JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner, who is at present working as an Assistant Teacher in B.R. High School, Belpahar, has filed this application to quash the resolution dated 14.03.2018 in Annexure-3 issued by the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department fixing guidelines for State Award to teachers, and further seeks to quash the advertisement published in Odia daily "Dharitri" by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha in Annexure-4, pursuant to resolution dated 14.03.2018, inviting applications for State Award 2017 only from the teachers working in an institution, which is either government or government aided, thereby depriving the teachers working in a recognized institution. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, having acquired trained graduate qualification in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, was appointed as a teacher in 1998. Since then, he has been rendering service in different schools within the State of Odisha. At present, he is working as an Assistant Teacher in B.R. High School, Belpahar, a recognized institution, situated in a remote area of the State. The petitioner has been imparting teaching in the said institution since 2014, as a result of which its students have been performing well in the school examinations and different science quiz competitions and are recipients of Pathani Samanta Ganita Scholarship, NRTS and other scholarships consistently every year. The petitioner himself is also a recipient of State Award for his excellent work in environmental protection and teaching. The Government of India in the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of School Education and Literacy, as well as the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department by different orders issued from time to time allowed the teachers of recognized primary, upper primary and secondary educational institutions to be eligible for State Award on the basis of their contribution, sacrifice and hard work. The selection of a teacher for State Award is made on the basis of principles and guidelines and assessment of marks on his/her performance. The selection of a teacher for State Award is made on the basis of principles and guidelines and assessment of marks on his/her performance. 2.1 As the matter stood thus, opposite party no.1 issued resolution no.5313/SME dated 14.03.2018 by revising the earlier scheme for State Award restricting it only to a teacher working in an institution, which is either government or government aided, thereby depriving the teachers working in a recognized institution like that of the petitioner from applying for State Award, in spite of the fact that they are otherwise eligible as per the terms and conditions of the resolution. Pursuant to such resolution dated 14.03.2018, opposite party no.2 issued advertisement, which was published in Odia daily "Dharitri", inviting applications from intending teachers for State Award. As the petitioner is rendering service in a recognized institution, he has been deprived of making application for State Award, pursuant to the advertisement issued in Odia newspaper "Dharitri", in view of resolution dated 14.03.2018, as it is only confined to a teacher working in an institution, which is either government or government aided. Hence, this application. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that the resolution dated 14.03.2018 issued by opposite party no.1 depriving the school teachers working in the institutions other than the government from applying for the State Award is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the resolution dated 14.03.2018 restricting the State Award, which is a mark of recognition contribution, sacrifice and hard work of a teacher, only to a teacher working in an institution, which is either government or government aided, is not founded on an intelligible differentia having rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Thereby, the classification made in the resolution itself is hit by the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he seeks for interference of this Court. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in State of Maharastra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi, (1996) AIR SC 1 and of this Court rendered in Sasmita Mohanty v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, 2010 Supp1 OrissaLR 135. 4. Mr. S. Parida, learned Sr. Therefore, he seeks for interference of this Court. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in State of Maharastra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi, (1996) AIR SC 1 and of this Court rendered in Sasmita Mohanty v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, 2010 Supp1 OrissaLR 135. 4. Mr. S. Parida, learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the School and Mass Education Department contended that as a matter of policy decision, Government has decided to grant State Award to a teacher working in an institution, which is either government managed (any department of Government of Odisha) or government aided on the date of application and, as such, the State Government has taken this policy decision consciously to promote the teachers of government and government aided schools, and consequently the guidelines have been issued in the shape of resolution dated 14.03.2018. