JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) PETITIONER No. 1 is an Association of Teachers working in non-governmental institutions which have been taken over by the State of M. P. , whereas petitioners 2 to 11 are its members. Petitioners 2 to 11 were initially appointed as lecturers in the Lahiri College of Arts, commerce and Science at Chirimiri. This College was run and managed by a Society known as Lahiri College Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act. It was a non-governmental institution. It appears that the said Society came under some financial stringency and the College was sought to be taken over by the State of M. P. Ultimately it was taken over by the State of M. P. on 27-3-1981. ( 2. ) MADHYA Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) deal, inter alia, with recruitment, seniority and fixation of salary etc. of the teaching staff in non- governmental Colleges which have been taken over by the government. In accordance with the norms for absorption of such lecturers as petitioners 2 to 11 into government service as contained in the Rules, these petitioners were absorbed in government service with effect from the date of taking over of the College aforesaid. The Rules were amended from time to time. One such amendment was made by Notification published on page 73 of Part XI of M. P. Law Times, 1976. By this amendment, sub-rule (4) of Rule 13 was substituted. The substituted sub-rule (4) provided that teaching staff of the non-governmental colleges taken over by government, shall be absorbed in the manner specified in Schedule III-A. By the same amendment, after Schedule III, Schedule III-A was inserted. Clause 1 (iv) of schedule III-A defines screening committee to mean a committee comprising of the following: (i) Chairman, Public Service Commission or a member of the Commission nominated by the Chairman; (ii) Education Secretary : (iii) Director of Collegiate Education: and (iv) two Principals of Govt. Post Graduate Colleges of whom one should be of a science subject. Clause 3 of Schedule III-A lays down considerations for absorption under government service which were to be kept in mind by the screening committee. It is in pursuance of the procedure laid down in schedule III-A that the petitioners 2 to 11 were absorbed in government service on being found fit for absorption. ( 3. Clause 3 of Schedule III-A lays down considerations for absorption under government service which were to be kept in mind by the screening committee. It is in pursuance of the procedure laid down in schedule III-A that the petitioners 2 to 11 were absorbed in government service on being found fit for absorption. ( 3. ) CLAUSE 6 of Schedule III-A deals with determination of seniority. It provides that a person absorbed to a particular post shall get his seniority from the date the college was taken over, provided that he would be placed below the last existing government servant promoted or recruited by the Public Service Commission to that post and above the government servant promoted or appointed after that date. Clause 9, on the other hand, provides for pay fixation. This clause contemplates that the pay of a person absorbed into government service under the provision of this Schedule shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the post in which he is absorbed and the difference between the pay he was drawing on the date of absorption and the pay at which he is fixed, shall be given to him as personal pay to be absorbed in future increase of pay. The seniority and pay of petitioners 2 to 11 appear to have been determined and fixed in accordance with clauses 6 and 9 aforesaid. The petitioners in the present writ petition, are aggrieved by this determination of seniority and pay fixation. ( 4. ) IT has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners 2 to 11 had been working as lecturers in the Lahiri College aforesaid for the last several years before the said college was taken over by the Government whereupon they were absorbed in government service as aforesaid and consequently, they were entitled to have their seniority fixed after taking into consideration their past service. Rule 6, in so far as it provides that the seniority of the petitioners shall be determined taking them to be in government service from the date the Lahiri College was taken over works to great prejudice of petitioners 2 to 11. Rule 6, in so far as it provides that the seniority of the petitioners shall be determined taking them to be in government service from the date the Lahiri College was taken over works to great prejudice of petitioners 2 to 11. It has further been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the same manner, fixation of the pay of the petitioner at the minimum of the pay scale on the post on which they were absorbed, is again prejudicial to the petitioners 2 to 11. According to him, pay of petitioners 2 to 11 should have been fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn by them on the date of taking over of the institution. ( 5. ) IN this connection, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ramjiprasad Tiwari vs. State of M. P. and others, M. P. No. 60/73 D-7/10/72-73. In our opinion, that decision is of no assistance so far as the present petitioners are concerned. That was a case where rule 12 of the M. P. Local Authorities School Teachers (Absorption in Government service) Rules, 1963, came up for consideration. That Rule provides as under : "12. Determination of seniority : (1 ). The seniority of an absorbed employee in the post of cadre of absorption shall, as on 1st October 1963, be determined by the length or continuous service, whether officiating or permanent rendered by him immediately betore that date in the corresponding post or in the local authority excluding periods of fortuitour appointments which are in the nature of stop-gap arrangements. (2 ). Where the length of service in the corresponding post in the local authorities is equal, the employee senior in age, shall be deemed to be senior. (3 ). Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, seniority inter se of employees who before the 1st October 1963, belonged to the same local authority as it existed before that date, shall not be disturbed. " Rule 12 above mentioned and clause 6 of Schedule III-A which is relevant for purposes of determination of seniority in the instant case, are not in pan materia, but are materially different from each other. " Rule 12 above mentioned and clause 6 of Schedule III-A which is relevant for purposes of determination of seniority in the instant case, are not in pan materia, but are materially different from each other. Rule 12 aforesaid, as seen above, made a provision for taking into consideration the length or continuous service, whether officiating or permanent, rendered by the employee who had been absorbed immediately before the date of absorption in the corresponding post. No such requirement is to be found in clause 6, Schedule III-A which is relevant for purposes of this case. Reliance was also placed on another decision of this Court in R. N. Tiwari vs. State of M. P. and others, M. P. No. 588 of 1984 D-30-1-1979. That too was a case where Rule 12 aforesaid came up for consideration. ( 6. ) IN order to consider the validity or otherwsie of Clauses 6 and 9 of Schedule III-A, it would be necessary to refer to the letter dated 27-3-1981 sent by the Government of m. P. to the Director, Mahavidyalayin Shiksha M. P. , Bhopal, dealing with the question of taking over of the Lahiri College. It, inter alia, states that the Government shall not take over any of the liabilities of the college and that the Govt. should have full authority to absorb or not to absorb the employees of the Lahiri College in Government service. Likewise, it would have full authority to appoint them on ad hoc basis until further orders and even to take work from them in some other establishment. ( 7. ) AS seen above, 27-3-1981 was the date on which the Lahiri College was taken over by the Government. It is this date which would be relevant for purposes of determination of semiority under Clause 6 of Schedule III-A. Clauses 6 and 9 and other clauses of Schedule III-A would apparently constitute the terms and conditions of service of petitioners 2 to 11 consequent upon their absorption in Government service. Indeed, since these terms and conditions were already in existence prior to the absorption of petitioners 2 to 11, they will be deemed to have been absorbed subject to the terms and conditions as laid down in the Rules including clauses 6 and 9 of Schedule III-A aforesaid. ( 8. Indeed, since these terms and conditions were already in existence prior to the absorption of petitioners 2 to 11, they will be deemed to have been absorbed subject to the terms and conditions as laid down in the Rules including clauses 6 and 9 of Schedule III-A aforesaid. ( 8. ) IN Rajkumar Tiwari vs. State of M. P. andothers, M. P. No. 17/73 D. 14-4-1976 decided by a Division Bench of this Court the question of right of the State Government in connection with the M. P. Local Authorities School Teachers (Absorption in government-Service) Act, 1963, came up for consideration. In paras 6 and 1 of the Order, it was held as follows : "6. Thus the true position which clearly emerges, is: (1) The institutions were taken over by the State Government from the local authorities when the latter accepted the terms and conditions proposed by the State Government; (2) there was no agreement between the State Government and such institutions that the teachers, Head Master or the Principals of such institutions, would be absorbed in Government service on the same posts; and (3) there was no agreement between the State Government and such teachers, Head Master or principals as regards the terms and conditions of their absorption. 7. In our opinion, it is settled law that in the above situation, the State government had the right to lay down principles and criteria for absorption of such teachers. Head Masters and Principals and (hey cannot be heard to say that the State Government should have laid down any different principles or criteria, as the matter was entirely in the discretion of the State Government. The basic principle is that when there is a change of masters, all contracts of service between the prior master and his servants automatically terminate and thereafter those who elect to serve the new master and are taken over by the latter, serve on such terms and conditions as the new master may choose to impose. This was succinctly laid down by Vivian Bose J. speaking for the supreme Court, in Amarsingh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 SC 228 where their Lordships earlier decision in State of Madras vs. Rajgopalan, (1955) 2 scr 541 (562) = AIR 1955 SC 817 (83) was relied on. This was succinctly laid down by Vivian Bose J. speaking for the supreme Court, in Amarsingh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 SC 228 where their Lordships earlier decision in State of Madras vs. Rajgopalan, (1955) 2 scr 541 (562) = AIR 1955 SC 817 (83) was relied on. In the last mentioned case, the decision of the Privy Council in Reilly vs. The King 1934 AC 176 and of the House of Lords in Nokes vs Doncoster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. 