Judgment 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the purpose of quashing of an order of the State Government contained in Annexure 2, whereby the State Government have decided not to appoint trained graduates as teachers in primary schools. 2. The case of the petitioners, briefly stated, is as follows :- In the year 1966 the petitioners joined the Teachers Training School at Sonepore, having passed the Intermediate in Arts Examination, for training as teachers for primary Schools. They finished the course and passed the examination in the year 1968. Since the petitioners were not employed, they also passed the Bachelor of Arts Examination subsequently. Thereafter, there was an advertisement issued by the District Superintendent of Education for the District of Saran, inviting applications for appointment as teachers of primary and middle schools. The petitioners applied for the posts, stating their qualifications. An interview was held and they were finally selected for appointment and a panel of names was prepared. In view of their higher qualifications, the petitioners were placed higher in the list. This happened in July, 1971. Before they could be appointed, however, on the 25th May, 1972, the impugned order (Annexure 2) was sent by the Director of Public Instruction, Bihar, to all the District Education Superintendents. According to the instructions contained in this circular, it was directed that at the time of the preparation of lists of candidates eligible for appointment, first preference should be given to the trained Matriculates and next to the Intermediate trained candidates, in case they gave their written consent to accept the post on the pay scales available to Matriculate trained teachers. It is also stated therein that for the present trained graduate and persons having higher qualifications should not be appointed in place of Matriculate trained persons and this instruction was to be followed in the appointment of persons who already figured in the lists prepared previous to the present circular. As a result of this circular, the petitioners have not been appointed to any of the posts. Hence this application. 3 The petitioners have stated that in view of their present age, they are not eligible to sit at any competitive examination for any post and they are still inclined to have employment in primary schools. As a result of this circular, the petitioners have not been appointed to any of the posts. Hence this application. 3 The petitioners have stated that in view of their present age, they are not eligible to sit at any competitive examination for any post and they are still inclined to have employment in primary schools. It is also said that the graduates trained until 1967 were all absorbed in primary schools and, in fact, they used to get preference over persons with lower qualifications. A change to the prejudice of the petitioners has, however, resulted, on account of the change of policy on the part of the State of Bihar, contained in the impugned circular order. 4. In their counter-affidavit, the State of Bihar have stated the following facts : The petitioners are alleged to have got admission into the teachers training schools fraudulently by suppressing the fact that all of them, except petitioners Nos. 2 and 8 were already graduates, the School being meant only for the training of Matriculates and Intermediate in-Arts-passed persons, They had stated in their applications for admission dishonestly that they were only I. As. Secondly, it is said that there has been a change in the policy of the State Government in view of valid considerations which are as follows : The teachers for teaching in elementary schools are trained in the training schools which prescribed two-years course and which enables them to practice teaching in the lower classes i. e., I to VII, whereas graduates, who receive their training in training colleges and receive the degree of Bachelor of Education, or Diploma in Education, have to practise teaching in higher classes, Classes VIII to XI, and are thus better suited for teaching high school students. Such trained graduates qualify themselves for appointment to the posts of Inspecting Officers of Primary Education and Lecturers in Primary Teachers Training Schools. The next consideration is that in all primary and middle schools it is middle-trained and Matriculate-trained teachers alone who are appointed as Headmasters and if trained graduates were to be appointed teachers in such Schools, they would have to serve under persons less qualified than themselves. This leads to administrative and disciplinary problem. Thirdly, such trained graduates are not satisfied with their pay or prospects in primary schools and stay there only for such period as they are able to get better employments elsewhere. This leads to administrative and disciplinary problem. Thirdly, such trained graduates are not satisfied with their pay or prospects in primary schools and stay there only for such period as they are able to get better employments elsewhere. Fourthly, that about 30,000 Matriculates and I. A. trained teachers are still unemployed in the State and such persons have received their training with stipends granted by the State of Bihar. Fifthly, that there is no post for a trained graduate in a primary school and even in the middle schools, there is only one post of Headmaster, which may be filled up by a trained and experienced graduate teacher and fresh trained-graduates are not taken as they have no experience of teaching and administration both. It is further stated that no trained-graduates have been appointed as teacher in the schools on pay allowed to Matriculate-trained teachers, after the present circular, in view of the change of policy of the Government. 5. In their reply to the counter-affidavit, the petitioners have stated that besides petitioners 2 and 8, petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 also were not graduates at the time they got themselves admitted into the training school, inasmuch as petitioner No. 4 passed his B. A. examination in July, 1967, and petitioner No. 5 after his admission in the School. Secondly, it has been said that there is no rule whatsoever restricting admission of graduates in the Teachers Training Schools. 6. The only two points, which have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are, firstly, that the petitioners got a legal right to be appointed to the posts in view of their selection prior to the coming into the existence of the present circular, which denies them this right: secondly, that the circular is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. I am unable to accept either of these contentions. 