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed if it is confined to a class of people to apply for State Award for their devotion to the teaching profession. It is further contended that the teachers of government and government aided schools are under continuous direct or indirect observation of district level inspecting officers or education officers of the department at field level. As a result, the performance of such teachers is assessed by the district level officers. Besides teaching work, the teachers of government and government aided schools are entrusted with different responsibilities in district level functions and activities relating to games and sports, junior red-cross, scout, science exhibition and science seminar and similar activities. Therefore, this provides a scope to the district education officer or block education officer to observe and evaluate different facets of the personality of a teacher and, as such, this is not the case with a teacher of unaided recognized private school where the evaluation of overall personality of a teacher is not possible on the part of inspecting officers. Therefore, the resolution has been passed to give such State Award to the teachers of government and government aided institutions, excluding the teachers of recognized institutions. Thereby, the authority has not committed any illegality or irregularity by excluding such type of teachers of recognized institutions from consideration of granting State Award. Therefore, the resolution has been passed to give such State Award to the teachers of government and government aided institutions, excluding the teachers of recognized institutions. Thereby, the authority has not committed any illegality or irregularity by excluding such type of teachers of recognized institutions from consideration of granting State Award. Consequentially, he contended that the policy decision of the government, challenging which the writ petition has been filed, may not be interfered with and the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. This Court heard Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Parida, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department. Pleadings having been exchanged, since the matter is urgent, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. Admittedly, the scheme of State Award to teachers was started since long with the object of magnifying the dignity of teachers and giving public recognition to the meritorious and outstanding teachers working in primary, middle and high schools. Initially, this award was known as Governor's Award, and subsequently it has been changed to State Award. The scheme further extended the benefit that teachers getting National or State Award in Primary and Upper Primary Schools would be allowed reemployment of two years after their retirement. On re-examination, the reemployment scheme was revisited and the Government enhanced the award amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/-, pursuant to resolution no.43805 dated 04.10.1990 issued by the erstwhile Education Department. Subsequently, the amount of award was enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- vide resolution no.18742 dated 18.07.2012. With the passage of time and due to transfer of subject of Junior Colleges from the Higher Education Department to School and Mass Education Department, w.e.f. 01.07.2016, it was required to revisit the State Award to Teachers and also the Lecturers of Junior Colleges. Therefore, a meeting was held on 24.01.2018 under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary of School and Mass Education Department and it was decided that from then every year on 5th of September or any other day the State Award would be given to the teachers. Besides, the number of award was enhanced, i.e., 30 for elementary teachers, 30 for secondary teachers, one each for Sanskrit Tol, Madrasa, OAVs, Arts stream of +2 colleges/Arts, Science, Commerce/Vocational Scheme. Besides, the number of award was enhanced, i.e., 30 for elementary teachers, 30 for secondary teachers, one each for Sanskrit Tol, Madrasa, OAVs, Arts stream of +2 colleges/Arts, Science, Commerce/Vocational Scheme. It was further decided that to be eligible for State Award, a teacher must have worked in an institution which is either government managed (any department of government of Odisha) or government aided on the date of application and the same was done to consider only the government funded schools for the State Award. Accordingly, guidelines for State Award to teachers were issued vide resolution no.5313 dated 14.03.2018 in Annexure-3. 7. The policy decision has been taken to confine the teachers of government and government aided schools who cater to the educational need of children from different strata of the society, including the most weak, poor and downtrodden sections. The students of these schools belong to socio-economic backward section. Therefore, the teachers of government or government aided schools performed the most difficult task of educating and shaping the future of most of the children of the State in general and almost all children from vulnerable section in particular. As a consequence thereof, there is need to recognize and incentivize the performance of such teachers. Further, the teachers of government and government aided private schools are under continuous direct or indirect observation of district level inspecting officers or education officers of the department at field level. As a result, the performance of such teachers is assessed by the district level officers. Besides teaching work, the teachers of government and government aided schools are entrusted with different responsibilities in district level functions and activities relating to games and sports, junior red-cross, scout, science exhibition and science seminar and similar activities. This provides a scope to the district education officer or block education officer to observe and evaluate different facets of the personality of a teacher and keeping this in view, the teachers of government and government aided schools have been given the privilege of award from time to time and the policy of the State teachers Award. But, this is not the case with a teacher of an unaided private school where the evaluation of overall personality of a teacher is not possible on the part of inspecting officers. But, this is not the case with a teacher of an unaided private school where the evaluation of overall personality of a teacher is not possible on the part of inspecting officers. The above reasons have been shown in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties justifying the resolution dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Government confining the State Award to the teachers of government or government aided schools and, as such, pursuant to such resolution, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for selection of teachers for granting State Award. As a matter of course, the district level selection committee recommended the names of suitable teachers and State level selection committee finalized the list of teachers to be awarded as per the guidelines issued by the Government. Admittedly, the petitioner is discharging his duty as an Assistant Teacher in B.R. High School, Belpahar, a recognized institution, situated in a remote area of the State. 