JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the reasoned order as contained in memo no. 479 dated 02.03.2021 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Director, RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi, wherein it has been stated in the light of decision taken by the Managing Committee of Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (RINPAS) that on attaining the age of 62 years, the date of retirement of the petitioner has been considered as 28.02.2021 since the retirement age of non-medical teachers of RINPAS is 62 years. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent(s) to allow the petitioner to continue in the service till he attains the age of 65 years, as the retirement age of medical teachers has been increased from 62 years to 65 years as per resolution contained in memo no. 204 (9) dated 22.09.2014 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the resolution as contained in memo no. 204 (9) dated 22.09.2014 issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the age of superannuation of medical teachers of RINPAS has been enhanced from 62 to 65 years, since the same is discriminatory and unconstitutional. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Clinical Psychology vide letter as contained in memo no. 178 dated 25.01.2005. He was promoted to Associate Professor, Clinical Psychology with effect from 01.01.2009 and subsequently promoted to the post of Additional Professor, Clinical Psychology with effect from 01.01.2012. He has been engaged in OPD and Ward Duties since the year 2005 besides teaching as well as research works in RINPAS. 3. It is further submitted that the retirement age of the faculty teachers in RINPAS was increased from 60 years to 62 years vide notification as contained in memo no. 254 (7A) dated 17.07.2010 and thereafter, the retirement age of the petitioner was also increased accordingly. At present, the retirement age of medical teachers of RIMS, Ranchi and RINPAS has been increased from 62 years to 65 years vide resolution as contained in memo no. 254 (7A) dated 17.07.2010 and thereafter, the retirement age of the petitioner was also increased accordingly. At present, the retirement age of medical teachers of RIMS, Ranchi and RINPAS has been increased from 62 years to 65 years vide resolution as contained in memo no. 204 (9) dated 22.09.2014 and thus, a discrimination has been made by the said resolution between the medical teachers and the non-medical teachers. On perusal of faculty positions mentioned in Advertisement No. DIR/VI/04-01 dated 01.06.2004, it would be evident that the persons appointed as Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Lecturer in Medical Specialty and Non-Medical Specialty come under one cadre position which includes all teaching faculties. In fact, no difference between medical teachers and non-medical teachers has been shown in the said faculty positions. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that under the new service rules of RINPAS namely, RINPAS Teaching Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Condition) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2020’) notified by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand vide notification No. 83(12) dated 06.08.2020, faculty teachers with medical qualification and faculty teachers with non-medical qualification come under one teaching cadre and there is no distinction shown between them. Even retirement age of faculty members engaged in teaching with respect to medical stream/medical institutions i.e., Bio-chemistry, Pathology, Radiology, Microbiology, Forensic Medicines, Preventive and Social Medicines, etc. is 65 years who don't do OPD and Ward Emergency Duties. Thus, the age of retirement has no connection with the subjects being taught by the teachers having medical or non-medical qualifications. 4. It is further contended that in the other premier medical psychiatric institute of national repute such as All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengalure, the age of superannuation is 65 years for the faculty teachers irrespective of their engagement in medical or non-medical stream. The said institutions have not distinguished between the faculty teachers having medical qualification and faculty teachers of non-medical qualification. The petitioner made several representations in this regard before the concerned respondents, however, the same remained unresponded. The said institutions have not distinguished between the faculty teachers having medical qualification and faculty teachers of non-medical qualification. The petitioner made several representations in this regard before the concerned respondents, however, the same remained unresponded. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3270 of 2020 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2021 directing the petitioner to move before the Management Committee of the RINPAS by way of filing a fresh representation along with all the credentials on which he was relying for such relief with a further direction to the Management Committee of RINPAS to look into the matter and to pass an appropriate reasoned order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation before the concerned respondent on 17.02.2021, however, he was served with the reasoned order as contained in memo no. 479 dated 02.03.2021, wherein it has been stated that the retirement age of non-medical teachers of RINPAS is 62 years and as such, he will retire on 28.02.2021. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 submits that Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala (now RINPAS) Rules, 1994 was framed in the light of order dated 08.09.1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 339/1986. Rule 4 (2) of the said Rules states that the Management Committee shall have full administrative and financial powers in respect of all the affairs of ‘RMA’ which may delegate any of its powers to the Chairman, the Sub-Committees, the Director and other officers. The reasoned order passed by the respondent no. 3 vide memo no. 479 dated 02.03.2021 is in furtherance of the decision taken in the 65 th meeting of the Management Committee, RINPAS which has been empowered by the RMA Rules, 1994. Hence, the action taken by the said respondent is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Advertisement No. DIR/VI/04-01 was published in The Times of India on 01.06.2004 issued by RINPAS for teaching posts (posts for medical teachers and non- medical teachers) as well as for non-teaching