so that the ultimate object of excellence in the educational field is achieved and to achieve this object if the Government has prescribed by its own policy to recruit and employ the candidates holding the D.Ed. from the Board in Maharashtra only, we do not find anything wrong with such a policy. We cannot direct the Government to restrict or enlarge its source of choice and we cannot foist our decision on the State Government to select candidates from other sources also. The decision of the State Government to confine the selection of the teachers to the D.Ed. candidates from a particular institution is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and according to us the classification is well defined. It is for the State Government to manage its affairs in the educational field to achieve object and we, therefore, do not agree with the contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that to confine the source of selection amounts to any discrimination which would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As we have already discussed that the experts appointed by the State Government have found that there is no equivalence between the D.Ed. course in the State of Maharashtra and the certificate issued by the Sagar University. In this view of the matter, we do not find anything wrong with the impugned Government Resolution also. 19. It may be stated that the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has no application to the facts of the present case. It is no where stated by the petitioners in the petition that they had joined the course with the Universities at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh on the basis of assurance from the State Government. They have no where said that at the time when they joined the course, it was recognized by the State of Maharashtra and that it was on the basis of that recommendations they have joined the course. Therefore, the petitioners cannot complain that they are eligible to be considered for appointment as Primary Teachers by applying the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. We, therefore, find that the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioners to decide the claim made by the petitioners in this petitions. 20. In the result, the writ petitions are rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. Petition rejected.