8. A 'recognized institution' has been defined under Education Code, which reads as follows: "'A recognized institution' means a college or school in which the course of study followed is that which is prescribed or recognized by the Department of Public Instruction or by the University or by the Board of Basic Education or by the Board of Secondary Education and which satisfies one or more of these authorities, as the case may be, that it attains to a reasonable standard of efficiency. It is open to inspection and its pupils are ordinarily eligible for admission to public examinations and tests held by the Department of the University or one of the above Boards." Educational activities in the State were being regulated through the 'Education Code' which is a collection of executive instructions issued by Government from time to time. But action taken under the Education Code has been declared as illegal as the Code does not have any statutory support. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Government to fulfill their responsibility for management of Educational Institutions, conduct of educational programmes and directions of educational activities. It is not possible to take adequate and timely measures to prevent mismanagement of non-Government institutions. Therefore, it is considered essential to enact what may be called an 'Education Act', in which the Government will assume the authority for taking suitable steps to prevent the affairs and management of the non-Government institutions deteriorating. It is not possible to take adequate and timely measures to prevent mismanagement of non-Government institutions. Therefore, it is considered essential to enact what may be called an 'Education Act', in which the Government will assume the authority for taking suitable steps to prevent the affairs and management of the non-Government institutions deteriorating. Government will take the authority and responsibility of directing management, administration and maintenance of teaching standards in educational institutions in this State and determining the service conditions, etc. of staff employed in educational institutions. The Act also proposes to give authority to Government to prevent the management of an institution from abusing or misusing the properties that might have been donated by the people for the purpose of the educational institutions concerned. Above all, this Act will help future development of education. Therefore, an Act to provide for the better organization and development of educational institutions in the State, the Legislature of Orissa have enacted a law called the "Orissa Education Act 1969" (Orissa Act 15 of 1969). 9. Section 3(f) defines "Educational Institution" which reads as follows:- "Educational Institution means any College or a junior College or a Higher Secondary School or any other School defined in this Act or any institution imparting technical and professional education, special education and includes all movable and immovable properties of such School or College, as the case may be;" Section 3(p) defines "Recognized Educational Institution" which reads as follows: "Recognized Educational institution means any private educational institution which is or has been, recognized[under this Act];" 10. Chapter-Ii of the Orissa Education Act 1969 deals with establishment, management and control of educational institutions. Section-4 deals with establishment and recognition of educational institutions, Section-5 deals with permission for establishment of educational institution, Section-6 deals with recognition of educational institution, Section-6-A, which has been inserted by way of amendment Act No.13 of 1994, deals with condition for recognition and Section 6-B deals with withdrawal of recognition. 11. As per Sub-Section (3) of Section-4, the State Government, after taking steps for establishment, shall maintain educational institution. 11. As per Sub-Section (3) of Section-4, the State Government, after taking steps for establishment, shall maintain educational institution. Clause (b) of Sub-Section-(3) of Section-4 states as follows:- "(b) Permit any person or body of persons, to establish and maintain educational institutions and recognize such institutions when so established in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Similarly, Sub-Section (4) of Section-4 states as follows: "(4) The Prescribed Authority shall communicate the orders granting permission and recognition to the concerned person or body of persons." Section-5 deals with permission for establishment of educational institution wherein it has been stated that no private educational institution which require recognition shall be established except in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. Section-6 envisages that an application for recognition of a private educational institution shall be made to the Prescribed Authority on or before the 30th November of the academic year in which the institution starts functioning. 12. On a conjoint reading, Sections-4, 5 and 6 of the Orissa Education Act 1969 clearly provide that to establish a private educational institution and to get recognition, the State Government has a pivotal role to play. As such, power has been vested with the State authorities to grant permission and recognition to such private educational institutions by the 'prescribed authority'. More so, the 'prescribed authority' has also been defined under Sub-Section-(3)(m-1), which has been inserted by way of amendment, Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1991 (Act 16 of 1991). If the recognized institutions are being established by the Code with due permission and recognition of the State Government, it cannot be construed that it itself is a separate class of institution and it requires a different treatment than that of the institution or institutions established by the Government or institutions receiving aid from the Government. 