JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. All these writ petitions were heard together at the stage of admission itself because they seek a common relief that Rule-2 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers Employment and Service Condition Amendment Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Rules, 2009) whereby Rule 12(iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers Employment and Service Condition Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2006) has been amended and replaced, be declared ultra vires. 2. C.W.J.C. No. 10354 of 2009 has been preferred by Dr. Sushil Kumar who has described himself as one amongst large number of trained candidates waiting for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the State of Bihar. Why he has filed the writ petition and how he is affected by the amendment has not been made clear. However, in many other writ petitions the petitioners are affected persons including an Union of Bihar Rajya Panchayat/Prakhand/ Nagar Shikshak. petitioner no. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 13333 of 2009 who have claimed to be Panchayat Shikshak or their representatives and have objected to the rule in question on the ground that it provides for holding of evaluation (efficiency test) after every three years (two times in total) for evaluating the competence of the appointed teachers with chances of unpleasant or harmful effects. A minimum of 45% marks for the general category and of 40% marks for the reserved category will entitle trained teachers to an increment of Rs. 500/- and to untrained teachers an increment of Rs. 300/- in one transaction. Those who fail to obtain minimum marks will not be entitled for increment in pay but they will be given one more opportunity of re-evaluation after six months. If again they fail to secure minimum marks then such teachers will be removed from service by their employers. 3. In order to appreciate the issue raised and submissions advanced and for easy reference the relevant Section 12(iii) as existing in the Rules of 2006 and as amended by Amendment Rules, 2009 are extracted hereinafter. Rule "12(iii) of 2006 Rules: Rule 12(iii) as amended by Rule 2 of the Amendment Rules, 2009: 4. The earlier Rule 12(iii) provided simply for evaluation as per directions after every three years and on that basis trained teachers could get an increment of Rs. 500/- and the un-trained teachers an increment of Rs. 300/-. Rule "12(iii) of 2006 Rules: Rule 12(iii) as amended by Rule 2 of the Amendment Rules, 2009: 4. The earlier Rule 12(iii) provided simply for evaluation as per directions after every three years and on that basis trained teachers could get an increment of Rs. 500/- and the un-trained teachers an increment of Rs. 300/-. It is relevant to note that in Rule 12(iv) it is indicated that the employed teachers may remain in employment till maximum of 60 years of age. 5. On behalf of petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 10354 of 2009 arguments were advanced that the Rule in question besides being ultra vires on several counts, is bad on account of a litigation pending in the Apex Court in which trained teachers have claimed right of appointment on priority. This argument is totally unrelated to the issue of vires raised in these writ petitions and deserves to be rejected summarily. 6. On behalf of petitioners in all the cases, on the issue of illegality or unconstitutionality of the rule in question it was first submitted that the amendment violates security of tenure guaranteed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India to persons who are members of a Civil Service of the Union or an All India Service or Civil Service of a State or hold a civil post under the Union or a State. It was sought to be canvassed that teachers employed by the Panchayat are serving in schools set up by the State and are being paid salary from funds provided by the State and hence for practical purposes they are holders of a civil post under the State and as such they cannot be removed once employed except by resorting to disciplinary proceedings for any charge after due enquiry. 7. On behalf of State it was submitted that Panchayat is a local authority under the statute and its employees such as the petitioners cannot be treated to be holders of a civil post under the State even if State has chosen to help the Panchayat by providing it with schools building or funds to meet its expenses. 7. On behalf of State it was submitted that Panchayat is a local authority under the statute and its employees such as the petitioners cannot be treated to be holders of a civil post under the State even if State has chosen to help the Panchayat by providing it with schools building or funds to meet its expenses. The point raised on behalf of petitioners has no legs to stand in view of several authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court drawing a clear distinction between the status of holders of civil post under the Union or State entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the employees of statutory bodies or even Government owned Corporations etc. who are entitled to protection of Articles 14 and 16 but not Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the aforesaid submission is also without merit. 8. On behalf of petitioners an attempt was made to show that the rule in question is in absolute contradiction to Rule 12(iv) of the Rules of 2006 which provides, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, a guaranteed tenure up to 60 years of age. However, a bare reading of the said rule discloses that it is an enabling provision for employment of such teachers to a maximum age of 60 years. On account of such provision atone it cannot be contended that such teachers who fail to obtain the minimum standard of efficiency determined in accordance with law, cannot be removed earlier to 60 years of age. 9. It was also contended on behalf of petitioners that service rules cannot be changed to the detriment of employees already in service and in support of this proposition reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee vs. The Union of India, reported in (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 363. On the other hand learned A.A.G.