posts. Hence, the action taken by the said respondent is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Advertisement No. DIR/VI/04-01 was published in The Times of India on 01.06.2004 issued by RINPAS for teaching posts (posts for medical teachers and non- medical teachers) as well as for non-teaching posts. For the post of medical teachers in specialty of Psychiatry faculty, the minimum essential educational qualification was MBBS and MD in Psychiatry recognized by Medical Council of India (now National Medical Commission) and for the post of medical teachers in Superspecialty faculty category i.e., Neurology, the minimum essential educational qualification was MBBS, MD and DM in Neurology recognized by Medical Council of India (now National Medical Commission). On the other hand, in the same advertisement, the minimum essential qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Clinical Psychology) for which the petitioner had applied was the M.A. in Psychology with Clinical Psychology as one of the subjects and Ph.D/D.Sc. in Clinical Psychology or equivalent qualification of a recognized University/Institution. 6. It is further submitted that non-medical teachers in RINPAS do not perform the medical emergency duty which the medical teachers need to do. The non-medical teachers do not get Non-Practising Allowance (NPA), whereas the medical teachers get the same as per rule 12 of Rules, 2020 notified vide notification no. 83 (12) dated 06.08.2020 by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. 7. It is also submitted that in view of rule 4 (iii) (a) & (b) of Rules, 2020, the marks distribution in selection procedures of medical and non-medical teaching cadres is different. The non- medical teaching cadre in RINPAS includes the teachers appointed in the Departments of Clinical Psychology, Psychiatric Social Work, Biostatistics/Statistics/Nursing, whereas the medical teaching cadre in RINPAS includes the teachers appointed in the Department of Psychiatry, Neurology and Neuro-surgery. The minimum essential qualification prescribed for non-medical teachers in RINPAS, is Ph.D./D.Sc. in the concerned subject from an institution/college affiliated to any University recognized by U.G.C. which can be obtained after passing M.A. or M.Sc. in the concerned subject, whereas the minimum qualification prescribed for the medical teachers is M.D./M.S./D.N.B./M.Ch./D.M. from an institution/ college affiliated to Medical Council of India [now National Medical Commission (NHC)] which can only be obtained after passing MBBS from an institution/college affiliated to Medical Council of India. 8. in the concerned subject, whereas the minimum qualification prescribed for the medical teachers is M.D./M.S./D.N.B./M.Ch./D.M. from an institution/ college affiliated to Medical Council of India [now National Medical Commission (NHC)] which can only be obtained after passing MBBS from an institution/college affiliated to Medical Council of India. 8. As per rule 4(i) of the Rules, 2020, the medical teachers of the teaching cadre in RINPAS are given Dynamic ACP, whereas non-medical teachers of teaching cadre in the said institution are given MACP as per the government rules on the condition of not getting promotion due to non-availability of vacancies. Since the petitioner has been appointed by the Management Committee, RINPAS and the fund to run RINPAS is being allocated by the Government of Jharkhand, the RINPAS has to follow the rules/notifications/resolutions of the Government of Jharkhand. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-RINPAS submits that pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3270 of 2020, the petitioner made representation to the Director, RINPAS and thereafter an emergency meeting of RINPAS Management Committee was held on 01.03.2021. The said Committee deliberated on the notification no. 254 (7A) dated 17.07.2010 and resolution no. 204(9) dated 22.09.2014 issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand as was mentioned in the agenda regarding consideration of the issue with respect to age of superannuation of the petitioner. It was decided that as per the notification no. 254 (7A) dated 17.07.2010, the retirement age of non-medical Teachers of RINPAS is 62 years, hence, the petitioner would retire on 28.02.2021. 10. It is further submitted that there are two separate and distinct cadres within the teaching cadre of RINPAS i.e., medical teaching cadre and non-medical teaching cadre. The basic qualification, procedure of appointment and the terms & conditions of service relating to members of both these cadres are different. Moreover, the matter with respect to fixing the retirement age of the members of non-medical teaching cadre and medical teaching cadre in RINPAS is a policy decision of the State Government. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Moreover, the matter with respect to fixing the retirement age of the members of non-medical teaching cadre and medical teaching cadre in RINPAS is a policy decision of the State Government. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. The thrust of the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that there should not be any discrimination between the employees engaged as medical teachers and non-medical teachers since both are imparting the same nature of academic job and both fall under the teaching cadre. It is contended that since the retirement age of medical teachers has been enhanced to 65 years, the petitioner being a non-medical teacher should not be forced to retire at the age of 62 years. 13. Before coming to the merit of the respective contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ S. Seshachalam & Ors. Vs. Bar Council of T.N. & Ors. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 72 , wherein it has been held as under: 21. Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that: “14. Equality before law.—The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification. The classification, however, must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive” but must be based on some real and substantial bearing, a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons all of whom stand in the same relation to the privilege granted and between those on whom the privilege is conferred and the persons not so favoured, no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege. 22. While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. 