R.M. DOSHIT, CJ.:–This group of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by the lecturers in +2 Government Schools and the lecturers in +2 Nationalised Schools [the Non-Government Schools taken over by the Government of Bihar under the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Control and Management) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as “the 1981 Act”)]. 2. From the material on records, it appears that the erstwhile educational pattern of Primary, Secondary and High School was altered and a new educational pattern of 10+2+3 was introduced in the State of Bihar in 1979 i.e. 10 years of schooling, 2 years of Higher Secondary and 3 years of college Graduation. At the relevant time, in absence of sufficient infrastructure available in the Secondary Schools, the higher secondary education was imparted by the colleges. In 1985, the Government of Bihar introduced +2 education (Higher Secondary Education) in the Government and the Nationalised Schools in the State of Bihar. On 7th July 1985, the Director of Secondary Education sent a communication to all District Education Officers. Under the said communication, the Director conveyed the intention of the State Government to commence +2 education in 100 Government and Nationalised Secondary Schools for Academic Year 1985-86. It was further conveyed that no additional post for +2 education was being created. Until such posts were created, +2 Higher Secondary education would be imparted by the Post Graduate Teachers available in the existing set up. The said communication further clarified that the curriculum for the +2 education would be the same as in the Government recognized Inter College; that the teachers should possess a minimum Post Graduate qualification in Second Division; that the selection would be made by the Bihar School Service Board, etc. Following the said decision, on 13th November 1985, the State Government sanctioned the posts of Principal, Head of the Department, Lecturer and Clerk for 37 Government Boys’ and Girls’ Secondary Schools and 66 Nationalised Secondary Schools from the period from 1st November 1985 to 28th February 1986. One post of Principal in Bihar Education Service Class I, two posts of Head of the Department in Bihar Education Service Class II and four posts of Lecturers in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service were sanctioned for each of the aforesaid 103 schools to impart +2 education. 3. One post of Principal in Bihar Education Service Class I, two posts of Head of the Department in Bihar Education Service Class II and four posts of Lecturers in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service were sanctioned for each of the aforesaid 103 schools to impart +2 education. 3. As we are concerned with the lecturers in +2 Schools, we shall concentrate on the cadre of lecturers. The posts of lecturers were sanctioned in the pay scale of Rs. 940-1660/-. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the State Government, the Bihar School Service Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) gave a public notice to invite applications from eligible candidates for appointment as lecturer in +2 Government and Nationalized Secondary Schools in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service in the pay scale of Rs. 940-1660/-. Pursuant to the said advertisement and the ensuing selection process, some 147 lecturers were appointed in the Government and the Nationalised +2 Schools in January 1990. The notification of appointment issued by the State Government indicated that the said appointments were made on newly created ex-cadre posts in +2 Schools on ad hoc and temporary basis. The petitioners before us are these lecturers who were appointed pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/87 and selection by the Board. The said temporary appointment was continued for succeeding academic years under the Government Notifications issued from time to time. All throughout, these posts were referred to as the ex-cadre posts. 4. It appears that on 11th April 1977, the State Government passed a Resolution to merge the cadre of Subordinate Education Service in that of Bihar Education Service. The said Resolution, however, was not implemented for more than 20 years. Feeling aggrieved, the association of secondary teachers and others approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcing the said Resolution dated 11th April 1977. This Court (Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhyay, J., as he then was), under order dated 2nd February 2000 made on CWJC No. 12122 of 1998, directed the Government of Bihar to act upon the Government decision contained in the Resolution dated 11th April 1977. The said order was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 65 of 2003 and was affirmed in S.L.P. No. 6450 of 2003. The said order was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 65 of 2003 and was affirmed in S.L.P. No. 6450 of 2003. Pursuant to the decision of this Court, under Resolution dated 7th July 2006 passed by the State Government, the cadre of Subordinate Education Service (Teaching Branch) (Male and Female teachers) was merged with Bihar Education Service. Modalities of such merger were decided by the Government on 16th October 2006. Under the said decision in respect of the lecturers in +2 Schools, the State Government decided that the lecturers in +2 Schools were appointed on ex- cadre posts; they were never treated or recognized as Subordinate Educational Service and that the demand to treat the said posts as part of Bihar Educational Service was not tenable. It is this decision of the State Government which has resulted into this group of Writ Petitions. 