ORDER 1. Petitioners of all these six writ applications are at present working as Cluster Resources Centres Coordinators (CRCC) or Block Resources Persons (BRP) at Block Resources Centres (BRC) in different districts of the State. These Centres have been set up in different districts under a policy decision of the Bihar Education Project Council created for overall development of education in the State at primary level. Although they are working in different districts but their grievance is common. Hence, all the writ applications have been clubbed together for common hearing and disposal. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is in respect of some of the clauses of letter no.8261 dated 21.11.2011 issued under the signature of State Project Director, as contained in Annexure-1, by which some amendments have been introduced in letter no.PFE/966 dated 22.2.2007 issued in respect of selection of BRPs and CRCCs, as contained in annexure-2. Clauses with which they are aggrieved are (i) the age limit of 50 years being introduced in the eligibility clause for selection and (ii) a bar for the working hands to be selected this time again being introduced in essential conditions. 3. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioners of the first case, which was adopted by other counsels for the petitioners of all other cases, was that in the earlier letter dated 22.2.2007(Annexure-2) age limit for selection was 55 years which has now been reduced to 50 years by the impugned amendment and that there was no restriction of re-selection of working BRPs and CRCCs. Also submission was that in the earlier letter there was no tenure prescribed for such selected BRPs and CRCCs whereas by amendment tenure of three years has been introduced. His submission was that the whole purpose of selection of BRP or CRPP was to improve the quality of teaching in the Schools under the area of operation of Centres. Hence, by letter dated 22.2.2007 age limit of 55 years was prescribed so that experienced hands may be entrusted with the responsibility to see improvement in quality of teaching in the Schools within the area. Hence, by letter dated 22.2.2007 age limit of 55 years was prescribed so that experienced hands may be entrusted with the responsibility to see improvement in quality of teaching in the Schools within the area. He submitted that after the selection BRPs and CRCCs were to attend training and with their knowledge and experience in the training they were required to improve the quality of teaching rendered by the teachers of the respective Schools by arranging workshops at the Centres and by supervising actual functioning of the teachers in the classes and advising and guiding them in respect of method of imparting teaching. Hence, experienced hand with age was more desirable and suitable for being continued with the responsibility than restraining them from being re-selected. He submitted that the selection of BRPs and CRCCs were to be made from amongst teachers themselves. Therefore, it were the teacher, who performed well in discharging his responsibilities, was always likely to be selected by the teachers. But by putting a ban on their selection for the second consecutive term, the respondents were actually compromising with the interest of the students and teaching quality in the School. He submitted that in public interest and in the interest of teaching in the respective schools, it was always beneficial that the working experienced hands are selected and are continued as BRP and CRCC instead of compelling for selection of younger persons with no experience. He submitted that if this was allowed to be done, the very object of the education policy would stand frustrated. He also submitted that in fact the amendments infringes the rights of the suitable and experienced candidates for being considered for selection, which is violative of their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he submitted that the said amendments are arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are fit to be held ultra vires. 4. Petitioners have filed some more pleadings in the respective writ applications enclosing some other letters issued by the Council and have also prayed for some amendments in the writ applications. 5. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. 4. Petitioners have filed some more pleadings in the respective writ applications enclosing some other letters issued by the Council and have also prayed for some amendments in the writ applications. 5. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Bihar Education Project Council is an organization registered under Societies Registration Act and a time bound Programme or Scheme of universalisation of primary education called as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is run by this Organization. The primary goal of this Scheme is to ensure qualitative improvement in elementary education in the entire State. For this purpose, at the Block level, Block Resources Centres are established in a Middle School of the area and Cluster Resources Centres are established at the lower level for a group of schools. For these Centres Coordinators are selected from amongst teachers of the schools themselves within the parameters fixed by the State Level Office of the Council. It is stated in the counter affidavit that after launching of the Programme, review meetings have been held from time to time to review the functioning and progress made towards successful completion of the Scheme. It is that one such State Level review Meeting was held on 19.5.2011 of the district officials. Some complaints were made by the district officials during deliberation that BRPs and CRCCs were not providing adequate educational support to the schools within their respective area of operation and to the teachers imparting teaching in the schools, and were not showing interest in the work. In the subsequent meeting held on 24.10.2011 the District