Judgment S.C. Agrawal, J.-The petitioners in both these writ petitions are Advocates who had applied for grant of telephone connections. They wanted their applications to be registered in special category on the ground that they are public workers. The said applications have however, been registered by the District Manager, Telephones. Jaipur under the general category. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. The said writ petitions were hoard by a learned single Judge of this Court, who by his order dated May 6, 1981, has referred the same to a larger Bench, preterably by three Judges of this Court, for deciding the important Constitutional questions which arise for determination in these writ petitions. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the learned single Judge the writ petitions have been heard by this Bench. Since both the writ petitions raise common questions for determination they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act), the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs has been conferred on the ‘Central Government and the Central Government empowered to permit, subject to such restrictions and conditions as it thinks fit, the establishment, maintenance and working of telegraphs, other than wireless telegraphs within any part of India. The term “telegraph” is defined in Sub-section, (i) of Section 3 of the Act to mean “any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signal, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other electromagnetic emissions, radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means.” The expression “telegraph line” is defined in Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act to mean a wire or wires used for the purpose of a telegraph, with any casing, coating, tube or pipe enclosing the same and any appliances and apparatus connected therewith for the purpose of fixing or insulating the same”. Section 7 of the Act confers on the Central Government the power to make rules making provision for the matters referred to in Clause (a) to (k) of Sub-section (2). Section 7 of the Act confers on the Central Government the power to make rules making provision for the matters referred to in Clause (a) to (k) of Sub-section (2). Section 7 (2) (c) enables the Central Government to frame rules prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus for telegraphic communication shall be established, maintained, worked, repaired, transferred, shifted, withdrawn or disconnected. Section 7 (2) (f) enables the Central Government to make rules prescribing the charges in respect of the establishment, maintenance, working, repair, transfer or shifting of any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus. Section 7 (4) (b) lays down that nothing in Section 7 or in any rules made under Section 7 shall be construed as subjecting the Central Government to any obligation to provide any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus for the purpose of affording means of telegraphic communication. Since a telephone is an instrument used for transmission and reception of sound by wire, it is “telegraph” as defined in Section 3 (1) of the Act and a telephone connection is a “telegraph line” as defined in Section 3 (4) of the Act. .The provision of a telephone connection is, therefore, governed by the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. 3. In pursuance of the rule making power conferred on it by Section 7 of the Act the Central Government has made the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The rules relating to telephones are contained in Part V of the Rules, Le., Rules 411’ to 459. Rule 413 lays down that ali telephone connections and other similar services provided or authorised by the department shall, unless governed by a separate contract, be subject to the conditions set forth in the Rules. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 414 lays down that application for provision of telephone and other similar service or for alteration to any existing service shall be made in writing and in such form and manner as may from time to time be prescribed by the telegraph Authority. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 414 prescribes the charges for the application form for providing a new telephone connection. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 414 prescribes the charges for the application form for providing a new telephone connection. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 416 empowers the Telegraph Authority (as defined in Section 3 (6) of the Act) to reject any application for the connection of a new telephone or for providing any similar service or for the alteration of an existing service. Sub-rule (2) however, lays down that before rejecting any application under Sub-rule (1) the Telegraph Authority shall have due regard to the factors mentioned in Clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-rule (2) and it further lays down that no action rejecting any application shall be taken by the Telegraph Authority unless notice of not less than seven days has been given in writing to the person concerned and the Telegraph Authority has considered the representation, if any, made by such person in the matter. Rule 434 prescribes the amounts which have to be deposited alongwith the applications for telephone connections and prescribes different amounts for applications for connections under the ‘Own Your Telephone’ (O.Y.T.) scheme and applications falling in the general or special categories. Thus according to the Rules the applications for telephone connections fall in three categories, namely (1) ‘O.Y.T applications, (2) Special Category applications and (3) General category applications. The allotment of telephone connections to the applicants falling in the O.Y.T- Special and General categories is governed by the instructions for allotment of telephones issued by the Post and Telegraph Board, known as Telephone Allotment Rules. Under the said instructions, which were in force on the date of submission of the applications by the petitioners, non O.Y.T. applicants belonging to (1) Medical Profession --Doctors, qualified Nurses and registered Mid wives: (2) Press -Newspapers, Journals and Magzines registered with the Registrar of the Newspapers, registered news-agencies, credited press correspondents and press photographers; (3) Public Institutions --recognised Schools and Colleges, registered Trade Unions, registered Co-operative Societies etc. etc., (4) Agricultural Farms --Agricultural Farms having area of not less than 3 acres, but excluding gardens, orchards or large cultivations of tea, jute etc.; (5) Registered Small Scale Industries; and (6) Public men i.e. prominent social workers and public men who are actively engaged in such work and are supported by two registered social/ charitable institutions and two terminal public men, were entitled to be registered under the special category. In so far as applications submitted by the persons claiming to be registered in the special category on the ground that they are public men, it was further provided that the registration was subject to ratification by the Telephone Advisory Commit-tee in stations where such Committees are functioning. 