ORDER : Claiming parity with the parateachers, the petitioners have challenged Rule 14 of the Jharkhand Elementary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, on the ground that it infringes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Kasturba Gandhi Residential Schools (KGBVs) are established at Block level for advancing cause of girls’ education in backward areas. The teachers in the school are selected by Selection Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner of the district. Amongst the teachers, one who secures higher position, is selected as Warden who has to look into other administrative and financial matters also. The petitioner no.1 claims to have obtained her M.A Degree in Economics in First Class. She has also cleared the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 2012 for Class VI to VIII and ever since her appointment vide, letter dated 12.12.2005 in Kasturba Gandhi Girls School, Deoghar, she is discharging her duties without break in service. The petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are also holding Masters Degree and fulfill the requisite essential qualification, for appointment to the post of teacher including, Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 2012. It is asserted that the petitioners have been working as teachers in Kasturba Gandhi Girls School for periods between 59 years and the nature of duties and responsibility of the petitioners are no less onerous than the parateachers. Both are contractual appointees working under the State Government and in the same department. In the above facts, the petitioners have averred that denying reservation to the petitioners on the one hand and providing reservation of 50% seats for the parateachers in recruitment as regular teachers in Class VI-VIII is arbitrary, discriminatory and, unreasonable and thus, breaches Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Rule 14 of the Jharkhand Elementary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 suffers from vice of arbitrariness, inasmuch as, reservation of 50% seats for parateachers in appointment on the post of regular teachers has no rational nexus with the object i.e. selection of teachers, to be achieved. 4. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Rule 14 of the Jharkhand Elementary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 suffers from vice of arbitrariness, inasmuch as, reservation of 50% seats for parateachers in appointment on the post of regular teachers has no rational nexus with the object i.e. selection of teachers, to be achieved. It is submitted that the petitioners, who had undergone similar process of appointment and who are discharging similar responsibilities, must be granted reservation “up to reasonable limit” by amending Rule 14, suitably, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioners and other similarly situated teachers in Kasturba Gandhi Residential Schools to compete for appointment as regular teachers in regular pay-scale in the Government schools. 5. Per contra, Mr. H.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand disputing the stand taken by the petitioners that they are similarly situated to the parateachers working continuously for two years in Government schools, submits that the parateachers form a separate class of teachers who have acquired vast knowledge in teaching in the Government schools and they are working in similar manner as the regular teachers in the Government schools are working. It is further contended that the petitioners have fair opportunity to compete in the selection for appointment on the post of regular teachers. 6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, the establishment of Kasturba Gandhi Residential Schools and, appointment of teachers may usefully be noticed. 7. The scheme for encouraging girls education in the backward areas was evolved with the joint efforts of the Government of India and the State Government. In Kasturba Gandhi Residential Schools education for Class VIVIII is imparted. The teachers are appointed on contractual basis for fixed term and, on fixed Parilabdhi (honorarium). If the contractual period is extended, the honorarium is increased by Rs.250/- per year. The minimum educational qualification is Graduate however, the candidates having higher educational qualification and training would be given priority. A Committee of six members headed by the Deputy Commissioner makes selection of the teachers. A distinct pattern has been evolved for management of the schools wherein, a “School Committee” consisting of eleven members including, two teachers, one student, three guardians is formed. For admission of the girl students, a separate procedure has been prescribed. A Committee of six members headed by the Deputy Commissioner makes selection of the teachers. A distinct pattern has been evolved for management of the schools wherein, a “School Committee” consisting of eleven members including, two teachers, one student, three guardians is formed. For admission of the girl students, a separate procedure has been prescribed. A perusal of the instructions issued vide, letter dated 06.08.2005 by the State Project Director to all the Deputy Commissioners discloses that Kasturba Gandhi Residential Schools are established under a scheme, the pattern of which is entirely different from the Government schools. The letter of appointment of the petitioner no.1 vide, Annexure2 indicates that the appointment was on short-term contract and, subject to the maximum period of one year it was for the period under the contract or the period for the scheme. Through instructions dated 10.02.2016, the Project Director informed the Regional Deputy Director of Education and other authorities that on the vacant posts of teachers, payment to the teachers would be made @ Rs.200/per working day, subject to maximum of 25 days in a month, and a teacher is required to conduct at least three classes in a day. It further appears that Kasturba Gandhi Girls Schools have been upgraded and education up to Std. XII is now imparted in the school. A provision for appointment of part-time teachers has also been made. The guidelines for implementation of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya make it abundantly clear that the scheme is applicable only in those identified educationally backward Blocks where, as per census data of 2000, the rural family literacy is below the national average and gendergap in literacy is more than the national average. The objective of KGBVs is to ensure access of quality education to the girls of disadvantaged groups of society by setting up residential schools with boarding facility at elementary level. Clause 10.2 of the Guidelines for Implementation of KGBVs reads as under:- “10.2 The provisions for KGBV will be in addition to the provisions already made under SSA and for NPEGL. The SSA Society shall ensure convergence of KGBV with NPEGEL and Mahila Samakhya Programme. It shall also ensure that funds allocated are appropriately invested and there is no duplication of activities.” 