JUDGMENT : VASANTI A. NAIK, J. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the condition in the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010 asking the petitioners to secure the D.Ed. qualification within a period of three years from the date of their absorption as primary teachers in various schools and institutions or else their services would be terminated. The petitioners seek a declaration that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 19 are qualified primary teachers and the diploma possessed by them in special education is equivalent to the diploma in education (General). 2. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of teachers in the schools meant for the physically challenged children and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 19 are the teachers that are appointed in regular primary schools in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010. Earlier the petitioner Nos. 2 to 19 were appointed as special teachers in the schools for physically challenged children under the Integrated Education Scheme known as “Apang Ekatma Shikshan Yojana”. After the scheme was discontinued by the Central and the State Government, the Government took a decision of absorbing the teachers like the petitioner Nos. 2 to 19 in several schools run by the local bodies and private aided institutions. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 19 possessed S.S.C. certificate and a diploma in special education that was required for teaching the disabled children. Since the State Government had absorbed the petitioner Nos. 2 to 19 and several other special teachers that were appointed as special teachers in the Handicapped Integrated Education Scheme in regular schools meant for normal children, the State Government, by the Resolution dated 15-9-2010 while absorbing the said teachers from the said scheme in regular primary schools incorporated a condition in the Government Resolution that the said teachers should secure the training qualification, i.e., D.Ed. or B.Ed. qualification in general education. Being aggrieved by the imposition of the condition of securing the D.Ed. (General) qualification within three years, the petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking a declaration that the diploma in special education is equivalent to D.Ed. (General) and that the action on the part of the State Government of imposing the condition in the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010 that the petitioners should secure the D.Ed. (General) qualification within three years is bad in law. In the aforesaid set of facts, the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. (General) and that the action on the part of the State Government of imposing the condition in the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010 that the petitioners should secure the D.Ed. (General) qualification within three years is bad in law. In the aforesaid set of facts, the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. Shri Dangre, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the diploma in special education as possessed by the petitioners is equivalent to D.Ed. (General) qualification. It is submitted that the Rehabilitation Council of India, which is a recognized institution for ensuring the progress in the field of disability has clearly held that B.Ed. general education and B.Ed. special education qualifications are equivalent to each other. The learned Counsel relied on the Circular of the Rehabilitation Council of India dated 31-10-2005 in this regard. It is submitted that the National Council of Teachers Education (N.C.T.E.) and the Rehabilitation Council of India had entered into a memorandum of understanding on 19-1-2005 and it was decided by the said authorities that by including the children with special needs in regular schools, both children with special needs and regular children will be benefited. It is submitted that in Writ Petition (C) No. 6771/2008 that came up before the Delhi High Court, the Rehabilitation Council of India had filed an affidavit stating therein that B.Ed. special education is a degree programme for one year and it is equivalent to B.Ed. (General). It is stated that it was further stated in the affidavit filed by the Rehabilitation Council of India that the candidates who secured B.Ed. special education are much more trained in comparison to B.Ed. (General) and D.Ed. (General) as apart from the training of teaching they get the training as to how to teach the physically challenged children. It is stated that on a reading of the affidavit filed by the Rehabilitation Council of India before the Delhi High Court it could be said that the diploma in special education, as possessed by the petitioners is at least equivalent to the diploma in education (General). It is stated that on a reading of the affidavit filed by the Rehabilitation Council of India before the Delhi High Court it could be said that the diploma in special education, as possessed by the petitioners is at least equivalent to the diploma in education (General). It is stated that the notification of the N.C.T.E. dated 23-8-2010 prescribing minimum qualifications for appointment of primary teachers also clearly provides that a candidate possessing senior secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and two years diploma in education (Special education) would be entitled to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. It is submitted that it is clear from the aforesaid that the diploma in special education is equivalent to the diploma in D.Ed. (General). It is submitted that it was very wrongful on the part of the State Government to ask the petitioners to secure the D.Ed. (General) qualification within three years from the date of their absorption in the primary schools. It is submitted that since the petitioners possess the diploma in special education, they should be granted the pay scale of a regular Assistant Teacher from the date of their absorption and not from the date on which they would secure the D.Ed. (General) qualification. It is stated that if this Court is not inclined to grant a declaration in favour of the petitioners, as claimed, this Court may extend the time to secure D.Ed. (General) qualification by three more years for those petitioners and the other special teachers that have not secured the qualification in view of the interim order of this Court, restraining the respondent No. 1 from taking any coercive action against the petitioners, if they do not secure the D.Ed. (General) qualification within the timeframe. 4. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra denied the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that after the “Apang Ekatma Shikshan Yojana” was closed down in the year 2009-10, the petitioners did not have any right of seeking their absorption in the schools run by the Government, local bodies and the private aided schools. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra denied the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that after the “Apang Ekatma Shikshan Yojana” was closed down in the year 2009-10, the petitioners did not have any right of seeking their absorption in the schools run by the Government, local bodies and the private aided schools. It is stated that by taking a sympathetic view in the cases of the petitioners, who were appointed as special teachers under the scheme, the State Government issued a Resolution on 15-9-2010 permitting the absorption of the special teachers in the regular schools run by the State Government, local bodies and the private aided schools. It is stated that the petitioners were not employed for teaching the disabled children but were absorbed in primary schools that were meant for normal children. It is stated that the qualifications required to be possessed by the primary teachers appointed in regular primary schools would not be the qualifications prescribed by the N.C.T.E. or the Rehabilitation Council of India but the qualifications of primary teachers working in regular primary schools would be governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules of 1981 framed thereunder. It is stated that Schedule – B appended to the Act prescribes the qualifications of primary teachers that could be appointed in the primary schools. It is stated that Schedule – B clearly prescribes that the appointment to the posts of primary school teachers and other special teachers – drawing teachers shall be made by nomination from amongst the candidates who have passed the S.S.C. examination or matriculation examination and who possess a diploma in education of two years duration. It is stated that on a reading of Schedule – B it is clear that a teacher appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school is required to possess a S.S.C. certificate and D.Ed. (General) qualification. It is stated that since the petitioners were sought to be absorbed in the schools meant for normal children, i.e., regular primary schools it was necessary for the petitioners to possess the D.Ed. (General) qualification. It is stated that D.Ed. (General) qualification. It is stated that since the petitioners were sought to be absorbed in the schools meant for normal children, i.e., regular primary schools it was necessary for the petitioners to possess the D.Ed. (General) qualification. It is stated that D.Ed. (General) is an essential qualification, that is, required to be possessed by an Assistant Teacher working in a primary school as per Schedule – B. It is submitted that instead of abiding by the condition in the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010, after the Government had taken a humanitarian view in the matter, the petitioners have unnecessarily challenged the condition in the Government Resolution. It is submitted that the petitioners would not be entitled to claim salary of regular primary teachers till they secure the D.Ed. qualification. It is submitted that since the services of the petitioners would be governed by the Act of 1977 and Rules of 1981, the opinion of the Rehabilitation Council of India or the N.C.T.E. would not be of any assistance to the petitioners for seeking the relief claimed. It is stated that this Court may not favourably consider the prayer made by the petitioners for granting the scale of a regular primary teacher to the petitioners from the date of their absorption. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Shri Chavan, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the respondent No. 3 is not involved in the controversy as the claim of the petitioners is mainly against the respondent No. 1. 6. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that a declaration that the diploma in special education is equivalent to the diploma in general education cannot be granted in the circumstances of the case. Firstly, it is not in the domain of this Court to grant equivalence to the educational qualifications. Only the Equivalence Committee or the authority that is empowered to decide the question of equivalence would be entitled to grant equivalence. In this background, it would be necessary to consider whether the diploma in special education is considered to be equivalent to the diploma in education (General). There is nothing on record to show that any authority competent to grant such equivalence has held so. In this background, it would be necessary to consider whether the diploma in special education is considered to be equivalent to the diploma in education (General). There is nothing on record to show that any authority competent to grant such equivalence has held so. It is necessary to note that the petitioners were not appointed as Assistant Teachers in the schools meant for normal children in the year 2010 by following the due process of selection. The petitioners were working as special teachers under a scheme that was framed by the Central Government and implemented by the State Government. After the discontinuance of the scheme sometime in the year 2009-10 the State Government, after taking a lenient view in the matter of the petitioners decided to absorb the petitioners in the primary schools meant for normal children. Hence, by the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010 the petitioners were sought to be absorbed in the schools run by the local bodies and the private aided schools. Since the conditions of service of the teachers in a primary schools meant for normal children would be governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder, it was necessary for an Assistant Teacher appointed in a regular primary school to possess the D.Ed.