4. ShriS. Birmiwal (the petitioner in writ petition No. 270 of 1979) submitted his application for grant of a telephone connection on April 13, 1978. The said application was submitted by the said petitioner for being registered in the special category of public men i.e. public and social workers. In column 10 of the application the said petitioner gave the particulars of his public and social activities and the public and social offices held by him. Along with the application aforesaid the petitioner submitted two certificates obtained from two M- L. As. and certificates obtained from some social public organisations. The application of the said petitioner was placed before the Telephone Advisory Committee at its meeting held on Jan. 29, 1979, but since the Telephone Advisory Committee was of the view that the said petitioner should not be registered in the special category of public men, his application was registered in the general category and he was informed by the District Manager of Telephones, by letter dated September 27, 1978, that the application of the said petitioner was not found suitable for being registered in the special category and, ‘therefore, it had been registered in the general category. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the District Manager in not registering the application of the said petitioner in the special category and registering it in the general category, the said petitioner has filed this writ petition, wherein he has prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to release telephone connection to him. 5. ShriLakhpat B. Mehta (the petitioner in writ petition No. 330 of 1980) submitted his application for allotment of a telephone connection on Sept. 3, 1979. In the said application the said petitioner wanted his application to be registered in the special category of public men and in column 10 of the said application he gave particulars of his public and social activities as well as the particulars of the offices held by him in the public/social organisations. 3, 1979. In the said application the said petitioner wanted his application to be registered in the special category of public men and in column 10 of the said application he gave particulars of his public and social activities as well as the particulars of the offices held by him in the public/social organisations. In his application the said petitioner also mentioned the fact that he is an advocate and he should be considered on out of turn basis in the matter of providing telephone connection. Along with the application aforesaid the said petitioner submitted a number of certificates in support of his claim that he was a social worker. The application of the said petitioner was placed before the Telephone Advisory Committee at its meeting held on Nov. 9, 1970, but the Telephone Advisory Committee did not approve the registration of the application of the said petitioner in the special category. Thereupon the District Manager Telephones, by his letter dated November, 17, 1979 informed the said petitioner that his application for being registered in the special category on the ground of his being a public and social worker, had been placed before the Telephone Advisory Committee and the said petitioner was not found suitable for being registered in the special category and, therefore, his application had been registered in the general category. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid non-registration of his application in the special category and it being registered in the general category, the said petitioner has filed this writ petition, wherein he has prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to release a telephone connection to the said petitioner in the special category- In the writ petition the said petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to treat the profession of an Advocate, Vakeel or Lawyer, by whatever name they may be called, similar to that of medical profession and that in the alternative the instructions of the rules making classification of the various applicants be declared ultra vires the Constitution of India. 6. In both these writ petitions the case of the petitioners is that Advocates also serve the public at large and an advocate cannot be treated differently from doctors, public workers, small scale industries and press etc. 6. In both these writ petitions the case of the petitioners is that Advocates also serve the public at large and an advocate cannot be treated differently from doctors, public workers, small scale industries and press etc. in the matter of allotment of telephone connections and that denial of preference to Advocates in the matter of registration in the special category for the purpose of allotment of telephone was arbitrary. In the writ petitions the petitioners have also asserted that the petitioners ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order refusing to treat their applications as falling within the special category, could be passed and that no such opportunity was given to the petitioners. In the writ petitions it has also been claimed that since the petitioners had fully complied with the requirements prescribed by the telephone department with regard to the applications to be submitted for registration in the special category as public men the authorities were bound to register the said applications in the special category and that in not registering the said applications in special category but in registering them in general category the authorities have acted arbitrarily. .7. The writ petitions have been contested on behalf of the respondents and in the replies to the writ petitions filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that although it is always the anxiety of the telephone department to make efforts to provide connections to every applicant as early as possible but still it is never possible to provide telephones as per demand immediately because there is long list of persons on waiting list which varies from locality to locality and the exchange planning is projected on the existence of the waiting list. In the said reply it has also been stated that to safeguard the interest of the public utility service the telegraph authority has framed rules which are being revised and changed from time to time whereby uniform policy has been laid down for whole of the country. According to the said rules certain classes of applicants have been included in special category and that the said classification has been made after looking into the functions of the applicants. According to the said rules certain classes of applicants have been included in special category and that the said classification has been made after looking into the functions of the applicants. According to the said reply a lawyer cannot be compared with a doctor because the services of a doctor are of great utility and in matters of emergency a telephone call has to be made for saving life of a person and, therefore, medical men have been included in the special category. With regard to the rejection of the applications of the petitioners for being registered in special category it has been stated in the said replies that the said rejection was made on the advice of the Telephone Advisory Committee which consists of several prominent citizens representing the various interests viz, trade, commerce and industries, press, medical profession and public workers. In the said reply it has been asserted that the petitioners were not entitled to a personal hearing by the Telephone Advisory Committee at the time when their applications .were considered by the said Committee and that the action of the respondents in not registering the applications of the petitioners in special category and registering the same in general category, could not be said to be arbitrary. 8. At the outset it may be observed that even though in both the writ petitions the petitioners have prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to release telephone connections to the petitioners in special category, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions have conceded, during the course of arguments, that the petitioners cannot ask for the said relief and that the petitioner can only ask for their applications being registered in special category and the petitioners being allotted telephone connection? out of the allocation that is made for the applicants registered in the special category, 9. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners can be broadly divided under two heads. Under the first head fall the contentions with regard to the Constitutional validity of the classification of the applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category and the right of the members Of the legal profession to be included amongst the applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category. Under the first head fall the contentions with regard to the Constitutional validity of the classification of the applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category and the right of the members Of the legal profession to be included amongst the applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category. Under the second head fall the contentions with regard to the right of the petitioners to be registered in the special category on the basis that they are public and social workers and the validity of the orders passed by the respondents re fusing to register the applications of the petitioners in the special category of public men but registering the said applications in the general category. It may be observed that taking note of the importance of the aforesaid question with regard to the validity of the classification of the applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category to the members of the legal profession this learned single Judge had issued notices to the Bar Council of Rajasthan and the local Bar Associations. In response to the said notices the Bar Council of Rajasthan as well as the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association have entered appearance and Shri M. Mridul and Shri M.R Calla addressed the Court on behalf of the Bar Council of Rajasthan and Shri L.L. Sharma addressed the Court on behalf of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association on the questions with regard to the Constitutional validity of the classification of the applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category and the right of the members of the legal profession to be included amongst the applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category. We will first deal with the contentions that have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel representing the Bar Council of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association on the aforesaid questions covered by the first head. 10. We will first deal with the contentions that have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel representing the Bar Council of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association on the aforesaid questions covered by the first head. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel representing the Bar Council of Rajasthan and the Hajasthan High Court Advocates Association have submitted that registration of an applicant in the special category results in altotment of a telephone connection to him on a priority basis and that in the matter of altotment of telephone connection on priority basis no distinction can be made between the members of the legal profession and the various categories of applicants who are entitled to be registered under the special category, viz., members of the Medical profession, press, public institutions, agricultural farms, Small Scale Industries and public men. The learned Counsel have laid strong emphasis on the role of the lawyer in a democratic State, specially in the matter of protection of the life, liberty and property of the citizen and have submitted that the considerations which apply to the members of the medical profession and other classes of applicants who are entitled to be registered under the special category apply with much greater force to the members of the legal profession and that there is no rational basis for excluding the members of the legal profession from the classes of persons who are entitled to be registered in special category. According to the learned Counsel the non-inclusion of the members of the legal profession amongst the class of persons who are entitled to be registered in special category is clearly arbitrary and that as a result of the non-inclusion of the members of the legal profession even though they are persons similarly situate with those who have been included amongst the applicants who are entitled to be registered in special category, the classification of the various classes of applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category must be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel have further submitted that the Court can issue an appropriate direction for inclusion of the members of the legal profession amongst the classes of applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category. In the alternative the learned Counsel have submitted that if the Court is of the view that such a direction for inclusion of the members of the legal profession amongst the classes of applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category cannot be given, the rules relating to altotment of telephone which provide or classification of certain applicants who are entitled to be registered in special category should be struck down on the ground that the same are violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. .11. ShriR.K. Anand, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has, on the other hand, submitted that the members of the legal profession cannot be said to be persons similarly situate with the classes of applicants .who are entitled to be registered in the special category and that there is no infirmity in the classification made under the Rules for altotment of telephones in that regard. Shri Anand has also submitted that even if it be held that members of the legal profession should have been included amongst the classes of applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category, the rules cannot be struck down for the reason that the members of the legal profession have not been so included and that the Court cannot also give a direction for including the members of the legal profession amongst the classes of applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category. 12. With regard to the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, the law is well settled that Article 14 enjoins upon the State to make laws that operate alike on all persons under like circumstances. Article 14, however, recognises that the State, in the exercise of its Governmental power, has of necessity to make laws operating differently on different groups or classes of persons within its territory to attain particular ends in giving effect to its policies. Article 14, however, recognises that the State, in the exercise of its Governmental power, has of necessity to make laws operating differently on different groups or classes of persons within its territory to attain particular ends in giving effect to its policies. In other words the State is not prohibited from classifying persons into groups or classes, but while thus classifying persons into groups or classes it must be ensured that the classification is not arbitrary but A rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test of a valid classification the two conditions which are required to be fulfilled are (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and (ii) that differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. In short, while Article 1’4 forbids class discrimination by conferring privileges or imposing liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of large number of other persons similarly situated in relation to the privileges sought to be conferred or the liabilities proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid classification for the purpose of legislation provided such classification is not arbitrary in the sense aforementioned (See : Chandrachud, C. J. In re Special Courts Bill, 1978, AIR 19711 SC’ 478 at pages 508-5 10). A reasonable classification is one which includes all persons who were similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law and the purpose of a law may be either the elimination of a public mischief or the achievement of some positive public good. A classification may suffer from the defect of being under inclusive or being over inclusive. A classification is said to be under inclusive when the State benefits or burdens persons in a manner that furthers a legitimate purpose but does not confer the same benefit on others who are similarly situated. A classification is said to be over inclusive when it includes not only those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated as well. A classification is said to be over inclusive when it includes not only those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated as well. While examining the validity of legislation on the touchstone of Article 14 the Courts have drawn a distinction between a classification which is over inclusive and a classification which is under inclusive. In cases where the classification is found to be over inclusive the Courts have interfered by striking down the offending part so as to exclude persons of groups who ought not to have been included in it. But the Courts have shown more tolerance towards laws which are challenged on the ground that the classification is under inclusive for the reason that the legislature is free to recognise the degrees of harm and it may confine the benefits or burdens to those classes of cases where the need seems to be clearest. A distinction has to be drawn between the role of Legislature which “has the affirmative responsibility” and the role of the Courts which have only the power to destroy, not to reconstruct.” (See: State of Gujarat vs. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., AIR 1974 SC 1300 at pages 1313-1314). It is also well settled that unless the classification is unjust on the face of it the onus lies upon the party attacking the classification to show by placing the necessary material before the Court that the said classification is un-jreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constn. 13. In the matter of altotment of telephone connections it cannot be disputed that with the growth of trade and business and rapid increase in the pace of life a telephone connection facilitates the discharge of the normal functions of the citizens and this is more so in the urban areas. But in view of the limited economic resources that are available, it is not possible to provide a telephone connection to every person who applies for it and in spite of all the efforts towards expansion the demand for telephone connections far exceeds the supply. The result, is that a person has to wait for some period before he secures a telephone connection. The result, is that a person has to wait for some period before he secures a telephone connection. It cannot however, be ignored that the need of certain applicants for a telephone connection may be greater than that of others and in the altotment of a telephone connection to a particular applicant in certain cases may be beneficial to the general public and a tong waiting period in such cases may not be conducive to the interest of the general public. To deal with such situations it is necessary that the demands of certain categories of applicants should be met on a preferential basis. This has been envisaged by the rule-making authority in framing the rules because from a perusal of the Rules (especially Rule 434) it appears that the applicants for altotment of telephone connections have been dividied into three broad categories; .(i) O.Y.T. Scheme.’ .(ii) Special category, and (iii) General category. Applicants under the O.Y.T. scheme are required to deposit a particular sum of money, which varies according to the capacity of the telephone exchange, and such applicants are entitled to certain preference in the matter of altotment of telephone connection inasmuch as certain percentage of available telephone connections are earmarked for the applicants under the O.Y.T. scheme. The reasons for giving preferential treatment to the applicants under the O.Y.T. scheme appears to be to collect financial resources which are necessary for the expansion of the telephone facilities in the country. The other category of applicants who are entitled to preferential treatment in the matter of altotment of telephone connections are those falling in the special category. Applicants not covered by the O.Y.T. Scheme or the special category fall in the general category and their applications for grant of telephone connections are to be dealt with in the normal course. 14. The aforesaid categorisation of the applicants for telephone connections in the three categories mentioned viz., O.Y.T., special and general has not been challenged before us. The learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Rajasthan and the Advocates Association do not dispute the need for giving preferential treatment to certain classes of applicants. The arguments of the learned Counsel are confined to the validity of the classification of the applicants who are entitled to be registered under the special category. 15. The arguments of the learned Counsel are confined to the validity of the classification of the applicants who are entitled to be registered under the special category. 15. The Rules are, however, silent with regard to the persons who can be treated as falling within the special category. With a view to supplement the Rules the telephone authorities, viz., the Post and Telegraph Board, have been issuing from time to time instructions containing the guidelines with regard to altotment of telephones whereby they have been altocating the percentage of telephone connections which should be made available for the different categories of applicants and have also been prescribing the classes of applicants who are regarded as falling within the special category so as to be entitled to preferential treatment in the matter of altotment of telephone connections by being altotted the telephone within the quota set apart for the applicants betonging to the special category. It is well settled that if the statutory rules are silent on a particular matter it is open to the executive to issue administrative instructions with a view to supplement the statutory rules provided the said administrative instructions are not inconsistent with the statutory rules already framed. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that it was open to the telephone authorities to issue administrative instructions to supplement the Rules. The administrative instructions whereby the classes of applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category have been defined, are thus instructions which supplement the Rules and they cannot be said to be inconsistent with the Rules. 16. As noticed earlier, the applicants who are entitled to be registered in special category under the administrative instructions which were in operation at the time when the petitioners had submitted their applications were those betonging to (i) Medical profession, i.e., doctors, qualified nurses and registered mid-wives; (ii) Press--Newspapers, Journals and Magazines registered with the Registrar, Newspapers, registered newspaper agencies accredited press correspondents and press photographers; (in) Public Institutions-- recognised schools and Colleges, registered trade unions, registered co-operative societies etc. etc.; (iv) Agricultural Farms having area of not less than 3 acres but excluding gardens, orchards or large cultivations of tea, jute etc.; (v) Registered Small Scale Industries; and (vi) Prominent social workers and public men who are actively engaged in such work. etc.; (iv) Agricultural Farms having area of not less than 3 acres but excluding gardens, orchards or large cultivations of tea, jute etc.; (v) Registered Small Scale Industries; and (vi) Prominent social workers and public men who are actively engaged in such work. It has been stated at the bar that agricultural farms having an area of not less than 3 acres have not been deleted from the classes of applicants who are entitled to be registered under the special category. While examining the validity of the aforesaid classification of the applicants who are entitled to be registered in the special category it has to be borne in mind that the o