22. While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. But classification must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive”. It must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following two conditions: firstly, the classification must be founded on the intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. Secondly, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are two distinct things. What is necessary is that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act. It is only when there is no reasonable basis for a classification that legislation making such classification may be declared discriminatory. 14. In the case of “ Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.S. Rathnam and Sons ” reported in (2015) 10 SCC 681 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 13. It is, thus, beyond any pale of doubt that the justiciability of particular notification can be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14, which is treated as basic feature of the Constitution, ensures equality before the law or equal protection of laws. Equal protection means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. Therefore, if the two persons or two sets of persons are similarly situated/placed, they have to be treated equally. At the same time, the principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. It would mean that the State has the power to classify persons for legitimate purposes. The legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make classification. Thus, every classification is in some degree likely to produce some inequality but mere production of inequality is not enough. Article 14 would be treated as violated only when equal protection is denied even when the two persons belong to same class/category. The legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make classification. Thus, every classification is in some degree likely to produce some inequality but mere production of inequality is not enough. Article 14 would be treated as violated only when equal protection is denied even when the two persons belong to same class/category. Therefore, the person challenging the act of the State as violative of Article 14 has to show that there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation between the two classes created by the State. Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification. 14. What follows from the above is that in order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that, that differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. If the Government fails to support its action of classification on the touchstone of the principle whether the classification is reasonable having an intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose, the classification has to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana [ (2001) 7 SCC 545 ], this aspect is highlighted by the Court in the following manner: (SCC p. 548, para 10) “10. In the counter and the note of submission filed on behalf of the appellants it is averred, inter alia, that the Land Acquisition Collector on considering the objections filed by the appellants had recommended to the State Government for exclusion of the properties of Appellants 1 and 3 to 6 and the State Government had not accepted such recommendations only on the ground that the constructions made by the appellants were of ‘B’ or ‘C’ class and could not be easily amalgamated into the developed colony which was proposed to be built. There is no averment in the pleadings of the respondents stating the basis of classification of structures as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ class, nor is it stated how the amalgamation of all ‘A’ class structures was feasible and possible while those of ‘B’ and ‘C’ class structures was not possible. There is no averment in the pleadings of the respondents stating the basis of classification of structures as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ class, nor is it stated how the amalgamation of all ‘A’ class structures was feasible and possible while those of ‘B’ and ‘C’ class structures was not possible. It is not the case of the State Government and also not argued before us that there is no policy decision of the Government for excluding the lands having structures thereon from acquisition under the Act. Indeed, as noted earlier, in these cases the State Government has accepted the request of some landowners for exclusion of their properties on this very ground. It remains to be seen whether the purported classification of existing structures into ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ class is a reasonable classification having an intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose. If the State Government fails to support its action on the touchstone of the above principle, then this decision has to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory. It is relevant to note here that the acquisition of the lands is for the purpose of planned development of the area which includes both residential and commercial purposes. That being the purpose of acquisition, it is difficult to accept the case of the State Government that certain types of structures which according to its own classification are of ‘A’ class can be allowed to remain while other structures situated in close vicinity and being used for same purposes (residential or commercial) should be demolished. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated here that no material was placed before us to show the basis of classification of the existing structures on the lands proposed to be acquired. This assumes importance in view of the specific contention raised on behalf of the appellants that they have pucca structures with RC roofing, mosaic flooring, etc. No attempt was also made from the side of the State Government to place any architectural plan of different types of structures proposed to be constructed on the land notified for acquisition in support of its contention that the structures which exist on the lands of the appellants could not be amalgamated into the plan.” 15. In the case of “ Chandan Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors. In the case of “ Chandan Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors. ” reported in (2022) 15 SCC 453 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 28. The principles which emerge from the above line of precedents can be summarised as follows: 28.1. Classification between persons must not produce artificial inequalities. The classification must be founded on a reasonable basis and must bear nexus to the object and purpose sought to be achieved to pass the muster of Articles 14 and 16. 