13. The States to make laws under Article 246 is regulated by the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution. In the VIIth Schedule, as was originally in force, Entry 11 of List II gave to the States an exclusive power to legislate on- "education including universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III". Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of List III was amended with effect from 3.1.1976, as a result of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of List III was amended with effect from 3.1.1976, as a result of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The present Entry 25 in the Concurrent List is as follows: "25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour." 14. In Preeti Srivastava (Dr) v. State of M.P., (1999) AIR SC 2894, the apex Court held that in view of Entries made in the Constitution, both the Parliament as well as State Legislature have power to register and enact the law for imparting education. 15. Now, coming to the meaning of "Education", in common parlance- "Education" according to Chambers Dictionary is "bringing up or training;... strengthening of the powers of body or mind; culture". In Advanced Law Lexicon (P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn., 2005, Vol.2) "education" is defined in very wide terms which reads as follows: "Education is the bringing up; the process of developing and training the powers and capabilities of human beings. In its broadest sense the word comprehends not merely the instruction received at school, or college but the whole course of training moral, intellectual and physical; is not limited to the ordinary instruction of the child in the pursuits of literature. It also comprehends a proper attention to the moral and religious sentiments of the child. And it is sometimes used as synonymous with 'learning'." 16. In Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust v. CIT, (1976) 1 SCC 254 the term "education" was held to mean as follows:- "the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. What education connotes is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling." 17. In State of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC 737 , the apex Court held as follows: "The right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21-A inserted by the 86th Amendment of the Constitution. Even before the said amendment, the Supreme Court treated the right to education as a fundamental right". 18. In State of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC 737 , the apex Court held as follows: "The right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21-A inserted by the 86th Amendment of the Constitution. Even before the said amendment, the Supreme Court treated the right to education as a fundamental right". 18. In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , the apex Court, while considering Article 21-A, which has been added to the Constitution, held as follows: "Article 21-A has been added in the Constitution with a view to facilitate the children to get proper and good quality education. However, the quality of education would depend on various factors but the most relevant of them is excellence of teaching staff. In view thereof, quality of teaching staff cannot be compromised. The selection of the most suitable persons is essential in order to maintain excellence and the standard of teaching in the institution. It is not permissible for the State that while controlling the education it may impinge the standard of education. It is, in fact, for this reason that norms of admission in institutions have to be adhered to strictly. Admissions in midacademic sessions are not permitted to maintain the excellence of education". 19. To achieve the objectives of education, as discussed above, it is the responsibilities of the teachers, parents and above all the State authorities so as to give the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life. Therefore, a teacher may be a private, aided or Government has got equal responsibility to discharge his/her duty to achieve the objective of imparting education in the State. There cannot be any classification among the teachers of private, unaided, aided and Government teachers who are discharging their duty to achieve the sole objective of imparting education to the students. More so, it cannot create a separate class among the similarly situated persons. Class within the class cannot have any justification which amounts to discrimination. The present resolution dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Government in School and Mass Education Department, excluding the teachers of recognized, private and unaided institutions from the zone of consideration for grant of State Award amounts to discrimination and it has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The present resolution dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Government in School and Mass Education Department, excluding the teachers of recognized, private and unaided institutions from the zone of consideration for grant of State Award amounts to discrimination and it has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Thereby, such resolution dated 14.03.2018 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 20. The argument advanced by learned Sr. Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department is that the resolution issued on 14.03.2018 is in the shape of policy decision, which cannot be interfered with by this Court. Such an argument cannot sustain in view of law laid down by the apex Court in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 6 SCC 562 : AIR 2002 SC 2877 wherein the apex Court held that the policy decision, which is subversive of the doctrine of equality, cannot sustain. It should be free from the vice of arbitrariness and conform to the well-settled norms, both positive and negative, underlying Articles 14 and 16 which together with Article 15 form part of the constitutional code of equality. 