JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---Rule, made returnable forthwith and by consent taken up for final hearing. Learned Counsel waive service. 2. The batch of petitions, which is being disposed of by the present order, raises a common question. Consequently, the petitions are being heard together and will be governed by this order. All the petitioners in the petitions before the Court are Assistant Teachers who have been employed by Vastal Vithal Ashti Vyang Vidyalaya, Gangakhed, Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani. This institution which employes the teachers concerned in the petition is the second respondent in these proceedings and is an institution conducted for the benefit of physically handicapped persons. The institution is being run by the third respondent. The petitioner in the first petition was appointed as an assistant teacher on 1st April 1992. The petitioner was thereafter, continued in the employment of the institution until the academic year 1998-99. The District Social Welfare Officer, Parbhani, accorded his approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. 3. In 1995, Parliament enacted the "Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which is an Act to make special provisions with respect to persons suffering from disabilities. Chapter X of the Act is entitled "Recognition of Institution for persons with disabilities". Section 51 provides that save as otherwise provided under the Act, no person shall establish or maintain any institution for persons with disabilities except under and in accordance with a certificate of registration issued in that behalf by the competent authority. The State Government is empowered by section 52 to grant a certificate of registration when it is satisfied that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the Act and the Rules which have been made thereunder. Sub-section (3) of section 52 provides that no certificate of registration shall be granted under sub-section (2) unless the institution with respect to which an application has been made is in a position to provide the facilities and maintain the standards which are prescribed by the State Government. 4. In 1985, the State Government framed a Code for the physically handicapped through the Social Welfare Department. The Code of 1985 makes provisions for the proper regulation and conduct of institutions meant for physically handicapped persons. 4. In 1985, the State Government framed a Code for the physically handicapped through the Social Welfare Department. The Code of 1985 makes provisions for the proper regulation and conduct of institutions meant for physically handicapped persons. The qualifications required for persons to be appointed to the teaching staff of such institutions are specified in the Code. In so far as institutions for orthopaedically handicapped persons are concerned, the minimum qualification that is prescribed is the holding of a D.Ed. certificate by the teacher. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the Code of 1985 has now been replaced by a Code which came to be issued in the year 1997. In para 55 of the Code of 1985, it has been provided that untrained teachers who had been recruited in such institutions would have to acquire the prescribed qualifications within a period of 5 years. 5. On 5th November, 1997 a Circular was issued by the State Government through the Department of School Education in which the question of permitting untrained teachers the benefit of pursuing the postal D.Ed. course was considered. The said Circular provides that those untrained teachers who had been appointed in recognised schools and in whose cases Education Officers had granted approval prior to June 1997 should be continued further in service. In the case of such teachers the facility of completing the D.Ed. through the postal or correspondence course was permitted. 6. In the writ petitions, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have submitted their application forms to various authorities for the completion of the postal D.Ed. course between years 1996-97 and as recently as in the academic year 1999-2000. According to the petitioners, the District Social Welfare Officer, Parbhani had written a letter dated 14th May, 1999 to the Education Officer requesting him to issue forms for the postal D.Ed. course to the petitioners. The petitioners along with other teachers had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2377 of 1999 in this Court in which a direction for the supply of forms and for acceptance of the forms for the postal D.Ed. course was sought. It has been stated that on 25th May, 1999 a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order directing the respondents to supply the application forms for the postal D.Ed. course was sought. It has been stated that on 25th May, 1999 a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order directing the respondents to supply the application forms for the postal D.Ed. course to the petitioners before this Court in the said petition, including the petitioner in these proceedings, in the first writ petition. The learned Single Judge directed that the forms which would be submitted by the concerned teachers would be scrutinised, but, the acceptance thereof would not be construed as an admission to the postal D.Ed. course which would be subject to further orders of the Court. Accordingly, it is stated that the forms were supplied and processed thereafter. The third respondent furnished an undertaking on 28th May, 1999 while forwarding the forms to the Deputy Director, Postal Training Scheme, Maharashtra State Educational Research and Training Council, Pune, the sixth respondent, that the management would not remove the petitioners until they complete the postal D.Ed. course. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the undertaking which was submitted by the management to the 6th respondent, the services of all the petitioners came to be terminated and the teachers were removed from service. The petitioner in the first petition was removed from service on 6th September, 1999. Against the order of removal, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad and during the pendency of the appeal the order of termination was stayed from time to time. The petitioners were thus reinstated in service in January, 2000. 7. In the mean time, the 6th respondent, informed the petitioners that their applications for the postal D.Ed. course were rejected on the ground that the facility of pursuing the postal D.Ed. course is not available to teachers working in special schools meant for physically handicapped students. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners once again approached this Court in a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 785 of 2000 in which a direction was sought to the respondents to include special teachers, who were untrained and who were working in special schools meant for orthopaedically handicapped persons for the purpose of admission to the postal D.Ed. course. A consequential direction was also prayed for to the effect that the petitioners be given admission to the postal D.Ed. course for the academic year 1999-2000. course. A consequential direction was also prayed for to the effect that the petitioners be given admission to the postal D.Ed. course for the academic year 1999-2000. The writ petition filed by the petitioners came up for admission before the Division Bench of this Court on 4th May, 2000 at which stage a statement was made on behalf of the State Government that all the petitioners have been given admission to the postal D.Ed. course and that therefore, nothing further survives in the petition. The petition was, in the circumstances, consequently disposed of as withdrawn. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that in pursuance of the admission which has been granted to the petitioners, the petitioners attended the postal D.Ed. course and all of them have completed the first session. The petitioners are stated to be pursuing the second session of the postal D.Ed. course which consists of four sessions spreading over 2 years. On 29th February, 2000, the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad, before whom the petitioners had filed an appeal against the order of termination of their services, dismissed the appeals. The Appellate Authority held that the concerned teachers were appointed as special teachers on condition that they would complete their training within 5 years of their appointment. Accordingly it has stated that the training ought to have been completed before 31st May, 1997 which was not done and that therefore, the termination of service was lawful and proper. 8. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted before this Court that the petitioners had made all possible efforts within their control to ensure that they would be admitted for the postal D.Ed. course and it was for reasons entirely beyond their control that they could not be admitted earlier for pursuing the D.Ed. course. Now they have been admitted and as they had worked since 1992, there is no reason why they should be discontinued during the period when they are pursuing the D.Ed. course. Reliance has also been placed on the Code of 1985 under which it was permissible for untrained teachers employed in schools meant for the physically handicapped to complete their course of training within a period of 5 years. In the present case, it is submitted that the training could not be completed for the reason that the authorities were not inclined to accept the forms for the D.Ed. In the present case, it is submitted that the training could not be completed for the reason that the authorities were not inclined to accept the forms for the D.Ed. as a result of which the teachers had to seek recourse to proceedings before this Court. Ultimately, it is for the first time before this Court that a statement was made that admissions had been granted to the teachers concerned for the postal D.Ed. course. Reliance is also sought to be placed on a Circular dated 28th September, 1998 of the Director of Social Welfare in which it has been stated that if an institution for the physically handicapped had recruited untrained teachers after 7th July, 1993 then the approval ought not to be granted thereto. In this regard it has been submitted that all the petitioners were appointed prior to that date, in the academic year 1992-93, and therefore, they should be permitted to be continued in service during the period when they are in the process of completing the D.Ed. course. 9. On the other hand on behalf of the respondents a detailed affidavit in reply has been filed by the Social Welfare Officer. A reference has been made to the fact that the State Government that a specific period was granted to untrained teachers working in institutions meant for the physically handicapped, to complete the D.Ed. course. It is submitted that the earlier Code of 1985 has since been substituted by the Code of 1997. According to the Government, it is the duty of the management of the special institution to ensure that teachers with the requisite qualification of D.Ed. are recruited. A reference is also made to the Act of 1995 in which it has been expressly provided that an institution shall not be established or maintained for persons with disabilities except in accordance with the certificate of registration granted by the State Government. In so far as the second respondent is concerned, a certificate of registration was granted on 24th May, 1999 and the said certificate expressly stipulates that the institution should ensure that all the teachers who are engaged are trained teachers. In the affidavit it has been further stated that after the services of these teachers were discontinued, the management appointed five other teachers on 1st March, 2000 but that except one, who possessed a D.Ed. In the affidavit it has been further stated that after the services of these teachers were discontinued, the management appointed five other teachers on 1st March, 2000 but that except one, who possessed a D.Ed. qualification, the other four teachers did not fulfil the required qualifications. 10. I heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. 11. Parliament enacted the Act of 1995 in order to make special provisions, inter alia, in regard to regulation of institutions meant for physically handicapped persons. Chapter X of the Act deals with the recognition of institutions for persons with disabilities. No institution for the physically handicapped can function unless it has a certificate of registration. Before a certificate of registration is granted, the institution concerned has to be in a position to provide facilities and maintain standards which are prescribed by the State Government. In the present case the State Government has prescribed as a required educational qualification that a teacher must have passed the D.Ed. course. Having regard to the object and purpose of the Parliamentary enactment and having due regard to the Code which has been formulated by the State Government, it is necessary that a management of an institution for the physically handicapped appoint persons only with the required qualifications. Uncharted discretion cannot be given to private managements to appoint untrained teachers particularly when trained teachers for manning the institutions are available. Consequently, the State Government does have a legitimate concern which was expressed in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the managements must ensure that trained teachers are recruited. A serious grievance was made on behalf of the respondents that the management of such institutions do not either approach the District Social Welfare Officer for making available the names of trained teachers nor are advertisements issued for the purpose of recruiting such teachers. Consequently, I do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents that to permit such institutions to appoint untrained teachers would be destructive of the proper functioning of these institutions. The Code of 1985 permitted the appointment of untrained teachers subject to the condition that they would acquire the requisite qualifications within a period of two years. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government states that in the Code which has been subsequently issued in 1997 that facility has now not been included. The Code of 1985 permitted the appointment of untrained teachers subject to the condition that they would acquire the requisite qualifications within a period of two years. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government states that in the Code which has been subsequently issued in 1997 that facility has now not been included. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, their appointments were made initially in the academic year 1992-93. The appointments of the petitioners were duly approved by the District Social Welfare Officer from time to time and I am informed that the last of these approvals was in the year 1999-2000. Consistent efforts were made by the petitioners to seek admission to the postal D.Ed. course. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the facility of postal D.Ed. course is not available for teachers working in special schools. Prima facie there may be some substance in the submission urged on behalf of the respondents for the reason that the Circular of the State Government dated 5th November, 1997, which is annexed at Exhibit "C" to the petition, was issued by the Government in the School Education Department. The communication of the Government was addressed to the Director of Education. The schools for physically handicapped persons are, strictly speaking, not covered by the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 since the said Act applies to private schools by virtue of section 3(1). The expression "private school" is defined in section 2(20) to mean a recognised school established or administered by a management, other than Government or a local authority. The expression "recognised" means recognised by the Director, the Divisional Board or the State Board. It is common ground between the parties that schools for the physically handicapped are not recognised either by the Director of Education, the Divisional Board or the State Board, since these schools fall within the control and jurisdiction of the Social Welfare Department. The Postal D.Ed. training scheme, strictly speaking, was intended to apply to teachers engaged by schools under the control of the School Education Department. The Postal D.Ed. training scheme, strictly speaking, was intended to apply to teachers engaged by schools under the control of the School Education Department. My attention has, however been invited to a Government Circular dated 15th October, 1990, by which the State Government decided that conditions of service applicable to employees governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 should also be made applicable to persons in the employment of the schools for the physically handicapped. My attention has also been invited to the provisions of para 63 of the Code of 1997 in which conditions of service which apply to employees of private schools have been made applicable to employees of Institutions for the physically handicapped. In so far as the present case is concerned, in the earlier petition which was filed by the petitioners a statement was made before this Court that the claim of the petitioners for admission to the postal D.Ed. course was accepted and in fact admission was also granted to the petitioners. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that the teachers in question were in service since 1992 and that they have also been admitted to the postal D.Ed. course, I am of the view that it would be open to the management to engage them during the period when the teachers are pursuing the postal D.Ed. course. Though it is true that by the Code of 1985 a period of 5 years was granted for completing the training for the purpose of achieving the prescribed qualifications, the circumstances of the present cases show that the teachers were not wanting in the efforts required to be made for achieving the prescribed qualifications. In the writ petitions, detailed reference has been made to the efforts which were made to secure admission to the postal D.Ed. course and the representations which had been made from time to time to the authorities to permit the petitioners to pursue their studies. Orders were passed by this Court, initially in Writ Petition No. 2377 of 1999 on 25th May, 1999 directing that the applications forms of the teachers be accepted by the respondents. course and the representations which had been made from time to time to the authorities to permit the petitioners to pursue their studies. Orders were passed by this Court, initially in Writ Petition No. 2377 of 1999 on 25th May, 1999 directing that the applications forms of the teachers be accepted by the respondents. Ultimately it was only on 4th May, 2000 that the Division Bench of this Court was informed in Writ Petition No. 785 of 2000 that the teachers had been given admission for the Postal D.Ed. course. Therefore, having regard to this factual back ground, it cannot be said that the teachers were lacking in bona fides or due diligence in pursuing the D.Ed. course. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion regard must also be had to the fact that though new teachers were said to have been recruited after the services of the petitioners were terminated, except one teacher who came to be appointed, all the others are untrained. This position has been set out in the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents. That being the position and since the petitioners have already been admitted to the postal D.Ed. course, it would, in my view, be open to the third respondent to engage the teachers in the period during which they are pursuing the postal D.Ed. course. It is also made clear that the teachers who are pursuing the D.Ed. course must complete the said course within the normal period, which they have accepted. 13. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 29th February, 2000 passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and set aside. 14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed. -----