7. Firstly, it is obvious that the petitioners did not get a legal right to be appointed merely by virtue of their selection. It was open to the State of Bihar, the employer to lay down fresh conditions in respect of the appointment and not to appoint persons if they did not fulfil such requirements. It was equally open to the employer to change their mind and not to employ persons whom they had tentatively selected for such appointment on account of some supervening factors. It was equally open to the employer to change their mind and not to employ persons whom they had tentatively selected for such appointment on account of some supervening factors. I am not inclined to hold that merely by selecting the petitioners at one time, the State of Bihar were bound to appoint them, irrespective of any reasons for not doing so. It cannot, therefore, be said that a legal right had accrued to the petitioners to be appointed and there was a violation of any vested legal right. 8. It has been next urged in this connection that the petitioners had a legal right to be considered for appointment. It appears from the facts of this case that the petitioners were not appointed because of the fact that they are graduates-trained and the State Government have decided, as a matter of policy, not to appoint trained-graduates for primary schools. The question, therefore, will be as to whether the policy of the State Government can be justifiably assailed on relevant legal grounds. 9. In this connection it has been urged that the circular violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners to equality of opportunity in matters relating to appointment, guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution. It is said to be discriminatory as between the graduates who received their training prior to 1967 and those who did so thereafter, inasmuch as the first category of persons have already been employed whereas the latter have been denied the opportunity. The point raised in this case is the same as was raised before me in another case, namely, C. W. J. C. No. 1100 of 1972 (Udit Rai Sharma v. The State of Bihar, disposed of on the 16-11-1972 = (reported in 1974 Lab IC 94 (Pat)) and concluded by my finding therein. The impugned circular in this case was the subject-matter of consideration in that case, and, I do not find any good reason for taking a view different from the one which I had taken earlier. It is well-settled that reasonable classification is permissible and unless it can be shown that there is discrimination within the same class of persons, a discrimination between one class and an entirely different class is of no avail for establishing denial of equality of opportunity in matters of appointment or employment. It is well-settled that reasonable classification is permissible and unless it can be shown that there is discrimination within the same class of persons, a discrimination between one class and an entirely different class is of no avail for establishing denial of equality of opportunity in matters of appointment or employment. In the present case the State Government have adopted a new policy, which is contained in the circular aforesaid. The right of the State Government to make a change in their policy cannot be disputed. It is equally well-established that a Court exercising writ jurisdiction will not act as a Court of appeal and substitute its own views in the matter of Policy of the State Government for the views adopted by them. The Policy of the Government may be right or wrong, it is not for this Court to Judge. It is, however, open to this Court to go into the matter as to whether the policy is one which denies the citizens the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution. In view of their policy, the State Government have decided not to appoint trained graduates to any posts in primary schools. No discrimination is alleged or shown in respect of the class of persons of trained graduates after 1967. The classification appears to have been made on the basis that those who had already been employed earlier are not to be thrown out of employment by the circular retrospectively. The State Government have now shut the doors of primary schools to the trained graduates. The class of persons who were already employed have been reasonably classified from persons who have become trained graduates later. It cannot, in my view be said to be discriminatory even in between the two classes aforesaid. 10. Coming to the question as to whether the classification is reasonable, it is quite obvious that the State Government have given good and reasonable grounds for making a classification as between the Matriculate trained and the trained graduates. In view of what has been stated by the State Government, in their view a matriculate trained candidate is more suitable for appointment to posts in primary schools than a trained graduate. It cannot, therefore, be said in the present case that there is no justification for the classification or that it is unreasonable. In view of what has been stated by the State Government, in their view a matriculate trained candidate is more suitable for appointment to posts in primary schools than a trained graduate. It cannot, therefore, be said in the present case that there is no justification for the classification or that it is unreasonable. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the impugned order is arbitrary or violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 11. It is quite obvious from what has been stated or admitted by the parties on affidavit that at least four of these petitioners, on false representations, got admitted into the Training School. Article 462 of the Bihar Education Code, 1961, provides the qualification of persons for admission into training schools being passing of the Bihar Secondary School Examination, or an equivalent qualification. There is a note attached to it which says that graduates are not to be admitted into the training schools. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the four petitioners entered into the institution, suppressing the truth, with a view to get an advantage available only to the matriculate trained in the matter of employment in Primary Schools or may be to avoid taking up, the course of Diploma in Education or Bachelor of Education. The two other petitioners also became graduates while they were still in the training school. Obviously, the four petitioners, namely, petitioners Abbas Ansari, Rajendra Prasad Singh, Dineshwar Prasad Rai and Hareshwar Prasad Singh, did not come to this Court with clean hands. Irrespective of this however, I have already found that there is no merit, in any of the arguments raised on behalf of these petitioners. 12. In the result, there is no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, however, I am not inclined to pass any order for costs.