21. No doubt, right of the State to change its policy from time to time under the changing circumstances cannot be questioned, though the changed policy deviated from the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Further, the Government policy is not subject to judicial review unless it is demonstrably arbitrary, capricious, irrational, discriminatory or violative of constitutional or statutory provisions. But, at the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact of law laid down by the apex Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. V. Delhi Administration, (2001) 3 SCC 635 wherein the apex Court held that unless the policy can be faulted on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc, the same should not be interfered with by the Court. Therefore, this Court has to examine the resolution dated 14.03.2018 within the parameters of the law laid down by the apex Court, as discussed above. 22. Admittedly, prior to the resolution dated 14.03.2018, under various executive instructions, opportunities were given to all category of teachers, including the teachers from the recognized institutions, to make the application for consideration of the Governor's Award, subsequently renamed as State Award. 22. Admittedly, prior to the resolution dated 14.03.2018, under various executive instructions, opportunities were given to all category of teachers, including the teachers from the recognized institutions, to make the application for consideration of the Governor's Award, subsequently renamed as State Award. But, for the first time, in the present resolution dated 14.03.2018 it has been confined only to the teachers working under the government and government aided schools, by which the teachers rendering service in recognized institutions have been deprived of filing application for consideration for State Award. Needless to say, such institutions are being established with prior permission and recognition by the competent authority, namely, the State authority and with the same object to impart education to the students. More particularly, the students those who have been prosecuting studies in such type of institutions have shown their excellence in comparison to government or government aided institutions and proved their merit at par with their counterparts of such institutions. 23. The contentions raised that the State Government has taken policy decision consciously to promote teachers from government and government aided schools and consequentially guidelines dated 14.03.2018 have been issued, that itself amounts to discrimination amongst the teachers of recognized/private institutions vis-a-vis the government and government aided schools. The State being a welfare State cannot have any justification to make such discrimination amongst same class of teachers working under the same working conditions imparting education to the students and achieve the objects of constitutional mandate. Thereby, such resolution which has been passed on 14.03.2018 is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, being arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory one. The justification of issuing such resolution suffers from wrath of Article 14 of the constitution of India. As such, the procedure which has been evolved is absolutely unfair one. Therefore, considering the proceeding as a whole, this Court is of the considered view that the issuance of such resolution being unfair one, this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the same. 24. No doubt, it is not for the Courts to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in fulfillment of that policy is fair. They are concerned only with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. In C.C.S.U. v. Min., (1984) 3 AllER 935 , LORD DIPLOCK held that if the manner is unfair, the decision will be tainted with 'procedural impropriety'. They are concerned only with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. In C.C.S.U. v. Min., (1984) 3 AllER 935 , LORD DIPLOCK held that if the manner is unfair, the decision will be tainted with 'procedural impropriety'. In Narendra v. Union of India, (1990) Supp1 SCC 440 : AIR 1989 SC 2138 , the apex Court held that non-statutory guidelines or administrative instructions are generally not enforceable in a court of law. This means that it is open to the competent authority to depart from such guidelines or policy statements in cases where the proper exercise of his discretion so requires. 25. The reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Manubhai Pragaji Vashi (supra), paragraphs-10 and 12 of which read as under:- "10. On hearing counsel, we are of the view that no dispute seems to have been raised in the High Court regarding the grant-in-aid made available to recognised private professional colleges other than law. Nor was any material placed before the court on this score. The conclusion of the High Court to the effect that not extending the grant-in-aid to non-Government law colleges and at the same time extending such benefit to non-Government colleges with faculties viz., Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and Medicine (other professional non-Government colleges) is patently discriminatory, and based on material and sustainable. The State has not discharged the burden of proof cast on it to sustain the differential treatment meted out to one of the Government recognisd professional colleges, (private law colleges). It is patent that likes have been treated unlike; without proper justification or reason and the private law colleges have been singled out for hostile discriminatory treatment. The disparity in the service conditions in not affording the benefit of pension-cum-gratuity scheme to the non-teaching staff in non-Government law colleges and at the same time affording the same benefit to non-teaching staff of colleges with faculties in Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and Medicine with effect from 1.10.1982 is discriminatory as correctly opined by the High Court and requires to be set right. 