(General) qualification. Keeping that aspect in view, the State Government while deciding to absorb the petitioners in the schools meant for normal children decided to grant reasonable time of three years to the petitioners to secure the D.Ed. (Regular) qualification either by regular training or by the correspondence course. It was not difficult for the petitioners to have secured the D.Ed. (General) qualification by correspondence course within three years. Instead of securing the qualification, that is the necessary qualification required to be possessed by the Assistant Teachers working in regular primary schools, the petitioners have rushed to this Court challenging the condition in the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010. It is normally noticed by the Courts that when certain persons or parties that are not entitled to some relief as of a right are granted some relief in the absence of any right in them to secure the same, the said parties or persons have a tendency of asking for more. It is normally noticed by the Courts that when certain persons or parties that are not entitled to some relief as of a right are granted some relief in the absence of any right in them to secure the same, the said parties or persons have a tendency of asking for more. The petitioners did not have a right to seek their absorption in regular primary schools after the scheme was closed but without following the due process of selection, the State Government had absorbed them in primary schools meant for normal children only with a view to continue them in service. 7. While holding that the petitioners would be required to possess the requisite qualification of D.Ed. (General) in view of the Act and the Rules of 1977 and 1981 respectively we are not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that since the Rehabilitation Council of India has observed in the Circular dated 31-10-2005 that B.Ed. special education degree is equivalent to B.Ed. general education degree this Court may hold so and grant the relief in favour of the petitioners. There are more than one reasons for rejecting this submission. The Rehabilitation Council of India is a statutory body for standardizing and recognizing the curriculum in the field of Disability, Special Education and Rehabilitation. The Rehabilitation Council of India as per the Act of 1992 is established only with a view to fulfil the objectives and responsibilities for recognizing institutions and for conducting the training courses in the field of disability. The Rehabilitation Council of India has nothing to do with the institutions that are meant for normal children. The Circular of the Rehabilitation Council of India dated 31-10-2005 and the affidavit tendered by the Rehabilitation Council of India before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 6771/2008 therefore cannot be helpful to the petitioners in seeking the relief claimed. It is worthwhile to note that in the matter before the Delhi High Court, the Delhi High Court was not considering the issue pertaining to the education of normal children and was considering the issue relating to the improvement of infrastructure and upgradation of human resources and management for facilitating the education of disabled children. This judgment will therefore not be of any assistance to the case of the petitioners. This judgment will therefore not be of any assistance to the case of the petitioners. Also, we find that the Rehabilitation Council of India has not held that the diploma in special education is equivalent to D.Ed. (General) qualification. So also, the notification of the N.C.T.E. dated 23-8-2010 cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners in seeking a declaration that the diploma in special education would be the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of primary teachers in schools meant for normal children as their qualifications are prescribed in Schedule – B appended to the Act of 1977. In view of the aforesaid, it would be necessary to hold that the petitioners would not be entitled to a declaration that the diploma in special education is equivalent to the diploma in education (D.Ed. General). 8. It would now be necessary to consider whether the time to secure the diploma in education (General) could be extended in the case of the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated that some of the petitioners and certain other special teachers that are absorbed in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010 have acquired the D.Ed. (General) qualification in view of the condition in the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010, though the petition was pending. We find that by the interim orders passed in the petition, the State Government was restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners that had not secured the diploma in education (General) within a period of three years as provided by the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010. It appears that in view of the operation of the interim orders during the pendency of the writ petition, some of the petitioners did not make any efforts to secure the diploma in education (D.Ed. General). In the circumstances of the case, specially when the State has taken a humanitarian view in the cases of the petitioners and has absorbed them in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010, it would be necessary to extend the time to secure the D.Ed. (General) qualification by three years from the date of this judgment. General). In the circumstances of the case, specially when the State has taken a humanitarian view in the cases of the petitioners and has absorbed them in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2010, it would be necessary to extend the time to secure the D.Ed. (General) qualification by three years from the date of this judgment. Since the petitioners possess the diploma in special education, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment dated 23-12-2015 in Writ Petition No. 6355/2014 and the judgment dated 20-7-2017 in Writ Petition No. 4595/2015, we hold that the petitioners would be entitled to the scale of a trained Assistant Teacher from the date of their absorption if they have secured the D.Ed. (General) qualification in three years from their absorption and if they have not secured within three years, they would be entitled to the arrears of salary of a trained Assistant Teacher for a maximum period of three years preceding the date of acquisition of the D.Ed. qualification. The period is restricted, so that the petitioners should not take advantage of their inaction to prosecute the D.Ed. course during the pendency of the petition. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.