5. The petitioners claim that the aforesaid posts of lecturers in +2 Schools were created by the State Government in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. The public Advertisement No. 1/87 also indicated that the appointments were to be made in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. The petitioners are, therefore, in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service and are entitled to be merged with Bihar Education Service Class II as decided under the Government Resolution dated 7th July 2006. 6. Thus, the matter that arises for our consideration is whether or not the lecturers in +2 Schools appointed pursuant to the public Advertisement No. 1/87 were appointed in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service and are entitled to be merged into Bihar Education Service Class II pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 7th July 2006. 7. Pending this group of Writ Petitions, under its Notification dated 23rd June 2009 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 9 read with Section 15 of the 1981 Act, the Government of Bihar has framed Bihar Government Higher Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2009 to amend Bihar Government Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. Under the said Notification, the Government of Bihar has defined the word “lecturer” to mean 148 lecturers who were appointed in Inter Level +2 schools in the undivided State of Bihar pursuant to the public Advertisement No. 1/87 published by the Bihar School Service Board. Under the said amendment, the State Government has encadered the posts of +2 lecturer with that of the teachers in the nationalised schools. Under the said amendment, the State Government has encadered the posts of +2 lecturer with that of the teachers in the nationalised schools. In other words, all those lecturers in +2 schools who were appointed in January 1990 pursuant to their selection by the Board have now been encadered with the teachers in the Nationalised Secondary Schools and will be governed by the service conditions governing such teachers. The aforesaid action of the State Government has generated a fresh spate of litigations and challenge to the said Notification by the above writ petitioners. 8. Learned advocates Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Mr. Pratap Sharma, Mr. S.N. Pathak, Dr. M.P. Shukla and Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh have appeared for the writ petitioners. According to the learned advocates, the posts of +2 lecturer were created in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service (Selection Grade). The writ petitioners, therefore, belong to Bihar Subordinate Educational Service (Selection Grade). As a matter of right, they are governed by the conditions of service prescribed for the said Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. They are also entitled to be merged into Bihar Education Service Class II pursuant to the Government decision dated 7th July 2006. It is the grievance of the petitioners that on account of the Government’s apathy and indifferent attitude towards the +2 lecturers, they are deprived of the service benefits available to the Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. On such deprivation, the petitioners are precluded from promotion to higher posts of Head of the Department, Principal and other administrative posts in Bihar Education Service Class II and Class I. Although the +2 lecturers possess higher educational qualification and perform more onerous duty of teaching Higher Secondary students, in the matter of promotion to the higher post, the secondary school teachers have gained an edge over the petitioners. The learned advocates have submitted that to add insult to the injury the State Government has now amended the 1983 Rules under Government Notification dated 23rd June 2009. Under the said Notification, +2 lecturers appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/87 (petitioners and such others) have been encadered with the secondary teachers in the Nationalised schools. They have submitted that +2 lecturers were always above the secondary school teachers. They cannot be encadered with the secondary school teachers. The impugned Notification amounts to treating unequals as equals. Under the said Notification, +2 lecturers appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/87 (petitioners and such others) have been encadered with the secondary teachers in the Nationalised schools. They have submitted that +2 lecturers were always above the secondary school teachers. They cannot be encadered with the secondary school teachers. The impugned Notification amounts to treating unequals as equals. The impugned Notification is, therefore, ultra vires Articles 16(1) and 14 of the Constitution. The learned advocates have submitted that by the impugned Notification dated 23rd June 2009, the worst hit are the +2 lecturers in the Government Schools. In the submission of the learned advocates, the +2 lecturers appointed in the Government Schools were always treated as Government servants and were entitled to same pay and allowances and other service benefits as Government servants or teachers in Government Schools. Now that under the impugned Notification such lecturers have been encadered with the teachers in the Nationalised Schools, the service benefits admissible to such +2 lecturers in Government Schools will stand withdrawn. To illustrate a few, the +2 lecturers in the Government Schools will not be entitled to the benefit of Time Bound promotion or Assured Career Progression or further promotion to Bihar Education Service Class II and Class I. The impugned Notification is thus discriminatory and is hostile to the interest of the +2 lecturers. The learned advocates have also submitted that the State Government has no authority to alter the service conditions of its employees. The learned advocates have also invoked the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. 