12. The facts stated above amply bring out the fact that recognised private law colleges alone were singled out for hostile discriminatory treatment. 12. The facts stated above amply bring out the fact that recognised private law colleges alone were singled out for hostile discriminatory treatment. The recommendations of the committee (pages 198-208) to apply the new formula for the grant to private law colleges and the resolution adopted by the Government to extend the UGC scales to teachers of law colleges (pages 86-87) remained only in 'paper' and no concrete steps were taken to implement them. It is not explained as to why recognised private law colleges alone are disentitled to receive grant-in-aid from the Government. The burden of proof cast on the State, that discrimination against recognised private law colleges is based on a reasonable classification having nexus to the object sought to be achieved, has not been discharged. The High Court has held so, placing reliance on the decisions of this Court reported in Budhan Choudhary and others v. State of Bihar, (1955) AIR SC 191, Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, (1958) AIR SC 578, Mehant Moti Das v. S.P. Sah, (1959) AIR SC 942 Babulal Amthalal Mehta V. Collector of Customs, (1957) AIR SC 877 and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) AIR SC 130. We hold that the aforesaid reasoning and conclusion of the High Court is fully justified and no exception can be taken to the decision so arrived at by the High Court. The High Court has further referred to the plea of paucity of funds pleaded by the State and has held that paucity of funds can be no reason for discrimination, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, (1980) AIR SC 1622. This reasoning of the High Court is also fully justified and no exception can be taken to the said proposition as well. We hold so." 26. The reliance was also placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Sasmita Mohanty (supra), in paragraphs-12, 13 and 14 of which this Court held as follows:- "12. This reasoning of the High Court is also fully justified and no exception can be taken to the said proposition as well. We hold so." 26. The reliance was also placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Sasmita Mohanty (supra), in paragraphs-12, 13 and 14 of which this Court held as follows:- "12. With regard to the scope of judicial review of the above decision taken by the University, it would be seen that it is a settled legal proposition that a policy decision taken by the State or its authorities/instrumentalities is beyond the purview of judicial review unless the same is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in contravention of the statutory provisions or violates the rights of the individual guaranteed under the Statute. In the case of R.K. Garg v. Union of India and others, (1981) AIR SC 2138, the Supreme Court while examining the authority of the provisions of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981 and Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981 held as follows:- "It is clear that Article 14 does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of attaining specific ends. What is necessary in order to pass the test of permissible classification under Article 14 is that the classification must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive" but must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislature............Another rule of equal importance is that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc. It has been said by no less a person than Holmes, J., that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints, because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or straight jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has to be allowed to the legislature. The Court should feel more inclined to give judicial deference to legislative judgment in the field of economic regulation than in other areas where fundamental human rights are involved.......... The Court should feel more inclined to give judicial deference to legislative judgment in the field of economic regulation than in other areas where fundamental human rights are involved.......... The Court must always remember that "legislation is directed to practical problems, that the economic mechanism is highly sensitive and complex, that many problems are singular and contingent, that laws are not abstract propositions and do not relate to abstract units and are not to be measured by abstract symmetry" that exact wisdom and nice adoption of remedy are not always possible and that "judgment is largely a prophecy based on meager and uninterrupted experience". Every legislation particularly in economic matters is essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial and error method and therefore, it cannot provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses. There may be crudities and inequities in complicated experimental economic legislation but on that account alone it cannot be struck down as invalid...........There may even be possibilities of abuse, but that too cannot of itself be a ground for invalidating the legislation, because it is not possible for any legislature to anticipate as if by some divine prescience, distortions and abuses of its legislation which may be made by those subject to its provisions and to provide against such distortions and abuses. Indeed, howsoever great may be the care bestowed on its framing, it is difficult to conceive of a legislation which is not capable of being abused by perverted human ingenuity. The Court must therefore adjudge the constitutionality of such legislation by the generality of its provisions and not by its crudities or inequities or by the possibilities of abuse of any of its provisions. If any crudities inequities or possibilities of abuse come to light, the legislature