JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. There are two writ applications. One is by an individual and the other by the so-called association which is a registered one, representing the cause of the minority secondary teachers. Since both the writ applications have raised identical questions, both of them have been taken up together not only for arguments but also for adjudication. 2. The issues raised herein that decision of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the BPSC) to reject the candidature of the claimants or applicants for the post of Headmaster on the ground that the concerned candidate or candidates are teachers of a Minority Institution and therefore, are not eligible to apply or to be considered for the post of Headmaster for which an advertisement was issued by the BPSC is illegal. The communication or order of rejection is contained in Annexure-9 (in CWJC No. 6038 of 2014) and Annexure-7 (in CWJC No. 5643 of 2014). Not only the communications are under challenge but now a mandamus is being sought for quashing of letter dated 28.03.2008 issued vide Memo No. 1755 of the Human Resource Department, Government of Bihar through I.A. No.2036 of 2016. 3. There is a statute which is known as Bihar Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. This was formulated and notified on 9th June, 1983 after the State of Bihar as a matter of policy decided to take over many private schools imparting education of such kind who were in the hands of private managing committees. To fill up the post of Headmaster for such schools, BPSC issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates. The advertisement is dated 06.05.2007. 4. During the process of such selection the applications of certain individuals as well as members of the so-called association came to be rejected by communication contained in Annexure-9 (in CWJC No. 6038/2014) and Annexure-7 (in CWJC No.5643/2014) indicating that since they are teachers of minority institution, they cannot be allowed to participate in the processes of selection. This is the cause of action for filing of the two writ applications. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners of the two writ applications submits that looking at Annexure-1 itself would indicate that the petitioners and the members of the association do have the requisite eligibility in terms of educational qualification etc. This is the cause of action for filing of the two writ applications. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners of the two writ applications submits that looking at Annexure-1 itself would indicate that the petitioners and the members of the association do have the requisite eligibility in terms of educational qualification etc. and the advertisement as well as the rule does not discriminate or indicate any kind of difference between the teachers of minority institutions and the so-called taken over institutions by the State of Bihar. In fact, the State of Bihar does not treat the two institutions any differential for this purpose. Still despite the above fact BPSC has erroneously rejected the claim for consideration in terms of communication dated 23.09.2013. 6. It is a case of discrimination and violation of the right of the individual and members of the association, which not only violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but may be Articles 29 and 30. 7. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are attractive in nature but there is a basic flaw in such submission because it is a contrived kind of equality which these petitioners are seeking. Rule (in Annexure-1) is specific in nature and is meant for the set of teachers of schools which were taken over or nationalized by virtue of legislation brought at the relevant time and codified in the year 1983. They form a separate class altogether. Their service conditions may look similar to some of the teachers of minority institutions but that similarity ends there and then. 8. There are separate set of rules governing appointment and selection of minority teachers as well as their promotions. The Constitution guarantees their right for consideration of selection, if not promotion, under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution and they are a class apart and they can claim benefit within the framework of the rules adopted for minority institutions and they cannot claim benefit by trying to jump the fence and join the bandwagon of selection and exercise initiated by BPSC. 9. There is no discrimination in the eye of law; therefore, the policy which these petitioners are calling discriminatory is non-existent. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the BPSC. They have admitted that these objections were raised on certain complaints being received by such candidates. 9. There is no discrimination in the eye of law; therefore, the policy which these petitioners are calling discriminatory is non-existent. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the BPSC. They have admitted that these objections were raised on certain complaints being received by such candidates. The Commission decided to seek declaration from the State Government and wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development (as it was known then). It is Annexure-D to the counter affidavit and is dated 4.3.2008. Response was received by the Secretary of the Commission at the level of the Principal Secretary and that response is dated 28.3.2008 and annexed as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit of the BPSC, filed in CWJC No. 5643 of 2014. The Court is tempted to reproduce what the Principal Secretary has communicated to the Secretary of the BPSC. “Alpsankhyak vidyalay ke shikshakon ki niyukti Vidyalay Prabandh Samiti dwara ki jati hai aur vidyalay ko swatantra ekaee mankar ukta vidyalayon me niyukt shikshakon me se hi Pradhanadhyapak ke pad par niyukti/pronatti di jati hai. (emphasis mine). Es esthiti me Pradhanadhyapak pad ke liye niyukti me bihit prabdhan de sath alpsankhyak ke shikshak Pradhanadhyapak ke liye patrata nahi rakhte hai. Alpsankhyak vidyalay rajkiyakrit vidyalay ke shreni me nahi aate hai.” 11. The answer to the submissions of the petitioners’ counsel is what has been quoted and what has been asserted by the Principal Secretary with regard to the status of teachers of minority institution. Since they are a class apart, they cannot claim discrimination vis-à-vis general teachers who are governed by a set of rules. 12. In view of the above, the communications contained in Annexure- 9/7 and E are not required to be interfered with. If the petitioners want to enhance their prospects, let them do it within the unit or school. They cannot demand parity on a perceived kind of discrimination sought to be urged at the bar. 13. Writ applications have no merit. They are dismissed.