Judgment YADAV, J. ( 1 ) BY filing the present writ petition, the petitioners Union questions the legality and constitutional validity of Ordinance dated 10-2-2000 promulgated by His Excellency the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred under clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition on the ground inter alia that said Ordinance is ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution and scheme of the Rajasthan Secondary Eduction Act,1957. ( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to "act No. 42 of 1957") was enacted by State Legislature for developing system of Secondary Education and also to establish a Board to reorganise, regulate and supervise secondary education in State of Rajasthan. ( 3 ) SECTION 3 of the Act No. 42 of 1957 empowers for constitution of the Board. Under S. 4 of the aforesaid Act the composition of Board has been provided. S. 5 of the said Act contains the provisions to the effect that the Board shall have its headquarter at a place to be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette. It is pertinent to mention here that a proviso has been added to S. 5 of Act No. 42 of 1957 by impugned Ordinance Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is reproduced hereinbelow :-"provided that the Board may establish Divisional offices and District level offices for performing such of its functions as it may consider appropriate but the Board shall do so only with the prior permission of the State Government and the decision to establish such offices as well as functions to be carried out there, shall be notified in the official Gazette". In pursuant to aforesaid Ordinance dated 10-2-2000, a notification on 16-2-2000 has been issued, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-R/1 to the return filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 4 ) IN the present writ petition, caveat were lodged on behalf of respondents who have filed return to the writ petition denying the averments made therein. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a joint return whereas respondent No. 3 has filed a separate reply to the writ petition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 4 ) IN the present writ petition, caveat were lodged on behalf of respondents who have filed return to the writ petition denying the averments made therein. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a joint return whereas respondent No. 3 has filed a separate reply to the writ petition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their return specifically averred that the Ordinance No. 2 of 2000 amending Sec. 5 of Act No. 42 of 1957 is not at all inconsistent to the provisions of Sec. 5 of the said Act. The headquarter of Secondary Board is still at Ajmer and its Divisional offices and District level offices are required to be established in public interest to facilitate effective functioning of the Board under the proviso added to Sec. 5 of Act No. 42 of 1957. The Divisional and District level offices have already been established as per Gazette Notification dated 16-2-2000. The Divisional centres have been established at Udaipur, Jodhpur City : Rural (Jaipur Division), Bikaner and Kota. It is averred that these centres will perform various functions and duties as specified in the said notification issued on 16-2-2000. It is averred that expenses in maintaining Divisional headquarters and District headquarters are not likely to increase to the extent as mentioned by the petitioner inasmuch as the present staff working in the Board will be adjusted on these Divisional offices and District level offices. It is further averred in the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that even if there is slight increase in the expenses that too looking into the public interest and the facilities provided to the students, the increase in expenditure would be immaterial. It is averred that Divisional offices, contact offices are established as integral part and parcel of Board established at Ajmer. Therefore, if it is considered administratively feasible, then the employees of the Board can be transferred to Divisional offices or District level offices. ( 5 ) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 further averred in the reply that by creation of offices at Divisional and District level, the authorities of the Board cannot be pre-empted at this stage to act mala fidely against the employees curtailing their efficiency. The efficiency of the employees would be the prime consideration of the authorities of the Board. According to the averments made in the reply filed by respondent Nos. The efficiency of the employees would be the prime consideration of the authorities of the Board. According to the averments made in the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the efficiency of the employees of Board by creating Divisional and District level offices, will increase. In fact the Rajasthan Education Board has delayed the establishment of Divisional and District level offices which should have been done earlier for the convenience of the students and public at large. In fact the establishment of the Divisional and District level offices will minimize the burden of the Board at Ajmer and it would provide better effective facility to the students appearing in Boards Examination. At present the students are to rush from remote corner of the villages to Ajmer, but after establishment of Divisional and District level offices, they will have to contact those offices and can get their difficulties solved there. ( 6 ) THE respondent No. 3 in separate reply after denying the averments made in the writ petition averred in paragraph 3 that at initial stage when the Board was established in 1957, there were hardly 20000 to 22000 students who were appearing in the Boards Examination but as on today the