can always step in and enact suitable amendatory legislation. That is the essence of pragmatic approach which must guide and inspire the legislature in dealing with complex economic issues. If any crudities inequities or possibilities of abuse come to light, the legislature can always step in and enact suitable amendatory legislation. That is the essence of pragmatic approach which must guide and inspire the legislature in dealing with complex economic issues. (emphasis supplied)." In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Padam Dev and others, (2002) 4 SCC 510 , the Supreme Court held that unless a policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason or discriminatory or infringing any statute or the constitution, such decision cannot be a subject of a judicial interference under the provisions of Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Rajasthan and others v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252 . In exercise of power of judicial review, the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide, render the policy unconstitutional. Unless a policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason or discriminatory or infringing any Statute or the Constitution, it cannot be a subject of judicial interference. However, if the policy cannot be touched on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it may affect business interests of a party does not justify invalidating the policy. In the case Union of India and another v. International Trading Company and another, (2003) 5 SCC 437 , the Supreme Court pointed out that the policy of the Government, even in contractual matters, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and every State action must be informed by reason. Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. In the case of Union of India and another (supra), the Supreme Court observed that there is no necessity to multiply decision in this regard as it is now well settled that if the Court finds that a decision of the policy maker is capricious or arbitrary or discriminatory, it will not hesitate to strike down such policy. 13. In the case of Union of India and another (supra), the Supreme Court observed that there is no necessity to multiply decision in this regard as it is now well settled that if the Court finds that a decision of the policy maker is capricious or arbitrary or discriminatory, it will not hesitate to strike down such policy. 13. In the facts of the present case, an upper age limit has been fixed after which the VAWs/LVAWs cannot be recommended to take admission as in-service candidates to B.Sc.(Ag.) Course. The object to be achieved by sending in-service candidates for undertaking such course is to give opportunity to such candidates to be promoted to the post of JAOs. The minimum percentage of marks fixed to have been obtained in +2 Science examination in the instant case has no nexus with the object to be achieved in respect of the in-service candidates. Further, it transpires that by fixing such cut-off percentage, equals have been treated to be un-equals and seniority has been given a go-by. The said action ipso facto is capricious and applying the ratio of the decision in the case of Union of India and another (supra), it would be clear that the change in such policy has not been made fairly and gives an impression that it was done arbitrarily. Further, as has been held in the said decision, this action of fixing a cut-off mark to have been obtained in +2 Science examination in case of in-service candidates by creating an artificial classification between the equals comes within the wide sweep of Article 14 of the Constitution as the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State and non-arbitrariness, in essence and substance, which is a heart bit of fair-play. Further, the fixing of the cut-off mark as discussed above amounts to a restriction. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved, the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time enter into the judicial verdict, the reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani Transport Coop. Society Ltd. v. RTA, (1960) AIR SC 801 : (1960) 3 SCR 177 ), Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 1 SCC 468 : AIR 1974 SC 366 ), Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo Distt. Council, (1967) AIR SC 829 : (1967) 1 SCR 1012 ), Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala, (1997) 9 SCC 495 : AIR 1997 SC 128 ) and Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437 . 14. The above conclusion is supported by the fact that such minimum percentage of marks was not fixed by the Government at the entry point of joining the post of VAWs/LVAWs and fixing such minimum percentage of marks for taking admission to B.Sc. (Ag.) Course as in-service candidates at such belated stage deprives the petitioners from getting an opportunity to prosecute the said course for being considered for promotion to the post of J.A.Os." 27. Considering the law laid down by the apex Court and also this Court, as discussed above, this Court unhesitatingly held that the impugned resolution dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Government in School and Mass Education Department fixing the guidelines for State Award to the teachers, excluding the teachers of the recognized institutions, suffers from vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, as such, the same is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the resolution dated 14.03.2018 is hereby quashed. Consequentially, the follow up actions taken pursuant to such resolution, including the advertisement in Annexure-4, cannot also sustain in the eye of law and the same are hereby quashed. Further, the State authorities may frame guidelines forthwith for the State Award to teachers of all the educational institutions, including government, non-government and recognized, by affording equal opportunity to all category of teachers imparting education to the students, in accordance with law. 28. The writ petition is thus allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.