Judgment Though miscellaneous petitions are listed, by consent, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. 2. Since common questions are involved in these writ petitions, the following common order is passed. .3. The petitioners 1 to 13 in W.P.No.20935 of 2007 and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.20493 of 2007 and 23019 of 2007 have obtained certificates for having participated in the Training for Sanitary Officials and Sanitary Inspectors on Solid Waste Management (Tamil Nadu), which was organised and conducted by All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai, between 05.02.2001 and 09.02.2001. The certificates have been issued by the Director of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai. The petitioner No.14 in W.P.No.20935 of 2007 has undergone similar course and obtained a certificate issued by the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Delhi. The petitioners registered their names in the respective local employment exchange seeking for employment. Being sponsored by the employment exchange, the petitioners were called for an interview by the third respondent on 11.06.2007 for the post of Sanitary Inspectors. The petitioners appeared before the third respondent with all relevant records including the certificates obtained by them either from the Director of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai or from the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Delhi. But, the petitioners were not given appointment on the ground that the certificates issued by the Director of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai and the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Delhi are not valid certificates as provided under the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service Regulations 1970. In those circumstances, the .petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioners as Sanitary Inspectors in the Municipal Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, by accepting the above certificates issued either by the Director of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai or by the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Delhi. .4. In the counter filed by the third respondent, it has been stated as follows: ."... it is submitted that the orders of relaxation referred to in the Para 6 were issued exclusively for the candidates mentioned in the respective orders and those orders are not general in nature to permit the candidates with the certificates issued by the All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay. it is submitted that the orders of relaxation referred to in the Para 6 were issued exclusively for the candidates mentioned in the respective orders and those orders are not general in nature to permit the candidates with the certificates issued by the All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay. Further the provisions relating to qualification for the post of Sanitary Inspectors under Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service Regulations 1970 have not been amended till this date. As such the candidates with the certificate issued by the All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay cannot be considered as eligible." 5. I have carefully considered their rival submissions and also perused the records carefully. 6. As per the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service Regulations 1970, the post of Sanitary Inspector falls in Class IV, category (1). The qualification prescribed for the said post by means of direct recruitment is as follows: "Class IV:- (a) Must possess a Sanitary Inspectors Category 1 Certificate granted by the Additional Director of Health Services and Family Planning, Madras, as the Chairman, Board of Examiners, constituted by Government in this behalf, or must possess a Health Inspectors Certificate awarded by the Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum or must possess a Sanitary Inspectors Certificate awarded by the Director of Public Health, Bombay; and (b) Must possess physical fitness for amp life and satisfy the physical standard prescribed for Health Inspectors." 7. A reading of the above provision would go to show that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the certificates issued by the Director of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai and the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Delhi are not covered under this regulation. Therefore, in the absence of any relaxation of this regulation given in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be appointed to those posts by accepting the certificate issued by the Director of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai or the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Delhi. 8. Therefore, in the absence of any relaxation of this regulation given in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be appointed to those posts by accepting the certificate issued by the Director of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai or the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Delhi. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in similar circumstances, in respect of 12 other persons, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.97 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 10.04.1996 relaxing the said regulation and thereby, directing the authorities to accept the Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate obtained from All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai and to allow them to continue in service. The learned counsel would submit that in the case of the petitioners, similar treatment can be given. 9. The learned Counsel would also submit that similar relaxation was given in respect of few more persons by the Government by issuing G.O.Ms.No.129 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 110. 2001. The learned counsel would further submit that in the matter of relaxation to be given in respect of evaluation of certificates of Teacher Training course obtained from Karnataka, this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.13416 of 1997 batch, directed the Government to relax the relevant rule and to evaluate the certificates issued by the Directorate of Teacher Education, Government of Karnataka. The learned counsel would also submit that against the order passed by the learned single Judge, appeals were preferred by the Government in a batch of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.930 of 1998 batch. In that also, the Government lost. In the common order passed in the batch of writ appeals, this Court by order dated 110. 2005, as held as follows: "5. The main ground urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State, in these appeals is, that the benefit given to the other teachers in G.O.Ms.No.1196, Education (U1) Department, dated 012. 1992, and G.O.(2-D) No.284, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 112. 1995, relaxing the said condition, was under Special and exceptional circumstances and, therefore, the order of the learned single Judge ought not to have put the writ petitioners on par with those teachers. 6. We are unable to accept this contention, as, on a perusal of the said G.Os., dated 012. 1992 and 112. 1995, relaxing the said condition, was under Special and exceptional circumstances and, therefore, the order of the learned single Judge ought not to have put the writ petitioners on par with those teachers. 6. We are unable to accept this contention, as, on a perusal of the said G.Os., dated 012. 1992 and 112. 1995, by which the condition was relaxed to Vetriazhagan and Selvi Nazeema, it is clear that no special circumstances have been taken into consideration." 10. The learned counsel would also bring to my notice another judgment in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.11770 of 2000 batch, wherein also a similar direction has been issued by the learned single Judge of this Court directing the Government to relax the Rule in respect of evaluation of Teacher Education certificates issued by the Directorate of Karnataka. Relying on these judgments and also the two Government Orders cited supra, the learned counsel would submit that in the case of the petitioners also, the Government may be directed to relax the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Regulations, 1970 and appoint them as Sanitary Inspectors. 11. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that in the case of the persons covered under the two Government Orders cited supra, the relaxation was given by the Government as a special case, since they were already in employment. He would further submit that the Government has not so far amended the Regulation. So long as the Regulation does not provide for acceptance of the certificates issued by the above two institutions, the petitioners cannot have any right to claim appointment on the basis of the certificates issued by these institutions. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit that the petitioners have not challenged the very notification wherein the qualification for this post has been prescribed. 12. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. .13. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench cited supra would go to show that .when a kind of relaxation in respect of a particular Rule is given to certain persons, the Government is obliged to give such kind of relaxation in respect of others also who are similarly placed, as, contrary view will offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench has found in the relaxation order issued by the Government in respect of certain persons that there were no special circumstances brought out. Applying the said principles, if the case on hand is analysed, in the two Government Orders cited supra, there are no special circumstances mentioned at all which impelled the Government to relax the Regulation in respect of those persons. When the Government thought it fit to relax the Regulation in respect of few persons, I can hardly find any reason as to why the Government should take a different stand in the case of these petitioners alone, more particularly when the certificates obtained by the petitioners have been issued by the two responsible institutions controlled by the respective State Governments. 14. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Mumbai Institute came into being in the year 1928 and the Delhi Institute came into being in the year 1979. In my view, it is high time for the Government to look into this issue and to make a permanent measure by amending the Regulation. But, this Court cannot issue any direction to the Government to amend the Regulation, because it is not within the competence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Having regard to the above facts, I deem it appropriate to issue only a direction to the Government to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the above two judgments, one by a Division Bench and another by a learned single Judge of this Court and also the two Government Orders cited supra, wherein Regulation was relaxed in respect of others to accept the certificates obtained from the above two institutes. .16. In the result, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically to relax the Regulation, so as to appoint the petitioners as Sanitary Inspectors in the light of the two judgments, one by the Division Bench and the other by the learned single Judge of this Court as cited supra and in the light of the two Government Orders cited above. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are directed to submit a copy of this order along with copies of the above judgments, viz., Division Bench as well as learned single Judges judgment and the two Government Orders referred to above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17. I am informed that as per the interim order granted by this Court in favour of each petitioner, there is one post kept vacant for each petitioner. If the Government decides to relax the Regulation in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners shall be appointed as against those vacancies.