Judgment R.S.Garg, J. ( 1. ) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek to challenge the third explanation appended to Sub-Rule 9 of Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2005. It would be necessary to note that vide our judgment dated 27.2.2008 delivered in W.P. No. 7828/2006 Ajay Tripathi Vs. State of M.P. we have already held that Rules of 2005 are valid piece of legislation and do not suffer with the vice of being ultra vires and do not suffer with the vice of illegality or invalidity. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, however submitted that this Court though has upheld the constitutional validity of 2005 Rules specially Rule 6 but the question which he proposes to raise does not appear to have been raised, argued or considered by this Court, therefore, learned counsel be allowed to raise the question. ( 2. ) According to Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, the third explanation appended to Sub-Rule 9 to Rule 6 leads to discrimination between teachers working in the same School and a case like present the Government was obliged to issue a direction that any person who is working as a teacher in a Central Government School or in a school which is getting Grant-in-aid from Central Government would stand on the same pedestal and each of them shall be entitled to extra marks for the teaching experience which they possess. ( 3. ) The third explanation is to be read in conjunction with clause (b) of sub-rule 9 of Rule 6. Clause b provides that " a maximum of 15 marks shall be awarded for teaching experience in any school. For experience of one year, two years and three years, 5, 10 and 15 marks shall be awarded respectively." From clause b it would appear that for teaching experience 5, 10 and/or 15 marks are to be awarded. The first explanation says that "teaching experience would mean an experience of teaching in Government Schools, Local Body (Panchayat/Urban Body) School, Schools receiving Grant-in-aid from Government, Education Guarantee Schools, erstwhile Non-formal Education Centers of the Government. Teaching experience also include experience as an honorary teacher appointed by the Government". The first explanation says that "teaching experience would mean an experience of teaching in Government Schools, Local Body (Panchayat/Urban Body) School, Schools receiving Grant-in-aid from Government, Education Guarantee Schools, erstwhile Non-formal Education Centers of the Government. Teaching experience also include experience as an honorary teacher appointed by the Government". The third explanation provides that "in case of a School receiving grant in aid from Government, experience certificate will be issued to those teachers only, whose salary has been paid from Grant-in- aid, only for that period for which salary was paid from the Government Grant-in-aid". A juxtapose reading of clause (b) and the first and third explanation would make it clear that additional marks are to be awarded for teaching experience but the teaching experience must have been acquired in a School well described and detailed in first explanation. The phrase "Schools receiving Grant-in-aid from Government" used in the first explanation has been detailed and defined in the third explanation. ( 4. ) It is common knowledge that in private school the Government to help and assist the School, its management and administration gives some Grant-in-aid. It would always depend upon the discretion of the Government to reimburse 100% expenses incurred by said school or grant partial reimbursement. In a case where the salary of the total staff is paid from the Grant-in-aid then such School would be known as 100% Government aided school but in case where few employees/teachers only are paid from the Grant-in-aid then such School would be known as partially Government aided school. ( 5. ) It is common knowledge that in many of the Schools no grant is given by the Government and in some cases government extends partial Grant-in-aid. When a person receives the salary from the Grant-in-aid given by the Government then there would be a certainty that such person was in fact working in the said school and his salary was being paid from the Grant-in-aid. When the Government says that a certificate of experience would be issued in favour of such persons only who are receiving their salary from Grant-in-aid then we must hold that the Government wants to ensure that fraudulent, manufactured certificates are not issued in relation to teaching experience. When the salary is paid from the Grant-in-aid there is a certainty that such person in fact was working as a teacher and was receiving salary from that school. When the salary is paid from the Grant-in-aid there is a certainty that such person in fact was working as a teacher and was receiving salary from that school. ( 6. ) If the Government to ensure the genuineness of the certificates and to avoid the malpractices has added in the third explanation to sub-rule 9 of Rule 6 then it cannot be argued that the third explanation carves out a discrimination between the equals. In our considered opinion the teachers who are being paid from the State Grant-in- aid and who are not being paid from State Grant-in-aid do not come under the same class, they in fact are different class. Under explanation (3) the Government is not creating a class nor is exercising discrimination but in fact is trying to ensure the positive application of the 2005 rules. ( 7. ) We find no reason to hold that the third explanation appended to clause b of sub rule 9 of Rule 6 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2005 is ultra vires the Constitution. The petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition accordingly dismissed.