Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner who was in the service of Bihar Renewable Energy Development Agency (BREDA), Patna, his services were terminated, vide Order No.326 dated 4th June 98 on the ground of higher qualification at the time of regular appointment. For the said reason, both the order of termination and the guidelines dated 25th April 97, wherein qualification for appointment against Class-IV posts laid down, are under challenge. 2. The sole question to be determined is as to whether a qualification can be laid down for appointment to disqualify the persons having higher qualification or not. 3. In the present case, the petitioner, an Intermediate in Arts, was engaged by way of stop gap arrangement on 4th April 91 under BREDA to perform the job of Class-IV post after following some procedure. The Board of Directors of BREDA in its meeting decided to regularise the services of daily wage/ad hoc employees, by considering their cases with outsiders. The Director, BREDA called for the names from Employment Exchange, Patna by its Letter No.221 dated 2nd April 97, in pursuance of which the Employment Exchange forwarded the names of eligible persons, including the petitioner, vide letter no.1613 dated 4th June 97. The petitioner and others were called for interview held on 22nd May 98 (petitioner called, vide Interview Letter No.259 dated 12th May98) and on interview and selection, service of petitioner was regularised. While so functioning, the Respondent, Director, BREDA issued impugned order No.326 dated 4th June 98 terminating the services of petitioner on the ground of higher qualification, giving referrence of the guidelines issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, vide letter No.3577 dated 25th April 97. It is not in dispute that the BREDA is an instrumentality of the State of Bihar which follows the guidelines issued by the State for appointment against Class-IV posts. The State of Bihar issued such guidelines from its Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, from time to time, for appointment against Class-IV posts. Initial guideline was issued, vide Resolution No.7566 dated 16th May 73 and Resolution No. 10747 dated 20th June 74, which were superseded by guideline circulated, vide letter No.16441 dated 3rd December 80. Under the said guideline, no qualification was laid down for appointment against Class-IV posts, including peon, though selection was stipulated to be made on the recommendation of Selection Committee headed by the Collector of the district. Under the said guideline, no qualification was laid down for appointment against Class-IV posts, including peon, though selection was stipulated to be made on the recommendation of Selection Committee headed by the Collector of the district. Subsequently, the State Govt. came out with Resolution dated 18th June 93, whereby and whereunder, while it was decided to terminate the services of daily wage employees appointed after 1st August 85, it was decided to provide regular appointment to those engaged prior to 1 st August 85 by giving preference over outsiders, on the basis of their seniority. No qualification was laid down thereunder. A literate person having knowledge of cycling was eligible for appointment. The Respondents-State subsequently issued guideline for appointment against Class-IV posts, vide impugned letter No. 3577 dated 25th April 97. Under the said guideline, again while it was stipulated to give weightage to daily wage employees over outsiders on the basis of their seniority, and it was ordered that the procedure laid down, vide Circular No.16441 dated 3rd December 1980 shall be followed for preparation of panel, this time minimum qualification and maximum qualification was laid down under clause(2) of the said Circular dated 25th April 97. It stipulates minimum qualification of 8th Class and maximum matriculation for appointment against Class-IV posts, including peon. In view of aforesaid guideline, the petitioner having higher qualification of I.A. was held to be ineligible for appointment against Class-IV post and impugned order of termination was issued on 4th June 98. 4. The Respondent BREDA while appeared and filed counter affidavit, no separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. 5. The Respondent BREDA while accepted the statement made by petitioner, has referred a number of cases (C.W.J.C.No.7839 of 1991, disposed of on 30th November 93 and M.J.C. No.1238 of 1993, disposed of on 15th November 94), which have no relevancy with the issue involved in the present case. 6. The counsel for the Respondent BREDA when confronted accepted that BREDA had nothing to say relating to legality of appointment of petitioner, but because of guideline of the State, the service of petitioner was terminated, he having higher qualification of I.A. 7. 6. The counsel for the Respondent BREDA when confronted accepted that BREDA had nothing to say relating to legality of appointment of petitioner, but because of guideline of the State, the service of petitioner was terminated, he having higher qualification of I.A. 7. The counsel for the State submitted that the State of Bihar was not required to file affidavit relating to facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, except to defend the guideline dated 25th April 97, as challenged by the petitioner. The counsel for the State could not give reason nor could show the nexus in excluding persons having higher qualification than matriculation for appointment against Class-IV posts. 8. Now it is a settled law that the persons equally situated cannot be discriminated in the matter of employment and are entitled for protection as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 while prohibits class legislation not based on reasonable classification, it takes care to reasonably classify persons for legislative purposes. If it deals equally with all persons belonging to a well defined class, the same cannot be held to be arbitrary nor can be stated to be denial of equal protection. However, for making a class within a class of people, there must bo a nexus between the basis of a classification and the object to achieve (refer Supreme Court decision in Budhan V/s. State of Bihar [ (1955) 1 S.C.R. 1045 ]. Performance of an act otherwise and not in a manner which does not disclose any discernible principle, which is reasonable, may itself attract the vice of arbitrariness [refer Supreme Court decision in Shrilekha Vidyarthi V/s. State of U.P., (1991) 2 S.C.C. 212]. 