Education Officers and District Program Officers of various districts voiced their opinion that since some of the BRPs and CRCCs, who were selected 8 to 10 years back under the previous Programme, they were not performing upto mark and are now lacking interest in their work. After detailed discussion held in the meeting, it was decided that there should be a provision for selection of fresh BRPs and CRCCs. After detailed discussion held in the meeting, it was decided that there should be a provision for selection of fresh BRPs and CRCCs. It was also felt during discussion in the meeting that some of the BRPs and CRCCs, who have continued for long, are not performing their own duties as teachers as they indulged into frequent travel from one place to another for the purposes of supervising and assessing the performance of teachers of other schools and in some cases they have also been found to have started pressurizing teachers and keeping them in fear. Hence, it was felt that there should be some modification in the maximum age so that more energetic and enthusiastic persons are entrusted with this work and a tenure should also be laid down. In the circumstances, it was decided to lay down lower age and tenure for the selected BRPs and CRCCs so that after certain period they reverted back to their main responsibility of teaching in their own schools and concentrate on the same. Proceedings of the two meetings have been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexures-A and B. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the status of BRPs and CRCCs are only of shouldering additional responsibility, besides their main responsibility of teaching in their respective schools, to make effort to improve teaching methods of teachers of other schools also. It is also stated that the post is honorary and it merely amounts to giving some additional responsibilities to the selected teachers and does not create any right in them and by this selection they do not become holders of any civil post with entitlement for any pecuniary benefits so as to give them any right to be selected again or continued as such. 6. Petitioners have filed reply to the counter affidavit and learned counsel for the petitioners had reiterated the submissions made earlier by summarizing the same. In sum and substance, stand of the petitioners is that restrain on working hand on being selected for the second time had no rationale with the object to achieve and hence is arbitrary. 6. Petitioners have filed reply to the counter affidavit and learned counsel for the petitioners had reiterated the submissions made earlier by summarizing the same. In sum and substance, stand of the petitioners is that restrain on working hand on being selected for the second time had no rationale with the object to achieve and hence is arbitrary. However, none of the learned counsels of petitioners have referred to or relied upon any precedent of this court of any similar or identical case nor have they referred to or relied upon any judgment of the Apex Court which may be to the aid of their submissions. Petitioners have only annexed detailed Guidelines issued by the Council in 2005 for implementation of the Programme as Annexure-6 with the supplementary affidavit in the first case. 7. In fact, in this Guidelines establishment of Block Resource Centres and Cluster Resource Centres has been conceptualized. Introduction of the Guidelines says that it has been framed after detailed consultation and deliberation amongst academicians and other knowledgeable persons and the same has been formulated for the purposes of giving regular training for improving teaching skills among energetic teachers of the primary schools as the training imparted to them during training course is often found forgotten with the passage of time. The Guidelines gives details of setting up of Block Resources Centres and Cluster Resources Centres and functions of the Centres including monitoring and improving the quality of teaching in the Schools in the area of their operation. Petitioners have placed the Guidelines on record to buttress their stand that if the experienced persons and working hands are debarred from getting selected again, the very laudable object of the Scheme formulated in this Guidelines shall stand frustrated. 8. On perusal of these Guidelines, this Court finds that in the Guidelines itself it was prescribed that the age limit for selection of CRCCs should be 45 years and the working tenure should be only three years, with a bar for selection continuously for the second time. 8. On perusal of these Guidelines, this Court finds that in the Guidelines itself it was prescribed that the age limit for selection of CRCCs should be 45 years and the working tenure should be only three years, with a bar for selection continuously for the second time. Clause 2.8.1 of the Guidelines is reproduced hereinbelow for easy reference: “2.8.1.<span class="Hfont">ladqy lalk/ku dsnza leUo;d ¼lh-vkj-lh-lh-½ dk p;u vgrkZ ‘kSf{kd % U;wure Lukrd iz’kSf{k.kd % nks o”khZ; f’k{kd izf’k{k.k@ch-,M-@,d o”khZ; lsokdkyhu izf’k{k.k ‘kS{kf.kd vuqHko % U;wure 5 o”kZ mez lhek % vf/kdre 45 o”kZ fof’k”V ;ksX;rk % 1- f’k{k.k es laizs”k.k&dkS’ky ds fodkl ,oa ikBz;p;&lgxkeh (Co-curricular)<span class="Hfont"> xfrfof/k;ks #fpA 2- nl fnolh; mtkyk&1 izf’k{k.k izkIr vU; ‘krsZ 1- e/; fo?kky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid ;k izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid ladqy lalk/ku dsanz ds leUo;d ugh cu ldsxsA 2- dksbZ ldqay lalk/ku dsnz leUo;d yxkrkj nks ckj leUo;d ds in ij ugh jgsxsA 3- leUo;d dk dk;Z larks”ktud ugh ik;s tkus ij mUgs dHkh Hkh bl in ls gVk;k tk ldsxkA p;u izfdz;k (A) <span class="Hfont">ladqy llka/ku dsanz&Lrj ij ldaqy llka/ku dsanz ds ,d fnolh; ekfld izf’k{k.k es lHkh f’k{kd vkilh fopkj foe’kkZsijkar leUo;d ds fy, fu/kkfjZr U;wure vgrkZvkas dks /;ku es j[krs gq, rhu f’k{kdks dks p;fur djsaxsA (B) <span class="Hfont">iz[k.M lalk/ku dsnz&Lrj ij