8. The SSA Society shall ensure convergence of KGBV with NPEGEL and Mahila Samakhya Programme. It shall also ensure that funds allocated are appropriately invested and there is no duplication of activities.” 8. Rule 14 of the Jharkhand Elementary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 reads as under:- In Hindi ^14- bUVj izf’kf{kr f’k{kd ,oa Lukrd izf’kf{kr f’k{kd dh lh/kh fu;qfDr gsrq fpfUgr~ fjfDr;ksa esa ls 50 izfr’kr in loZ f’k{kk vfHk;ku ds rgr~ 2 ¼nks½ o"kksZa rd vVwV lsok dj jgs vgrkZ/kkjh ikjk f’k{kd esa ls p;u gsrq vkjf{kr jgsaxsA ;g vkj{k.k {kSfrt gksxk] vFkkZr izR;sd Js.kh ¼vŒtkŒ] vŒtŒtkŒ] vU; fiNM+k oxZ ,oa lkekU;½ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr dksVk ds vUrxZr gh ;g vkj{k.k vuqekU; gksxkA ijUrq ;g fd fjfDr ds vuqikr esa visf{kr la[;k esa ikjk f’k{kd mRrh.kZ ugha gksus fd fLFkfr esa bu fjfDr;ksa dks vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls vkj{k.k dksfV ds vuqlkj ;Fkk fofgr~ :i esa Hkjk tk ldsxkA* In English “14. 50 percent posts for direct recruitment of Inter Trained Teacher and Graduate Trained Teacher shall be reserved for para teachers who are in continuous service for 2 (two) years under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. This reservation shall be horizontal i.e., this reservation is applied only under the fixed quota for each category (S.C., S.T, Other Backward caste and General). In case, required number of para teachers do not qualify then these vacancies shall be filled up from other qualified candidates according to the reservation quota.” 9. In the counter affidavit the respondents have taken a stand that Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs) and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan both are two different schemes, both sponsored by the Government of India however, the appointment process and service conditions of parateachers are different from the teachers in KGBVs. It is stated that in the light of recommendation of Girinath Singh Committee, 50% seats of Intermediate Trained Teachers and Graduate Trained Teachers are reserved for parateachers working continuously for two years in the Government schools. It is further asserted that the services of parateachers stand transferred to PRIs. It is contended that the petitioners working as teachers in KGBVs cannot claim parity with the parateachers working in Government schools. The respondent-State has taken a specific stand in this regard in paragraph nos. 20 & 21 of the counter affidavit, which read as under:- “20. It is further asserted that the services of parateachers stand transferred to PRIs. It is contended that the petitioners working as teachers in KGBVs cannot claim parity with the parateachers working in Government schools. The respondent-State has taken a specific stand in this regard in paragraph nos. 20 & 21 of the counter affidavit, which read as under:- “20. That the KGBVs were later on upgraded upto class 10 in the year 2008 and upto class 12 in the year 2010 by the State Government and post of teaching and non-teaching staff have been sanctioned but no appointment has been made as yet. The teaching work is done by persons engaged on part time basis, more precisely, on the period basis. A person engaged under this arrangement may take 34 class a day and 20 days in a month. That it is to be submitted that even for elementary classes (class 6 to 8), the KGBVs engaged part time teachers on period basis. 21. That it is quite clear that Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan are two different schemes sponsored by the Government of India, though the scheme of funding pattern is same in both the schemes. However, the appointment process and service conditions of para teachers engaged under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya are not same. Further, the Girinath Singh Committee’s recommendations, on the basis of which para teachers working under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan have been given 50% reservations, does not cover the teachers of KGBVs. It is also to be noted that the services of para teachers stands transferred to the PRIs, which is not the case of KGBV teachers.” 10. In reply to the aforesaid stand taken by the State of Jharkhand, the petitioners have merely contended that the funding pattern for the teachers in KGBVs and the parateachers is the same and both are contractual employees and therefore, two different yardsticks cannot be adopted while providing reservation in appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners and other teachers working in KGBVs are required to reside within the school complex and thus, they are on duty for 24 Hrs. 11. The Jharkhand Elementary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Rules make a distinction between “Elementary School” and “Middle School”. 11. The Jharkhand Elementary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Rules make a distinction between “Elementary School” and “Middle School”. The Rules provide educational and training qualifications for appointment of teachers in primary school and high primary school. Rule 5 provides different syllabus and different “level of eligibility test” for the teachers for Class-I to V and Class-VI to VIII. Similarly, Rule9 under Chapter3 provides that for Class-I to V, Inter trained teachers would be appointed and, for Class-VI to VIII, 50% seats would be filled up by Graduate trained teachers. The Rules further provide for direct recruitment under certain categories. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that vide Notification dated 28.04.2012, the National Council for Teacher Education amended First Schedule to the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Qualifications) for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools (Amendment) Regulations, 2003, providing minimum academic and professional qualifications for appointment of teachers in preschool/nursery (Age group4 to 6 years), preschool/nursery (Age group4 to 6 and 6 to 8 years), Elementary (A. primary and B. upper primary), Secondary/high school and Senior Secondary/PUC/ Intermediate. It is submitted that the government primary schools have been upgraded to Class-VIII whereas, the KGBVs were started initially for Class-VI to Class-VIII and, subsequently it has been upgraded to Class-XII. The Government schools employed regular teachers and only to supplement the teaching staff, para teachers having qualification of regular teachers are appointed. Whereas, KGBVs are under a scheme where no regular teacher is appointed rather, all appointments (full time and part time) are contractual. It is further submitted that from the inception KGBVs are contemplated as a temporary measure. 13. In “Prabodh Verma and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.” reported in (1984)4 SCC 251 a question came up for consideration whether “reserved pool teachers” form a separate and distinct class from other applicants for appointment on the post of teachers, holding that the “reserved pool teachers” form a separate and distinct class who rendered their service to the State in a time of crisis, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- “44. ...............Those two classes of persons, namely the class of reserve pool teachers and the class of other applicants for the posts of teachers in the recognized institutions, are not similarly circumstanced and, therefore, there cannot be any question of giving these two classes of persons equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment guaranteed by Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Thus, neither Article 14 nor Article 16(1) of the Constitution was violated by the provisions of either U.P. Ordinance 10 of 1978 or U.P. Ordinance 22 of 1978.” 14. During the course of hearing, the learned State counsel submitted that there are other schools such as, “Eklavya” fully residential school for boys for Class-VI to Class-XII under the Welfare Department; Buniyadi School-Government school for Class-I to Class-VIII; Project School-Government school for Class-VI to Class-X and Model School-English medium school under the control of Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, in which some teachers have been employed on contractual basis and therefore, it would be inequitable to identify the teachers appointed in KGBVs as a distinct group for the purpose of granting reservation to them in appointment of teachers in the Government schools. It is stated that there are more than 72,000 parateachers in the State who are imparting education in the Government schools. The object behind keeping 50% reservation for parateachers is to utilize the vast experience of the parateachers acquired while teaching in the Government schools. The petitioners also may have equally good teaching experiences however, the very nature of their engagement, terms of the appointment and the distinction between KGBVs and the Government schools make it impermissible to equate them with the parateachers. Not only the process of appointment and the nature of engagement of parateachers and the petitioners are different, the nature and functioning of both the schools are also different. What makes a further distinction between the parateachers and the teachers working in KGBVs, is the recommendation of Girinath Committee which was accepted by the Government. Moreover, the minimum qualification of the teachers engaged in KGBVs does not include the essential qualification prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education, and the teachers who possess such qualifications are not prohibited from participating in the recruitment. There may be thousands of other equally well equipped teachers working in different private/minority, aided/unaided schools however, they cannot claim parity with the parateachers. There may be thousands of other equally well equipped teachers working in different private/minority, aided/unaided schools however, they cannot claim parity with the parateachers. The group of parateachers working continuously for two years in the Government schools furnishes a rational basis for classification and such classification does not violate the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The parateachers working continuously for two years in Government schools thus, form a separate class. The petitioners have not been denied equal opportunity to compete with the other candidates. The prayer seeking a direction to the respondent-State to provide reservation “upto reasonable limit” for the petitioners is misconceived. Grant of reservation and fixing limits of reservation are the policy decisions of the Government. In our considered opinion, the funding pattern or a condition that the teachers working in KGBVs must reside within the residential complex, would not equate them with the parateachers and, the provision for reservation of 50% seats for para teachers cannot be held arbitrary or discriminatory on that count. Reiterating the well established principle that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of statute, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “R.K. Garg Vs. Union of India” reported in (1981) 4 SCC 675 has observed as under:- “7. Now while considering the constitutional validity of a statute said to be violative of Article 14, it is necessary to bear in mind certain well established principles which have been evolved by the courts as rules of guidance in discharge of its constitutional function of judicial review. The first rule is that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. This rule is based on the assumption, judicially recognised and accepted, that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and its discrimination are based on adequate grounds. The presumption of constitutionality is indeed so strong that in order to sustain it, the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation.” 15. The presumption of constitutionality is indeed so strong that in order to sustain it, the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation.” 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.