28.2. Judicial review in matters of classification is limited to a determination of whether the classification is reasonable and bears a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Courts cannot indulge in a mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification or replace the wisdom of the legislature or its delegate with their own. 28.3. Generally speaking, educational qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in matters of promotion and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 28.4. Persons drawn from different sources and integrated into a common class can be differentiated on grounds of educational qualification for the purpose of promotion, where this bears a nexus with the efficiency required in the promotional post. 28.5. Educational qualification may be used for introducing quotas for promotion for a certain class of persons; or may even be used to restrict promotion entirely to one class, to the exclusion of others. 28.6. Educational qualification may be used as a criterion for classification for promotion to increase administrative efficiency at the higher posts. 28.7. However, a classification made on grounds of educational qualification should bear nexus to the purpose of the classification or the extent of differences in qualifications. 16. Thus, it is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation but it does not restrict reasonable classification. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis, however, if equals and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. Classification on a reasonable basis must fulfil the two conditions: firstly, the classification must be founded on the intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. Secondly, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law. Classification on a reasonable basis must fulfil the two conditions: firstly, the classification must be founded on the intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. Secondly, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law. In the matters of classification, the power of judicial review is limited to determine as to whether the classification is reasonable and bears a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The constitutional courts are not supposed to indulge in a mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification or replace the wisdom of the legislature or its delegate with their own. Educational qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in matters of promotion etc. and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 17. In the case in hand, it appears that medical teaching cadre and non-medical teaching cadre are two distinct cadres. The respondent-State and respondent-RINPAS have pointed out several differences between the medical teaching cadre and non-medical teaching cadre. 18. For better appreciation of differences between both the cadres, an illustration by way of a chart is being given as under: Medical teaching cadre Non-medical teaching cadre Non-practicing allowance is given Non-practicing allowance is not given Dynamic ACP is given MACP is given Medical Emergency Duty is assigned No Medical Emergency Duty is assigned Medical teaching cadre includes the teachers in the department of Psychiatry, Neurology and Neuro- Surgery in RINPAS Non-medical teaching cadre includes the teachers in the department of Clinical Psychology, Psychiatric Social Work, Biostatistics/Statistics/ Nursing in RINPAS The minimum essential qualification prescribed for the medical teachers is MD/MS/DNB/M.Ch/D.M from the institution/college affiliated to Medical Council of India which can only be obtained after passing of MBBS from an Institution/college affiliated to MCI (now NHC). Minimum essential qualification for non-medical teachers is Ph.D/D.Sc in the concerned subject from an institution/college affiliated to any University recognized by U.G.C which can be obtained after passing of M.A or M.Sc. Appointment is made from the merit list prepared on the basis of interview to be held by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission wherein a candidate should obtain minimum 18 marks out of 51 marks. Appointment is made from the merit list prepared on the basis of interview to be held by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission wherein a candidate should obtain minimum 18 marks out of 51 marks. Further, the marks distribution is made on the basis of Schedule-3(ga) of the Rules, 2020, which provides that maximum 10 marks (two marks for each year) will be awarded for the working experience gained in government sector, in addition to the marks awarded for MBBS and onwards degree as well as interview. Appointment is made from the merit list prepared on the basis of interview to be held by Jharkhand Public Service Commission wherein a candidate should obtain minimum 50 marks out of 100 marks. Further, the marks distribution is made on the basis of Schedule-3(gha) of the Rules, 2020, wherein there is no such provision of awarding marks for working experience, rather the marks is awarded on the basis of educational qualification from Matriculation and onwards as well as interview. 19. Thus, it appears that there are several differences between the medical teaching cadre and non-medical teaching cadre. The nature of appointment, qualifications as well as nature of duties of both the cadres are different. Moreover, the benefit of D.A.C.P and non-practising allowance are allowed only to medical teaching cadre and not to the non-medical teaching cadre. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Chandan Banerjee ” (supra) that qualification can be a criterion for making classification between two persons/cadre. Though the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the medical teaching cadre and non-medical teaching cadre are equal, however, on perusal of the above-mentioned chart, it would be evident that both the cadres are not equal and thus, Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply. It is quite possible that the State intends to utilize the experience gained by the medical teachers for longer period as it is difficult to recruit new medical teachers due to less inclination being shown by them to join RINPAS. Thus, the government as a policy matter, has decided to enhance the age of medical teachers to 65 years, whereas it may not be in the case of non-medical teachers. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.