ldaqy lalk/ku dsanz es p;fur rhuks f’k{kd iz[k.M lalk/ku dsanz ij vk;ksftr ¼LihM nzkjk fodflr nks fnolh; lh-vkj-lh- leUo;d izf’k{k.k ekWM;wy ds vk/kkj ij½ nks fnolh; vkoklh; izf’k{k.k es Hkkx ysaxsA izf’k{k.k es izfrHkkfx;ks es dk;Z&fu”iknu ds vk/kkj ij es/kkdze ds vuqlkj ldqayokj lwph cuk;h tk;xh vkSj lwph es izFke LFkku ikusokys O;fDr dks ladqy leUo;d ds fy, p;u fd;k tk,xkA iz[k.M llka/ku dsanz ij p;u ny fuEuor xfBr gksxk%& iz[k.M lalk/ku dsanz leUo;d&01 iz[k.M lalk/ku dsnz lk/kulsoh&03 ftyk Lrjh; dk;kZy;dehZ ¼izkjfHkd vkSipkfjd f’k{kk½&01 iz[k.M ds {ks=k/khu f’k{kfonz&02 p;u ny izfrHkksfx;ks ds dk;Z&fu”iknu dk ewY;kadu fuEu lanHkZ es mudh lewg&dkZ es lfdz;rk vkSj O;fDrxr izfrosnu&izLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij djsxkA p;u fcUnq &lewg&dkZ ds nkSjku lgHkkfxrk &fo”k;&oLrq dh le> &vfHkOfDr dk Lrj ≤ c}rk &ladqy llka/ku dsanz dh le> nks fnolh; izf‘k{k.k ds vra es izR;sd izfrHkkxh iwjs izf’k{k.k ls lacfU/kr ,d O;fDrxr izfrosnu p;u&ny dks lefiZr djsaxsA leUo;d dh dk;Z&vof/k % vf/kdre rhu o”kZA^^ (emphasis is mine) 9. In view of this clear provision in the Guidelines, it is apparent that the impugned insertion in the letter, as contained in Annexure-1, i.e. letter of the Council dated 21.11.2011 is not a new introduction. This Court finds that in fact such provisions were made in the original Guidelines itself which, for some reason, could not be included in the earlier letter dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure-2) and in the said letter maximum age was put as 55 years, as against 45 years laid down in the Guidelines. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned clauses of letter dated 21.11.2011 are only in consonance with the provisions of the Guidelines formulated by the Council in 2005 itself, a copy of which has been produced on record by the petitioners themselves as Annexure-6 ands relied upon. Secondly, this Court is also of the view that the said provisions of the Guidelines and the letter dated 21.11.2011 are not arbitrary and have some rationale behind the same. A Cluster has to be formed of 8 to 12 schools of the area with Centre operating in a Middle School with almost equal distance from the Schools in the area of operation of the Centres and the Co-ordinator of the Centre is required to visit each school in the area of operation of the Centre at least once in a month and to witness and assess the actual quality of teaching being imparted by the teachers in the classes. This means the Co-ordinator is required to undertake travelling at least 12 days in a month, if not more, apart from performing his own teaching duties in his own school. This necessarily requires physical fitness. Hence, putting the age limit for a candidate being selected for the responsibility to 50 years (if not 45 years as laid down in the Guidelines) cannot be held to be irrational. Similarly, in the Guidelines itself, tenure of CRCCs is fixed for three years. This necessarily is for the purpose that they do feel responsibility for their proper performance for being selected again and no vested right is created in any selected candidate to continue for ever. Prohibition for working hand to be selected again for the second consecutive term also cannot be held to be irrational. This necessarily is for the purpose that they do feel responsibility for their proper performance for being selected again and no vested right is created in any selected candidate to continue for ever. Prohibition for working hand to be selected again for the second consecutive term also cannot be held to be irrational. It is quite likely that frequent travelling of the teachers selected as CRCC may somehow affect the quality of their own performance as teachers in their own schools. Moreover, since it is coordinated effort of the teachers for improvement of their own teaching qualities, it is always desirable that other new candidates are also selected for discharging this responsibility so that a healthy environment may develop among all teachers of the schools of a Cluster Centre for their overall development of teaching skills as a concerted effort. It may be pointed out that the prohibition for being selected for the second consecutive term does not debar a teacher from being selected again next time. 10. One grievance vented out by learned counsels for the petitioners was that many BRPs and CRCCs had been selected very recently and without allowing them to complete their three years term they are going to be removed, as under the new amendment, selection process for new BRPs and CRCCs have started in the district. 11. When this was put to the learned counsel for the respondents, he has come out with a supplementary counter affidavit, sworn by one Additional Program Officer of the Bihar Education Project with due authorization, taking a stand that those BRPs and CRCCs, who have not completed three years of tenure shall not be removed if their performance or work is found satisfactory and at their Centres selection will not be held. This stand on affidavit has been placed by learned Additional Advocate General No.1 on behalf of the respondents and this Court takes it as an undertaking by the respondents. 12. This stand on affidavit has been placed by learned Additional Advocate General No.1 on behalf of the respondents and this Court takes it as an undertaking by the respondents. 12. In the circumstances, after considering the matter from all aspects, this Court finds that there is no substance in the stand of the petitioners in their challenge to the said clauses of amendment introduced in letter no.966 dated 22.2.2007 by the impugned letter no.8261 dated 21.11.2011, and the same is in fact in consonance with the policy and Guidelines laid down by the Council itself as far back as in 2005, vide Annexure-6 with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners in the first case. 13. As a result, this Court does not find any merit in all these writ applications. The same are dismissed.