total number of students who are appearing in the Board Examinations are more than 9 lacs and, as such, to scrutinise the forms including the documents and to provide facilities to the students are becoming unworkable from head office at Ajmer. According to respondent No. 3, establishment of Divisional and District level offices will facilitate the functioning of the Board and in solving the problems of the students. It is further averred that for proper and effective control over affiliated institutions, the decentralisation of the office of the Board at Ajmer is a dire necessity. It is averred that Board has taken policy decision to divide State in 6 Divisions with headquarter at Ajmer in terms of Section 5 of the Act No. 42 of 1957. The decentralisation of the Board in pursuant to notification dated 16-2-2000 Annexure-R/1 is given in detail in paragraph 3 of the reply filed by respondent No. 3, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-@@313. The decentralisation of the Board in pursuant to notification dated 16-2-2000 Annexure-R/1 is given in detail in paragraph 3 of the reply filed by respondent No. 3, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-@@313. htm@@ ( 7 ) THE present writ petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we proposed to decide the writ petition finally on merits inasmuch as the counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the present writ petition is ripped for final hearing. ( 8 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners Union Mr. R. K. Mathur that after promulgation of impugned Ordinance dated 10-2-2000, the respondents are trying to decentralise the office of Board which is apparently not a reasonable action as it would create unreasonable classification between employees and employees which will not have any nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Ordinance impugned Annexure-2 to the writ petition. According to Mr. Mathur, the classification is required to be based on sound foundation and must have nexus between the basis of classification and the object which Ordinance Annexure-2 sought to achieve. It is submitted by Mr. Mathur that in the instant case, the overlapping legislation is being intended to be brought through the impugned Ordinance Annexure-2 which apparently creates inequality between employees and employees. It is further submitted that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. Article 14 of the Constitution requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non discriminatory. It is urged that the action of State must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration because that would be denial of equality. It is further submitted that the principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally, as well as, philosophically an essential element of equality is projected under Article 14 of the Constitution which is to be adhered religiously by State but in the present case, it is being violated by promulgating Ordinance No. 2 of 2000 in question. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mathur are being opposed with equal vehemence by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mathur are being opposed with equal vehemence by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is urged by the learned Advocate General that the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan under the Constitution of India has right to change its policy looking into the changed circumstances of a problem with which it is confronted from time to time. It is urged by Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate General that policy decision taken by the State Government in the present case cannot be questioned by petitioners Union pre-empting arbitrariness and mala fide against them in future by the Authorities of Board. It is submitted that policy decisions taken by State Government are immune from judicial scrutiny. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the apex Court in case of State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 117 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1703 ). ( 10 ) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. In our considered opinion, the State Government under the Constitution has authority to take policy decision (from) time to time taking into account the changed circumstances to meet the exigency of the administration provided its policy decision does not contravene any provision of the Constitution or statutory provisions enacted by Legislature. ( 11 ) IT is well to remember that elected representatives of people representing Government either at Centre or at State level are free to take policy decision time to time, to manage the affairs of the people effectively by whom they are elected under changed circumstances. It is further true that whenever and wherever policy decisions taken by Government are questioned invoking power of judicial review of this Court, burden of proof lies on shoulders of petitioner to establish that policy decision taken by Government is either contrary to any provision of the Constitution or it contravenes any statutory provisions enacted by Legislature. It is further true that whenever and wherever policy decisions taken by Government are questioned invoking power of judicial review of this Court, burden of proof lies on shoulders of petitioner to establish that policy decision taken by Government is either contrary to any provision of the Constitution or it contravenes any statutory provisions enacted by Legislature. Ordinarily, this Court while exercising its power of judicial review is not required to weigh the pros and cons of the policy decision taken by Government or scrutinise and test on the anvil of beneficial or equitable nature of such policy decision of Government for the purposes of varying, modifying and annulling such