A classification made by the State Government is not unreasonable or arbitrary if it is based on rational and justified reasons, and does not result in discrimination between the members of the same class.

1. This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ to quash an order passed by the Additional Director of Public Instruction, Bihar, contained in Annexure 1 in the following circumstances.

2. It appears that an advertisement was made for appointment to some posts of teachers in primary schools within the district of Motihari. Trained matriculates, I. A. trained and graduates were eligible to apply for these posts. The petitioner also applied for one of them and he was interviewed, and it appears that his name also was mentioned in the list forwarded for such appointment. Before the appointments could be made, the impugned order is said to have been issued on the 25th May, 1971. This order passed by the Additional Director of Public Instruction, forwarded to all the District Education Superintendents contained instructions that while preparing the list of candidates recommended for appointment, the first place should be given to the trained matriculates and next to such intermediate trained candidates as were willing to serve on the pay given to the matric trained candidates. It was further directed that trained graduates and other batter qualified candidates should not be recommended for appointment to the posts meant for trained matriculates. It further said that even while making appointments out of the lists already prepared, this direction should be followed.

3. In view of this direction, the petitioner being a trained graduate could not be appointed to the post and, accordingly, he filed a representation on the 18th July, 1972, to the Additional Director of Public Instructions. It appears that an association of trained graduates also filed a representation to the Chief Minister and others on the 25th of July, 1972. Being affected by the aforesaid order of the Additional Director of Public Instructions, the petitioner has come up to this Court.

4. The point raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order of the Additional Director of Public Instructions violates Arts, 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it makes an unreasonable and arbitrary classification and, therefore, offends the right of equality both under Art. 14 and also in respect of right of employment under Art. 16 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel has supported this contention by referring to the fact that even though the trained graduates are better qualified than the matriculates and the intermediate trained candidates, they have been treated as inferior to them for the purpose of appointment as teachers in primary schools, and there can be absolutely no justification for the State laying down that people with better qualifications would not be appointed to posts considered inferior for them. It has also been pointed out in this connection that prior to this impugned order appointments of trained graduates who got their degrees till 1967 were made to posts of teachers in primary schools, and, there was no good reason for the State Government to make a departure and thereby discriminate against the graduates who got their degrees after the year 1967. I am afraid I am unable to accept the contentions raised by learned Counsel.

5. The State has sworn a counter-affidavit wherein the reasons behind the classification have been mentioned. Even if there were no such counter-affidavit, I am inclined to think that merely because the State Government have decided on principle not to appoint "over-qualified persons" to quote the language employed by learned Counsel it would not result in its becoming arbitrary or discriminatory. Put in other words, it means that an over qualified person is not properly qualified or suitably qualified for appointment to a particular post. Over qualification itself may be a disqualification in some cases as will appear when I state the reasons given by the State Government in this behalf. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated, and there is no rejoinder to the c