JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J. 1. The unsuccessful writ petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 4278/2004 and 7325/2004 are the appellants in these writ appeals. The appeals are directed against the common judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 30th September, 2005 disposing of the aforesaid writ petitions with certain observations. 2. The only question is whether the impugned judgment suffers from any errors requiring our interference in exercise of our writ appellate jurisdiction. 3. A few relevant facts leading to filing of these appeals. The appellants mainly challenged the communication dated 20th August, 2004 sent by the Joint Director, Elementary Education, Assam which is in the nature of a policy decision. This policy decision of the Government was communicated by the Joint Director to various authorities including all the District Elementary Education Officers. The said communication reads as under: With reference to the subject and Govt. letter quoted above, I am directed to state that Government has decided to provide financial assistance to Middle Schools yet to be provincialised with effect from 1st September, 2004. The beneficiary institutions should be selected on the basis of need, performance and seniority. Though need and performance should get serious attention, the seniority in establishing the educational institutions should not be ignored. In case of BTAD areas the educational 'institutions should contain the name of the constituency and the district to which the institutions area situated. You are, therefore, requested to furnish the list of Middle School on the basis of above mentioned three criterias as per pro forma enclosed herewith through special messenger within 25th August, 2004 positively to this office. 4. The grievance of the writ appellants was that the criteria evolved to select for the purposes of release of grant-in-aid and to provide financial assistance to recognised Middle Schools yet to be provincialised is arbitrary in its nature. It was contended that such policy decision confers unguided and uncanalised powers upon the authorities and the same is likely to be abused which may ultimately result in discrimination. It was contended that such policy decision confers unguided and uncanalised powers upon the authorities and the same is likely to be abused which may ultimately result in discrimination. In the writ petition, the said plea is formulated in the following manner: That, by the impugned Memorandum dated 20.8.2004 has laid down norms like need, performance and seniority adding further that the need and performance though should get serious attention, the seniority in establishing the educational institution should not be ignored while the seniority of the schools is not disputed by the petitioner, the need and performance of the schools are not only vague in this context but without any criteria or guidelines enumerating or clearly defining the meaning of such need and 'performance'. That apart, these requirements of 'need' and performance would enable the authorities to go for pick and choose of schools for the vested interest of the members of the legislative assembly and in the process there is every likelihood that already recognised schools would be deprived of the proposed financial assistance as the said schools having not been provincialised deserve to receive such financial assistance on the basis of seniority of the schools waiting provincialisation. 5. The core issue raised as is evident in paragraph 23 of the writ petition was that the concepts of "need" and "performance" of the schools are vague and, therefore, the authorities may adopt the pick and choose policy to confer the benefits in an arbitrary manner. The learned Single Judge after an elaborate consideration of the matter found no merit in the submission that once the schools have been recognised on fulfillment of the eligibility criteria, no further classification or exception can be made, particularly on the basis of "need" and "performance". The classification made to select and provide financial assistance from amongst the recognised schools do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. 6. The learned Judge having made an in-depth analysis of the policy decision found the guidelines fall in the realm of reasonable classification. The learned Judge, however, cautioned that the State Government while implementing the policy decision cannot act arbitrarily motivated by extraneous consideration. It is observed that the authorities will have to confirm to the basic criteria of seniority and in the event of granting assistance except on the need basis, the detailed reasons will have to be recorded. The learned Judge, however, cautioned that the State Government while implementing the policy decision cannot act arbitrarily motivated by extraneous consideration. It is observed that the authorities will have to confirm to the basic criteria of seniority and in the event of granting assistance except on the need basis, the detailed reasons will have to be recorded. However, we may hasten to clarify that the learned Judge never intended to lay down any law that seniority alone is the criteria for granting any financial assistance. The seniority is required to be taken into consideration along with other two equally important relevant factors, namely, 'need' and 'performance'. That things being equal, assistance is required to be provided based on the seniority. This is the purport of the judgment. 7. In these writ appeals, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the impugned policy decision dated 20th August, 2004 is per se discriminatory and irrational. It confers upon the authorities uncanalised and unguided powers to pick and choose the institutions of their own choice for the purposes of conferring the benefit of financial assistance. The learned senior counsel further submits that seniority should be the only criteria or at least should be the main criteria for the purposes of granting financial assistance. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submits that the impugned communication dated 20th August, 2004 is in the nature of a policy decision taken by the Government in its wisdom having regard to the variety of factors and circumstances. The issue has been particularly examined and assessed by the authorities at various stages before it ultimately culminated in the shape of policy decision endorsed by the Council of Ministers of the State Government. It is contended that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, of India cannot interfere with such policy decision unless it is pleaded and clearly established that it suffers from constitutional vices. The mere fact that there may be another view or better policy is no ground for interference. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for, both the parties. 9. The only question that arises for our consideration as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants is whether the impugned policy decision suffers from any constitutional vice? Is it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for, both the parties. 