-III appearing for the State submitted that employer always has power to change service conditions prospectively, including age of retirement which can be either increased or decreased in accordance with policy decision. In support of this proposition he placed reliance upon - (1) A.I.R. 1967 SC 1889 (Roshan Lal vs. The Union of India), (2) (1997)6 SCC 623 (Chairman, Railway Board vs. C.R. Ranga Dhamaiah), and (3) (2000)7 SCC 618 (L. Muthu Kumar vs. State of T.N.). 10. In support of this proposition he placed reliance upon - (1) A.I.R. 1967 SC 1889 (Roshan Lal vs. The Union of India), (2) (1997)6 SCC 623 (Chairman, Railway Board vs. C.R. Ranga Dhamaiah), and (3) (2000)7 SCC 618 (L. Muthu Kumar vs. State of T.N.). 10. In the case of Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee (supra) the Supreme Court found that on account of restructuring of posts by the Railways, the very rule which was made to benefit the employees caused unfair results and in the process the juniors and those who could not be selected were likely to become senior and better placed than those who were selected and placed earlier in higher class. In such a situation, while noting in paragraph 3 that technically the Tribunal appeared to be correct in laying down the consequences of restructuring, the court intervention by observing in paragraph-3 "no rule or order which is meant to benefit employees should normally be construed in such a manner as to work hardship and injustice............and if any injustice arises then the primary duty of the courts is to resolve it in such a manner that it may avoid any loss to one without giving undue advantage to other." The court made it clear in paragraph-1 of the judgment itself that the question arising for consideration is more of equity and fair play than law and therefore it was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice between the parties. The placitum in that judgment appears to be misleading but the judgment itself does not support the proposition advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 11. On the other hand, in the case of Roshan Lal (supra) even in teeth of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court held that terms of service can be altered unilaterally by the Government and there is no vested contractual right for the servant. 11. On the other hand, in the case of Roshan Lal (supra) even in teeth of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court held that terms of service can be altered unilaterally by the Government and there is no vested contractual right for the servant. In the case of Chairman, Railway Board vs. C.R. Ranga Dhamaiah (supra) after noticing some earlier judgments in paragraph-20 the court held that a rule which operates in future so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but if the rule reverses from an anterior date, a benefit which has been granted or availed of e.g. promotion or pay-scale, it can be assailed on the grounds of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. The case of L. Muthu Kumar (supra) appears to be on a different but related issue. On the subject of Education and Public Interest the Court held that public interest must be placed above the personal interest of individuals and therefore ill-trained teachers or those coming from derecognized or unrecognized institutions cannot be allowed or licensed to teach children of impressionable ages. It was indicated that in such a situation, national interest would be at stake. 12. On the basis of aforesaid analysis of the judgments of the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation to hold that State has legal competence to make provisions as contained in the rule in question and the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners have no merit. 13. Last submission advanced on behalf of petitioners was that even if evaluation and testing for the new entrant after three years is found permissible, such threat of removal from service for experienced and old teachers would be counter productive and may be highly undesirable. The consequences may also give rise to unhealthy practices in the name of holding evaluation test every three years for old and experienced teachers as well. The consequences may also give rise to unhealthy practices in the name of holding evaluation test every three years for old and experienced teachers as well. It was seriously canvassed that evaluation for the purpose of retention in service at the initial stage of service may have a relevant purpose and rationale but the same cannot be true for subjecting even experienced teachers to such test when the State does not hold such test for its old and experienced teachers working in Government schools. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State had sought time to take instruction in respect of such submission and thereafter through a supplementary counter affidavit filed on 3.11.2009 a categorical stand was taken on behalf of the State that after three years again evaluation test will be held but only for the purpose of awarding second consolidated increase in pay to those who will be successful by securing minimum marks but those who fail to get the minimum marks would not be removed from service on this ground. Such stand of the State takes care of the issue raised above on behalf of the petitioners. 15. In our view, there exists a bona fide apprehension in the mind of State authorities that in many cases the selection process was not fully satisfactory and hence incompetent persons unfit to teach young children might have come into service as Panchayat teachers and therefore the amendment which is questioned by the petitioners is designed to act as one time filter for the inefficient and incompetent persons who might have somehow managed to get into service. In our view, the amendment suffers from no illegality and serves a laudable public interest. It will cause no harm to anyone who has a minimum level of competence as a teacher. 16. In view of our earlier discussions, we find no merit in the writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. 17 I agree.