9. It is the claim of the writ petitioners that they were appointed as lecturers in +2 schools and were always superior to the teachers in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service (Teaching Branch). All such lecturers were appointed through one common recruitment process and pursuant to a common merit list. Some of them were posted in the Government Schools while some others were posted in the Nationalised Schools. In whichever school they were posted, they were at par and there was no distinction between the nature of services rendered by the two groups of lecturers. The said lecturers were, therefore, required to be absorbed in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service and merged in Bihar Education Service Class II. 10. In whichever school they were posted, they were at par and there was no distinction between the nature of services rendered by the two groups of lecturers. The said lecturers were, therefore, required to be absorbed in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service and merged in Bihar Education Service Class II. 10. However, with a view to sabotaging the claim of the writ petitioners, the State Government has issued the impugned Notification dated 23rd June 2009 clubbing the services of +2 lecturers with that of the teachers in the Nationalised Schools. Thus, the State Government has circumvented the claim made by the writ petitioners for absorption in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service and consequent merger into Bihar Education Service. To buttress their contention that the lecturers were appointed in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service, the writ petitioners have relied upon the judgment of this Court (Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhyay, J., as he then was) passed in CWJC No. 2445 of 1994 decided o 30th September 1997. 11. The petitions are contested by learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi. Mr. Shahi has submitted that the appointment letters issued to the petitioners were specific that they were appointed temporarily on ex-cadre posts. The petitioners having accepted the appointment on ex-cadre posts, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to claim that they are appointed in the Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. He has also submitted that all +2 lecturers have been treated equally and uniformally and have been encadered in one cadre of teachers in the Nationalised Schools. The Government’s action, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory as alleged. 12. In support of their submissions the learned advocates have relied upon the above referred judgment dated 30th September 1997 (CWJC No. 2425 of 1994); the judgment in the matter of Rajeev Kamal [(CWJC No. 1862 of 1994, (Ranchi), decided on 23rd November 1994]; and the judgments in the matters of Jagdish Parsad Sinha & Ors. Vs. Bhagwat Prasad & Ors. ( AIR 1989 SC 1794 ); of Bandhu Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 1994 (2) PLJR 279 ]; of R.S. Ajara & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [ (1997) 3 SCC 641 ]; of Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. [ (1997) 6 SCC 623 ]; of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 1994 (2) PLJR 279 ]; of R.S. Ajara & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [ (1997) 3 SCC 641 ]; of Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. [ (1997) 6 SCC 623 ]; of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. [ (2003) 3 SCC 321 ]; of State of T.N. & Anr. Vs. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. [ (2006) 4 SCC 517 ] and of Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation & Ors. [(2007) 14 SCC 234]. 13. In the above referred judgment (CWJC no. 2445 of 1994), this Court did hold, “No difference was made between two sets of lecturers except that while lecturers of Government schools were placed in the cadre of subordinate Education Service (Selection grade) the lecturers of Nationalised schools kept separated as ex-cadre to the subordinate Education Service cadre posts.” 14. We may, however, note that the matter at issue was the parity of pay between the two groups of +2 lecturers; one appointed in the Government Schools and the other appointed in the Nationalised Schools. The Court was not posed with the question whether or not the said posts were encadered in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. The above observation made by the Court was, therefore, an obiter dictum and cannot be treated as ratio decidendi. 