9. The only question that arises for our consideration as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants is whether the impugned policy decision suffers from any constitutional vice? Is it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 10. The policy decision itself reflects the Government's intense application of mind and having taken various factors into consideration decided to provide financial assistance to the recognised Middle Schools yet to be provincialised. The policy decision does not say that it will provide financial assistance to the recognised Middle Schools only on the basis of seniority. It also does not say that it would choose only some recognised schools for the purpose of conferring financial assistance. On the other hand, the policy decision says that it is Government intends to provide financial assistance to all the recognised Middle Schools yet to be provincialised. But for the purposes of selection and conferring the financial assistance having regard to the availability of the financial resources the State evolved a definite discernible criteria and declared that 'need'/'performance' and 'seniority' of the schools shall be taken into consideration for the purposes of grant of financial assistance. It is clarified that 'need' and 'performance' should get serious attention. Importance should also be given to seniority. It nowhere says that the seniority alone should be given priority. The policy decision does not make any attempt to adopt different yardstick in respect of different recognised Middle Schools yet to be provincialised. The criteria evolved is uniformly applicable to all the recognised schools. The schools seeking financial assistance are required to satisfy the criteria evolved by the State and conditions have to be fulfilled. No exception is made in this regard. 11. Selection on the basis of need-cum-performance and seniority for the purposes of grant of financial assistance by no stretch of imagination can be said to be irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. In the process of implementing the policy decision if the authorities concerned act in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, aggrieved institution may avail remedy as may be available to it in law. That there is a possibility and likelihood of abuse in implementing the policy decision of the Government is not a ground to strike, down the policy. In the process of implementing the policy decision if the authorities concerned act in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, aggrieved institution may avail remedy as may be available to it in law. That there is a possibility and likelihood of abuse in implementing the policy decision of the Government is not a ground to strike, down the policy. In our considered opinion, the discretion of the authorities in the matter of providing financial assistance is well-structured and limited as is evident from the criteria suggested in the policy decision, namely, that the authorities are required to take into consideration the 'need', 'performance' and 'seniority'. The competing interest has been well balanced as is reflected in the policy decision. 12. The learned senior counsel for the appellants relying upon the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1 contended that all recognised Middle Schools yet to be provincialised constitute one class and the impugned policy decision makes further classification on the basis of 'need', 'performance' and 'seniority' and the same offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that financial constraint of the State is of no consequence as the State is under constitutional obligation to provide financial assistance to all the recognised Middle Schools yet to be provincialised. In our considered opinion, the judgment of the Apex Court in no manner supports either of the contentions urged by the learned senior counsel. It was a case where the State of Maharashtra provided grants-in-aid by making appropriate budgetary allocation to Primary Education, Secondary Education, Higher Secondary Education, Technical Education, Medical Education and others. But while actually providing the assistance from out of the budgetary allocation, funds were released byway of financial assistance to all the Educational Institutions imparting education except law. There has been no rational basis and discernible criteria for subjecting the Faculty of Law for such discriminatory treatment. It is, in that contet, highlighting the importance of legal education, the Apex Court held that keeping the Law Faculty from the purview of the financial assistance tantamount to hostile discrimination. Such is not the case at hand. There has been no rational basis and discernible criteria for subjecting the Faculty of Law for such discriminatory treatment. It is, in that contet, highlighting the importance of legal education, the Apex Court held that keeping the Law Faculty from the purview of the financial assistance tantamount to hostile discrimination. Such is not the case at hand. The impugned policy decision makes it abundantly clear that all the recognised Middle Schools yet to be provincialised are entitled to receive the financial assistance from the State subject to satisfying the relevant criteria evolved by the State which will be uniformly applicable to all the schools. It is not a case where any particular group of schools or educational institutions are subjected to any hostile discrimination. 13. The judgment is not the authority for the proposition that financial constraints can never be taken into consideration by the State in formulating its policy decision. The observations made in the decision cannot, be torn out of context. In the operative portion of the judgment in Manubhai (supra), the Apex Court issued direction to extend the grant-in-aid scheme to all Government recognised private law colleges, on the same criteria as such grants are given to other faculties, viz., Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and Medicine from the academic year 1995. The ratio and the law laid down may have to be understood in the light of the directions issued. It was a clear case where the Maharashtra Government subjected Faculty of Law alone to hostile discrimination. Having provided financial assistance to all other Faculties, the Government without evolving any rational policy excluded the Faculty of Law from the purview of the financial assistance. We fail to appreciate as to how the law declared would be applicable to strike down the impugned policy decision which is applicable uniformly to all the recognised Middle Schools yet to be provincialised. All the institutions, which satisfy the norms and the criteria laid down, are entitled to receive financial assistance. It would be a different matter altogether if the authorities act arbitrarily in implementing the policy decision which can always be corrected at the instance of aggrieved institutions. 14. In the circumstances, ratio of the decision in Manubhai (supra) in no manner applies to the situation on hand. 15. Mr. It would be a different matter altogether if the authorities act arbitrarily in implementing the policy decision which can always be corrected at the instance of aggrieved institutions. 14. In the circumstances, ratio of the decision in Manubhai (supra) in no manner applies to the situation on hand. 15. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr., [1978] 2 SCR 621 in support of the proposition that conferment of uncanalised and unguided powers results in arbitrariness and is liable to be struck down. There is no quarrel with the proposition. But the question is whether any such uncanalised power is conferred upon any of the authorities under the impugned policy decision. We have already noted that the power of the competent authority to release the financial assistance is well structured having inherent limitation as provided for in the policy decision. The authorities are not entitled to pick and choose and provide financial assistance to the institutions of its choice. No financial assistance could be provided unless the criteria laid down in the policy decision is fulfilled. 16. No other point is urged. 17. The writ appeals fail and accordingly stand dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000 each. Appeal dismissed