policy decision taken by Government except where it is shown to be violative of any constitutional or statutory provisions enacted by Legislature. ( 12 ) THE view expressed by us in preceding paragraph is buttressed from the decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Ram Lubhaya ( AIR 1998 SC 1703 ) (supra ). It is to be imbibed that this Court being bulwark for the protection of rights of the citizens and also a senior partner of administration is empowered to judicially scrutinise any policy decision taken by the Government on the anvil of contravention of any provision of constitution or any statutory provision of law not otherwise. Reasons are not far to seek. The Constitution of India is the will of the people whereas the statutory provisions of law enacted by Legislature are will of the representatives of the people. The elected representatives of the people representing Government as political executive are empowered to manage the affairs of the people who elect them by taking policy decisions subject to the constitutional mandate and legislative provisions made by the Legislature. ( 13 ) WITH the aforesaid introspection, this Court is called upon to decide legality and constitutional validity of Ordinance No. 2 of 2000 and notification dated 16-2-2000 by virtue of which policy decision has been taken to decentralise the office of Board at Ajmer by establishing Divisional and District level offices in State of Rajasthan. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any constitutional provision which can be said to have been violated in promulgating the aforesaid Ordinance Annexure-2 to the writ petition or any statutory provision of Act No. 42 of 1957. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any constitutional provision which can be said to have been violated in promulgating the aforesaid Ordinance Annexure-2 to the writ petition or any statutory provision of Act No. 42 of 1957. It is conceded by learned Counsel for the parties that the subject on which the Ordinance in question Annexure-2 has been issued falls within Item No. 25 of Concurrent List of VII Schedule of the Constitution upon which the State Legislature is empowered to legislate upon. The legislative power of Governor under clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution is co-extensive with the legislative power of the State Legislature. Therefore, the Ordinance issued in the present case is within the legislative competence of the Governor of Rajasthan. Once it is held that the Ordinance in question Annexure-2 to the writ petition is within the legislative competence of the Governor during the recess of the legislature, the only question is to be examined whether decentralisation of the office of Board can be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 15 ) IN our considered opinion, by decentralising the office of Board at Ajmer by establishing Divisional and District level offices which have already been established vide notification dated 16-2-2000 Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 cannot said to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the present case, there is no question of creating unreasonable classification between employees and employees of Board. The grounds taken in the present writ petition regarding unreasonable classification and discrimination between employees and employees is far-fetched and imaginary which is hereby rejected as untenable. We are convinced that decentralisation of the office of Board at Ajmer to Divisional and District level offices will minimise the burden of the Board and it will increase its efficiency in minimising the untold miseries suffered by the students of remote villages of Rajasthan in coming to Ajmer for redressal of their grievances and it would be able to have effective administrative control on its recognised institutions. We are further convinced that when the Board was established in the year 1957, there were hardly 2000 to 22000 students who were appearing in the Boards Examination but as on today the total number of students who are appearing in the Boards Examinations are reported to be more than 9 lacs, therefore, in such a situation, to meet the administrative contingency the problem has to be tackled by the State Government and the Board within the meaning of Act No. 42 of 1957. The State Government and Board both have reliable ears and eyes to assess the administrative exigency which they intend to tackle by decentralising the office of the Board at Ajmer. ( 16 ) IT is to be imbibed that petitioners Union has no legal authority to question the financial burden in establishing the Divisional and District level offices of the Board. It is held that policy decision of State Government relating to financial involvement of a scheme in public interest is the sole prerogative of the political executive which is immune from judicial scrutiny. Here in the present case, the State Government while filing its reply has categorically stated in paragraph 11 of its reply to the effect that there will be slight increase in the expenses by establishing Divisional and District level offices of Board which is immaterial in comparison to the public interest and the welfare of the students involved. The aforesaid stand taken by the Government regarding financial involvement is absolutely justifiable and does not require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 17 ) FOR the discussions made hereinabove, we uphold the constitutional and legal validity of Ordinance No. 2 of 2000, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and further hold that it is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution nor it does violate any provision of Act No. 42 of 1957. Upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that the instant writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .