JUDGMENT : VASANTI A. NAIK, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioners Institutions that run the D.Ed. colleges have challenged the communication, dated 26.4.2016 by which the application for the admission to the D.Ed. course for the academic year 2016-17 is directed to be made online. The petitioners have also challenged the direction in the communication, dated 26.4.2016 that makes it mandatory for the Institutions like the petitioners to mention in the advertisements, inviting applications for admission to D.Ed. course that no student who is admitted to the D.Ed. course would be guaranteed that he/she would be employed, after completing the said course. The petitioners-Institutions are running the D.Ed. colleges. It is the case of the petitioners that due to the policy of the State Government to invite online applications for admission to the D.Ed. course, it is not possible for the candidates residing in the rural areas to apply for D.Ed. admissions. It is stated that during the past several years the admissions in the D.Ed. colleges are dwindling and if the applications are sought online, there would be still lesser number of students in the D.Ed. colleges. It is stated that the candidates residing in the rural areas would not be able to apply online. It is stated that the other condition in the impugned communication, dated 26.4.2016, that makes it mandatory for the petitioners to publish in the advertisements and brochures that the candidates securing admission to the D.Ed. course would not have a guarantee of securing a job is bad in law. It is stated that the said condition is absolutely unnecessary. It is stated that the said condition is arbitrary and it has no nexus with the object, that is, sought to be achieved by the respondents, while permitting the admissions of candidates to the D.Ed. course. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned communication. It is stated that the applications are invited online so as to prevent mismanagement and to ensure transparency. It is submitted that the D.Ed. course is much advanced than the high school scholarship examinations, middle school scholarship examinations, national talent search examinations etc., where the applications are called online while securing admissions. It is stated that the applications are invited online so as to prevent mismanagement and to ensure transparency. It is submitted that the D.Ed. course is much advanced than the high school scholarship examinations, middle school scholarship examinations, national talent search examinations etc., where the applications are called online while securing admissions. It is stated that applications are received online in large numbers for the aforesaid three examinations even from the candidates from rural areas and hence, the petitioners cannot effectively challenge the action on the part of the respondents in inviting applications online. It is further stated that the petitioners would not have a locus standi to challenge the said condition of applying online, as none of the candidates have come forward with a grievance that they find it difficult to apply online. It is stated that the other condition in the impugned communication for insertion of a note in the advertisements and brochures by the colleges, like the petitioners, that the students taking admission in the said colleges would not be guaranteed of service is just and proper. It is stated that there are several D.Ed. holders, who are unable to secure a job and hence, the respondents have decided to direct the Institutions to put a condition in the brochures as well as the advertisements that the candidates would not have a guarantee of securing a job even after they complete their D.Ed. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that there is nothing wrong with the action on the part of the respondents in calling the applications online. There is a great development and progress in technology and as stated on behalf of the respondents even for the examinations like the ones referred to herein above, applications are invited online and it is informed that thousands of applications are received online from the urban as well as rural areas for admissions/appearance at the said examinations. We find that several processes are now undertaken by the Government and the local bodies by calling applications online and it would not be proper on the part of the candidates, who are desirous of seeking admission to the D.Ed. course, to make a grievance that it would be difficult for them to apply online. If it would be difficult for them to apply online at this stage, they may make a grievance after passing the D.Ed. course, to make a grievance that it would be difficult for them to apply online. If it would be difficult for them to apply online at this stage, they may make a grievance after passing the D.Ed. course, that they are not able to apply online while seeking appointment. It would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the policy of the State Government of inviting applications online, more so, when we do not find that the policy of inviting applications, online is either discriminatory or arbitrary. Also, we find much force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners would not have a locus standi to challenge the part of the communication, that requires the applicants to apply online, as none of the candidates that are desirous of seeking admissions to the D.Ed. course have approached this Court with a challenge to the said condition. Though we do not find any merit in the challenge made by the petitioners to the first part of the impugned communication, we find much force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents cannot direct the petitioners/Institutions to mention in the advertisements as also in the brochures that the students will not be guaranteed of a job even after they pass the D.Ed. examination. We find that such a statement is absolutely unnecessary. Tomorrow, the State Government may direct every Institution, that is, imparting education in engineering, medical or any other faculty, that the Institution should make it known to the students by publishing in the advertisements and also in the admission brochures that they would not be ensured of a job even if they pass the course to which they are admitted. Every candidate, who secures admission to a course, is aware that he/she may or may not secure a job on the basis of the qualifications which he/she acquires and it would be necessary for him/her to compete with the other eligible candidates while seeking appointment. We do not find any propriety on the part of the Government to ask the colleges to publish in the advertisements and in the brochures that a student taking education in their college would not have a guarantee of securing a job. We find that a direction imposing such a condition is apparently unreasonable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. We find that a direction imposing such a condition is apparently unreasonable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The part of the communication, that directs the petitioners/Institutions to publish in the advertisements and admission brochures that the candidates seeking admission to the D.Ed. course in their colleges would not be guaranteed of employment, is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.