15. We are agonized to note that these are but a few Writ Petitions in a string of Writ Petitions filed in the subject matter. This line of litigation is generated on account of indecisiveness of the State Government and its fluctuating policy. We are also at pains to note that the State Government not only does not have a firm policy insofar as the education in the State of Bihar is concerned; it has gone on taking decisions as it suits at the relevant time. In the Writ Petitions filed before this Court also, the State Government has taken self-contradictory defense from time to time. 16. Article 790 of the Bihar Education Code deals with the pay of Subordinate Educational Service. It reads as under:- “790. In the Writ Petitions filed before this Court also, the State Government has taken self-contradictory defense from time to time. 16. Article 790 of the Bihar Education Code deals with the pay of Subordinate Educational Service. It reads as under:- “790. Pay of the Subordinate Educational Service.– The Subordinate Educational Service has three branches – (i) Teaching staff of Government Boy’s Schools (Zila and Sarvodaya Schools) (ii) Inspecting Branch including Headmasters of Basic schools and Lecturers in Primary Teacher’s Education Colleges and (iii) Women’s branch – Teachers in Govt. Girl’s High and Plus two secondary schools, lecturers in women’s Primary Teacher’s Education Colleges, Deputy Inspectors of Schools and Headmistresses of Government Girl’s Middle Schools. ……………… ”. Clause (iii) of the aforesaid Article specifically refers to “Plus two secondary schools”. 17. The Advertisement No. 1/87 also while referring the lecturers in Plus two schools did specifically mention Subordinate Educational Service. Hence, it cannot be gainsaid that the Plus two secondary schools were always a part of Subordinate Educational Service. Further the Advertisement No. 1/87 also specifically referred to the vacancies in the Government and the Nationalized (Taken Over) Schools. While making appointment of the lecturers in Plus two schools, under orders made in January 1990, the selected candidates were posted in the Government or the Nationalized Schools randomly. It is not the case of the State Government that the option was offered to the concerned candidates or that the posting in the Government or the Nationalized Schools were made on some definite principle. We will, therefore, not hesitate in holding that the posting in the Government or the Nationalized Schools at the relevant time was fortuitous and the rights of the Plus two lecturers would not depend upon their posting in the Government or the Nationalized Schools. 18. We are alive that in the appointment order the State Government did make specific reference to ex-cadre post. However, mere mention of ex-cadre post in the appointment order or lack of decision in assimilating the Plus two schools lecturers in the mainstream of teachers would not deprive them of their legitimate rights. 19. It is apparent that the order 16th October 2006 has been made and the Notification dated 23rd June 2009 has been issued by the State Government without considering the relevant factors and it displays total lack of application of mind. 19. It is apparent that the order 16th October 2006 has been made and the Notification dated 23rd June 2009 has been issued by the State Government without considering the relevant factors and it displays total lack of application of mind. As recorded hereinabove, the Plus two lecturers were always part of the Subordinate Educational Service. Such lecturers could not have been deprived of the right as members of the Subordinate Educational Service by artificially grouping them with the teachers in the Nationalized Schools. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Plus two lecturers in the Government and the Nationalized (Taken Over) Secondary Schools appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/87 and selected by the Board were always part of the Subordinate Educational Service and that they are entitled to the benefits as the members of the Subordinate Educational Service. The encadrement of the Plus two lecturers with the teachers in the Nationalized Schools under Notification dated 23rd June 2009 is bad and illegal. The Notification dated 23rd June 2009 has been issued without application of mind and without considering Article 790 of the Bihar Education Code, the Government decision dated 7th July 1985 and the Advertisement No. 1/87. The impugned order dated 16th October 2006 and the Notification dated 23rd June 2009 are quashed and set aside. 21. The petitioners and other Plus two lecturers appointed pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/87 are indeed the members of the Subordinate Educational Service. The petitioners are entitled to the service benefits as the members of the Subordinate Educational Service. The State Government will treat the petitioners and the other Plus two lecturers appointed pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/87 as the members of the Subordinate Educational Service and will extend the service benefits as the members of the Subordinate Educational Service. All other legal consequences shall follow. 22. The State Government will make orders, as may be required to comply with the above directions, within one year from today. The petitions are allowed in the above terms. 23. The Registry will send copy of this judgment to the respondent State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department forthwith. BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, J.:–I agree.