9. Article 16(1) guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens to apply for employment under the State [refer Supreme Court decision in Krishna Chandra V/s. Central Tractor Organisation (A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 602)]. It also includes right to make an application for any post under the Government. It further guarantees a right to be considered on the merit for the post for which application has been made, subject to eligibility. Such guarantee will be violative, if the Govt. imposes an arbitrary clause excluding a class of persons from consideration of their cases for appointment, if the classification is not based on reasonable criteria. 10. It further guarantees a right to be considered on the merit for the post for which application has been made, subject to eligibility. Such guarantee will be violative, if the Govt. imposes an arbitrary clause excluding a class of persons from consideration of their cases for appointment, if the classification is not based on reasonable criteria. 10. It cannot be denied that the State is competent to lay down qualification for appointment to a post [refer Supreme Court decision in Subhash V/s. D.E.S.U., (1979)3 S.C.C. 786 ], but the condition or requisite qualification laid down for employment must have a reasonable relation to the suitability for a post or employment in public in general, in the interest of discipline. In case of non-relevant connection between the test prescribed and the interest of public service, exclusion of a class of person made in the matter of appointment will be violative of Article 16, which action can be challenged by the candidate on the ground of arbitrariness. In such case, the Govt. though not obliged to disclose the reason, but is liable to show nexus with the object to achieve in the matter of exclusion and to show the exclusion, so made, if not arbitrary. 11. In the present case, it will be evident that no qualification was laid down by the State for -appointment against Class-IV posts, except knowledge of reading; writing; and cycling, as laid down, vide Circular No.16441 dated 3rd December, 1980. Irrespective of such qualification, i.e. a person passed 8th Class or Matriculation examination or have a higher qualification, all the literates with knowledge of cycling had a right to be considered. This circular was in vogue when the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 4th April 91. By impugned Circular/Resolution dated 25th April 97, while it has been made clear that those engaged on daily wage basis will be given weightage over outsiders, on the basis of seniority. By insertion of minimum qualification of Class-8 and maximum qualification of Matriculation under clause (2) of the said Circular, those daily wage employees engaged on the basis of old guidelines, having lessor qualification of Class-8 or more qualification than Matriculation stand excluded. While some plausible reason can be given to lay down minimum qualification, in the present case, no grounds have been shown to disqualify more qualified persons than matriculate. While some plausible reason can be given to lay down minimum qualification, in the present case, no grounds have been shown to disqualify more qualified persons than matriculate. The reason or the nexus for laying down such qualification with the object to achieve in public interest could not be explained by the Respondents. 12. Similar case fell for consideration before Gujarat High Court in case of Satish Chandra Bhailal Bhaishah and others V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in (1984)2 S.L.R.737. In the said case, persons having higher qualification, were excluded, being more qualified. The Court held such classification by exclusion of higher qualified person, as arbitrary having no nexus with the object to achieve and declared the same ultra vires. 13. Similar view was taken in the case of Laxmi Narayan Yadav V/s. District Inspectress of Schools and others, reported in (1988)3 S.L.R.42. 14. In the circumstances and in view of pronouncements of Courts, as referred above, clause (2) of Paragraph No.1 of Circular No.3577 dated 25th April 97, so far as it relates to laying down higher qualification, limiting it to Matriculation is concerned, cannot be held to be legal, being arbitrary, having no nexus with the object to achieve. Further, as the daily wage employees earlier appointed on the basis of old guidelines, scheme has been framed for their regular appointment, in their cases, the minimum qualification of Class-8, as laid down in impugned Circular No.3577 dated 25th April 97 cannot be made applicable. This apart, process of selection for regular appointment, in the case of petitioner and others having started on 2nd April 97, when names were called for from the Employment Exchange, the subsequent guidelines circulated on 25th April 97, cannot hold field in the matter of such selection, which were to be completed on the basis of old rules/ guidelines, as were in vogue. Reliance can be placed, in this respect on Supreme Court decisions in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah & others V/s. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 852); A.A.Calton V/s. Director of Education (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1143); and P.Mahendran & Others V/s. State of Karnataka & Others (A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 405). 15. Thereby, subsequent guideline dated 25th April 97 cannot be made applicable in the matter of appointment of petitioner which was made in pursuance of requisition dated 2nd April 97. 16. 15. Thereby, subsequent guideline dated 25th April 97 cannot be made applicable in the matter of appointment of petitioner which was made in pursuance of requisition dated 2nd April 97. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, while I declare the qualification laid down under clause (2) of Paragraph No.1 of Circular dated 25th April 97, as ultra vires, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, set aside the impugned order of termination dated 4th June 98, being based on such arbitrary clause and having passed without application of mind, as mentioned above. 17. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the petitioner stands reinstated and his case is to be considered for providing order of regular appointment. If so required, his payment of salary for the intervening period is to be made within three months. 18. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar is, accordingly, directed to come out with appropriate corrigendum in respect of guideline/circular issued on 25th April 97, taking into consideration the findings, as given above. 19. The writ petition is allowed, but without any cost.