Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Employees Union, through its President besides its General Secretary, Joint Secretary and the Co-ordinator of the said Union who have also joined the Union as petitioners and claim to be juristic persons having formed a registered and recognised Union to ventilate and safeguard rights and interests of the Members and regulate the relations between the members and the employers to fare condition of life and work and continuously strive for improved wages and working conditions. 2. In fact, the grievance of the petitioners is against the decision of the. Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and its Managing Director, respondent no, 6 and 7, to abolish/merge two Project Circles, 4 Divisions and 21 Ranges vide Resolution dated 30th March, 1996, Agenda Item No. 12 and the consequent Office Order Nos. 162 and 163 dated 18.6.96, 176 and 177 dated 9.7.96. The petitioners have prayer for partly quashing paragraph no. 5 of the resolution No. 303 dated 11.3.94 of the State of Bihar and as notified by Notification No. 480 dated 12.4.94. Further they have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding respondents no. 1 to 7 to take the entire liability (including the officers and staff working under respondent nos. 6 and 7) along with its assets and absorb/regularise their services in the Department of Forest and grant ail the benefits of service, continuity, pay, seniority etc. in accordance with law. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the reorganisation of the State under Bihar Re-organisation Act by virtue of which major forest area now has been transferred to the newly created Jharkhand State, the petitioners do not want to press their grievance in respect of the persons employed within the area of Jharkhand and has confined the relief only with respect to the forest area falling in West Champaran. it is submitted that the members of the petitioning Union were regularly appointed employees against the sanctioned post in the Corporation and by virtue of the impugned decision to abolish/merge two Project Circles, 4 Divisions and 21 Ranges, the right of such employees of the Corporation to continue in employment has adversely been affected which is violative of the Principles enshrined in Articles 21, 39 (a) and 41, of the Constitution of India. It has also been submitted that though the Corporation has taken work from the members of the petitioning Union over now 14 o 20 years but their services have been sought to be retrenched by virtue of the impugned decision which is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. According to the learned counsel for petitioners the Corporation has implemented the decision to minimise the establishment cost in pursuance of the Government decision with respect to those employed in Palamau but the same is being sought to be arbitrarily implemented by the impugned decision in respect of those employed in West Champaran. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in fact, to minimise the establishment cost the respondent Corporation could have adopted many ways other than abolishing/merging 2 Circles, 4 Divisions and 21 Ranges which would have saved the persons from their retrenchment. 4. Mr. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation, has submitted that no single regular employee has been retrenched so far by virtue of the said impugned decision. It is only those who are on daily wages might be affected by the impugned decision which has been taken on account of the said policy decision of the State Government to minimise the establishment cost. In fact, in implementation of the said policy decision services of those persons who were working on deputation from the Government in Corporation have been repatriated in the Government. It is submitted that initially the Corporation was handed over the possession of the land situated in Singhbhum, Palamau and West Champaran, but, later most of the land which was leased out to the Corporation have been taken back by the State and handed over for Tiger Project to the State Trading Corporation on account of which the Government was compelled to take policy decision for reducing establishment cost of the Corporation. It has further been submitted that in any view of the matters, there is no vested right of the members of the petitioner to continue in employment even when the Corporation is not in a position to regularise them and permanently absorb them in its employment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show that any of its members who is regular employee has been adversely affected by the impugned decision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show that any of its members who is regular employee has been adversely affected by the impugned decision. The impugned decision has been taken as a matter of policy and by now it is well settled that such policy decision cannot be normally interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is shown that there has been violation of any statutory provision or constitutional provision. 6. This Court does not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is any discrimination made in taking policy decision. In any view of the matter such policy decisions are taken according to need and requirement of any Project and keeping in view its resources and many other factors relating to employment in any such project for work. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show as to how the impugned decision has adversely affected any right much less than vested right of any of its members. Learned counsel for the petitioners has only referred to Annexure-19 series in support of her contention that the post on which the work from the members of the petitioning Union were being taken was sanctioned post and not that they acquired any vested right to continue in employment even when the Corporation is financially not in a position to meet their liability on account of reduction of the forest area which has also adversely affected their functioning. I have already noticed above/that the policy decision has been taken to minimise the establishment cost and if in that regard the sanctioned strength is also reduced the petitioning Union cannot claim any relief as prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is thus dismissed but without cost.