1940 AC 1014 were followed. " ( 9. ) THUS the true position which clearly emerges is that in law, the petitioners 2 to 11 cannot assert that their past services in Lahiri College had to be taken into consideration for determining their seniority or while fixing their pay. Further, as seen above, absorption in Government service in view of clause 3 of Schedule III-A was subject to the petitioners being selected for appointment by the screening committee. We have been informed that many teachers were not found fit by the screening committee and notwithstanding the fact that they had been in service of the college for some time, they were not absorbed in Government service. The length of service of the teachers in the college which was taken over, was thus not a relevant consideration for purposes of absorption in Government service in accordance with the Rules. The validity of clause 6 of Schedule III-A was challenged before a Division Bench of this court in case of Dr. K. M. Sharma and others vs. State of M. P. andothers, 1980 M. P. L. J. 555. It was held that Clause 6 aforesaid was valid and reasonable. It was further held in that case that teachers already in Government service and those sought to be absorbed on taking over of private colleges, do not belong to the same category. Those who are required to be absorbed in Government service and consequentially have to be assigned a suitable post either in the cadre of lecturer, Asstt. Professor, Professor or the principal, form a class by themselves. It cannot, therefore, be said that while assigning place to them in the Government service in different cadres, the petitioners or those already in the Government service, have been discriminated. ( 10. Professor, Professor or the principal, form a class by themselves. It cannot, therefore, be said that while assigning place to them in the Government service in different cadres, the petitioners or those already in the Government service, have been discriminated. ( 10. ) AS is apparent from the letter dated 27-3-1981 (Annexure-C) already referred to above, at the time of taking over of the Lahiri College, it had been made clear by the government that it was not bound to absorb the employees of the said college in government service. Their absorption depended on their fulfilling the conditions laid down in the Rules, particularly in Schedule III-A of the said Rules. In this connection it may be pointed out that in the case of Dr. K. M. Sharma (supra) it was further held that a college is taken over by issuance of an order by the Government in that behalf. The process of absorption of the, staff of taken over College starts thereafter. A screening committee is to be constituted, the cases are to be placed before it for consideration, the list of selected candidates is forwarded to the Government, and after approval, is forwarded to the Public Service Commission for its concurrence. It is only after this that the absorption orders are received. This process is likely to consume some time. The process of absorption can only be said to be finalised when the Government receives such orders. Till then, although a private college is taken over, the process of absorption continues. It is, therefore, quite reasonable to say that although the absorption order in individual case is passed subsequently on completion of the process of absorption, the person is in Government service right from the date when the college is taken over. ( 11. ) IN view of the provision contained in Schedule III-A and the principle laid down on interpretation of clause 6 by this Court in case of Dr. K. N. Sharma (supra) it is apparent that petitioners 2 to 11 would be deemed to have been in Government service from the date the college is taken over. That being so, it cannot be said that clause 6, when it says that in the matter of determination of seniority, a person absorbed to a particular post shall get seniority from the date the college was taken over is, in any way, arbitrary or discriminatory. That being so, it cannot be said that clause 6, when it says that in the matter of determination of seniority, a person absorbed to a particular post shall get seniority from the date the college was taken over is, in any way, arbitrary or discriminatory. Although under the Rules expression used is absorption in govt. service, yet for all intents and purposes, the employee absorbed in Government service stands on the same footing subject to any Rules to the contrary, as if he was for the first time, appointed in Government service on the date contemplated by clause 6, namely, the date on which the college was taken over. In this view of the matter, in the normal course, even a person who has been absorbed in Government service on particular date, would be entitled to pay fixation in the same manner as a person who may have been appointed on that date. This being so, clause 9 also, when it provides that the pay of a person absorbed in Government service shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay on which he is absorbed, cannot be said to be either arbitrary or discriminatory. ( 12. ) IN this connection, it is material to take into notice that Rule 9 takes care of the financial hardship likely to be caused to a person absorbed and it provides that difference between the pay he was drawing on the date of absorption and the pay at which he is fixed, shall be given to him as personal pay to be absorbed in future increments of pay. Consequently, clause 9 cannot be said to be unreasonable, event on the ground that as a consequence of absorption, the employee absorbed is faced to suffer financial loss. ( 13. ) RELIANCE was placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Supreme Court in Air India vs. Nergesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829 . This was a case where discrimination was practised on the ground of sex which was clearly in violation of Art. 16 of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. This was a case where discrimination was practised on the ground of sex which was clearly in violation of Art. 16 of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Such is not the situation in the instant case and neither clause 6 nor clause 9 of the Schedule III-A of the rules can be said to be hit by Art. 16 of the Constitution. ( 14. ) RELIANCE was also placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on Central inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Brojo Nath, AIR 1986 SC 1571 . That was a case where a class and the contract of service was held to be opposed to public policy within the meaning of the expression under Section 23 of the Contract act, as also to be arbitrary. In our opinion, neither clause 6 nor clause 9 of Schedule III-A can, in view of the facts and circumstances pointed out above, be held to be either opposed to public policy or to be arbitrary. ( 15. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.