JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - On 20th March, 1968, the State Government issued a notification upgrading the pay-scales of the staff of the High Court. Their pay-scales were brought at par with those of the employees of the State Secretariat. The upgrading was to take effect from 1st August, 1967. Paragraph 4 of this notification provided that the revised scales of pay shall be directly applicable to permanent employees with effect from 1st August, 1967. The revised pay-scales shall be applicable to the temporary or officiating employees including the approved temporary employees with effect from the same date provided they pass the qualifying test to be conducted by the Public Service Commission. The eight petitioners are holding the posts of stenographers attached to this Court, temporarily. They are aggrieved at the condition imposed in the impugned notification for passing the qualifying test. Their principal grievance is that this condition imports the view of discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is for that reason void and of no legal effect. 2. The conditions of service of the staff of the High Court are governed by the Allahabad High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1946, which were framed by the Chief justice with the approval of the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 241 and 242 of the Government of India Act, 1936. These rules continued in force even after the commencement of the Constitution Rule 5 provides that subject to the provisions of the U. P. Revised Rates of Pay Rules, 1931, and the U. P. Revised Rates of Pay Rules, 1939, the rates of monthly pay admissible to persons appointed to the staff attached to the High Court whether in a substantive or officiating capacity or as a temporarily measure, shall be as shown in the schedule to the rules. The schedule includes the posts of Stenographers. 3. Recruitment to the posts of stenographers is conducted by the High Court. Certain standard qualification are prescribed for the post of stenographers. The vacancies are advertised and a competitive examination is held by the High Court. Those candidates who not only fulfil the qualifications but also top at the competition are placed in the approved list. The candidates in the approved list are appointed to the posts of stenographers temporarily. Certain standard qualification are prescribed for the post of stenographers. The vacancies are advertised and a competitive examination is held by the High Court. Those candidates who not only fulfil the qualifications but also top at the competition are placed in the approved list. The candidates in the approved list are appointed to the posts of stenographers temporarily. As and when permanent vacancies fall vacant the candidates in the approved list are posted to them in accordance with their seniority in the list. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that after 1946 the State Government revised the pay-scales of the High Court staff including the stenographers several times and provided for the same scale of pay for the posts of stenographers, irrespective of the holder being permanent or temporary. It was for the first time that the notification dated 20th March, 1968, introduced a different pay-scale for stenographers holding the posts temporarily provided they failed to pass the qualifying test to be held by the Public Service Commission. It was submitted that this was discriminatory. 4. It is settled that Article 16 of the Constitution, which ordains equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office in the State applies equally to temporary or permanent employees. The protection of this Article extends to all kinds of conditions of service. In General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 36 at page 40 it was observed: "It would be clear that matters relating to employment cannot be confined only to the initial matters prior to the act of employment. The narrow construction would confine the application of Article 16 (1) to the initial employment and nothing also; but that clearly is only one of the matters relating to employment. The other matters relating to employment would inevitably be the provision as to the salary and periodical increments therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as to pension and as to the age of superannuation. The other matters relating to employment would inevitably be the provision as to the salary and periodical increments therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as to pension and as to the age of superannuation. These are all matters relating to employment and they are, and must be, deemed to be included in the expression 'matters relating to employment' in Article 16 (1)." This declaration of law was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in several subsequent decisions, see S. C. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1427, Para 9, The State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao, A.I.R. 1968 SC 349 Para 4, C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 507 Para 5 and Unikat Sankunni Menon v. The State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 81 Para 6. 5. In Jaisinghani's case it was observed that Article 16 of the Constitution is only an incident of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 thereof. It gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. It follows that there can be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointment or promotion. In State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao the Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing classification which were initially propounded in Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 41 and followed since then in innumerable decisions. It was observed that in paragraph 4 : "It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must he based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group, and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule." In S. K. Dutta v. Lawrence Singh Ingty, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 658 it was pertinently observed in paragraph 14 that : "For the purpose of valid classification what is required is not some imaginary difference but a reasonable and substantial distinction having regard to the purpose of the law." 6. The notification dated 20th March, 1969, begins by saying that with a view to increase efficiency and working it has been decided to enforce scales of pay and method of recruitment in the High Court similar to those obtaining in the State Secretariat. Paragraph 4 of the notification runs as follows "As far as the present staff of the High Court is concerned, I have to say that the scales of pay sanctioned in paragraph 1 shall be directly applicable to permanent employees with effect from 1-8-1967. The new scales of pay, so far as they relate to temporary or officiating employees (including approved temporary employees) , shall be applicable to them also with effect from the same date, provided they pass the qualifying test to be conducted by the Public Service Commission. The temporary and officiating employees who fail to succeed in the test, shall not be removed for this reason only, and continue in their present scale of pay and posts on temporary basis as long as their posts continue and designation of their posts shall be the same as they are at present. Details of qualifying tests are being worked out in consultation with the Public Service Commission and the High Court, and separate orders shall be issued in this connection." In this paragraph the Government groups permanent employees and keeps out temporary employees who do not pass the qualifying test, from the benefits of the upgraded pay-scales. The classification between permanent and temporary employees has been stated to have been made with a view to increase efficiency, and working. The classification between permanent and temporary employees has been stated to have been made with a view to increase efficiency, and working. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State states that : "While considering the question of granting parity in pay scales to the High Court employees, the State Government was of the opinion that before the benefit of new pay scale is given, it would be necessary in order to improve the efficiency of the working of the High Court Office, to prescribe higher education qualifications and proficiency in work." It has also been stated that the classification between permanent and temporary employees was considered to be reasonable for improving the efficiency of the staff. It has been asserted that the permanent employees and temporary employees from well defined classes dissimilar from each other. The permanent employees having a longer and fixed tenure are entitled to retiring pension. The services of the temporary employees are liable to termination at any time by one month's notice. The permanent employees are entitled to hold the post till the age of superannuation. The temporary employees have no such right. The two, therefore, form different classes. 7. According to the above-mentioned principles for adjudging the validity of the classification the first test, namely that the classification on which the notification is founded must be based on an intelligible, differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group, may be treated as satisfied. But the second test which has also to be complied with is that the differentia in question must have reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule. In other words there must be some rational nexus between the basis of the classification and the object intended to be achieved by the rule. The differentia are the right to hold the post and to retiring pension. The object sought to be achieved is improvement in working and efficiency of the office. To achieve this object higher pay scales are proposed. It is difficult to understand the relevance of the stated differentia to the object sought to be achieved by granting a higher pay scale. The object sought to be achieved is improvement in working and efficiency of the office. To achieve this object higher pay scales are proposed. It is difficult to understand the relevance of the stated differentia to the object sought to be achieved by granting a higher pay scale. If the object of improving the efficiency and working had been sought to be achieved by weeding out unsuitable employees by screening them at a qualifying test, the differentia that some employees have a right to hold the post and to retiring pension, while others do not have these characteristics, could have furnished a reasonable relationship. But, here the Government seeks to improve efficiency by granting bigger scales of pay. The impugned notification specifically provides that those temporary employees who fail to pass the qualifying test shall not be removed for this reason only. They would continue in their present scales of pay and posts. Their designation shall be the same as before. The qualifying test is not intended to weed out such employees. They will continue to remain attached to the staff of the Court and continue to do the same work as before but they will be paid a lesser scale of pay. 8. The grouping together of permanent employees for granting the enhanced pay-scales straight away for increasing efficiency and working, seems to pre-Suppose that the employees who happen to become permanent before 20th March, 1968, were one and all efficient and qualified whereas those who were temporary or officiation on this date may or may not have been as efficient or qualified. But there appears no justification to assume this. It has not been stated that the qualification prescribed for recruitment of stenographers has changed during the last several years. It is not the case of the Government that the permanent employees had a higher qualification than the employees holding the same posts temporarily. On the contrary it appears that standard qualifications are prescribed and all the employees fulfil them. The fact that a person happened to be permanent on 20th March, 1968, was dependent not upon his possessing better qualifications or efficiency but on the fortuitous circumstances of the occurrence of a vacancy in the permanent post. The rules governing the High Court staff predicate that temporary employees would be appointed to the permanent vacancies ordinarily in order of seniority and not on the basis of merit. The rules governing the High Court staff predicate that temporary employees would be appointed to the permanent vacancies ordinarily in order of seniority and not on the basis of merit. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the position that the permanent employees could be deemed to possess the requisite qualities which go to improve the efficiency and working of the High Court, whereas those who are holding the same posts temporarily do not possess these qualities. 9. From the point of view of achieving the object of improving the efficiency, the permanent and the temporary employees would stand on an identical footing. They both are in the same class and they could not be treated differently. The classification between permanent and temporary employees has no relation, much less a reasonable and, to the object intended to be achieved by the notification. The provision in the notification of passing the qualifying test to be conducted by the Public Service Commission was based on a constitutionally impermissible classification. This part of paragraph 4 of the impugned notification clearly infringes Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution and is for that reason a nullity. 10. As seen above the scheme of the notification, that is the provision for a higher scale of pay, is not as a whole dependent upon the employees passing the qualifying test. The Government itself granted the higher pay-scales to the permanent employees. The striking down of the provision for passing the qualifying test for temporary employees would, therefore, not render the operation of the notification impossible or difficult. This part of paragraph 4 is severable. Its infirmity does not destroy the fabric of the notification. The entire notification would, therefore, not fall because this part of paragraph 4 is struck down. 11. For the respondents the learned Standing Counsel submitted that it is settled that Government servants cannot demand equal pay for equal work. That may be so, but that is not the ground of attack in the present case. Actually the Government itself provides for same scales of pay for each holder of a particular post. It makes a distinction between permanent and temporary employees not because their work and duties are different but because it was supposed that there was some difference in their efficiency and working. The petitioners challenge the validity of this basis of the decision. 12. It makes a distinction between permanent and temporary employees not because their work and duties are different but because it was supposed that there was some difference in their efficiency and working. The petitioners challenge the validity of this basis of the decision. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the impugned portion of the notification violates Article 229 of the Constitution. I was unable to follow the submission. But, since the petition succeeds on the point of discrimination, I consider it unnecessary to deal elaborately this submission. 13. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The following part of paragraph 4 of the notification : "Provided they pass the qualifying test to be conducted by the Public Service Commission;" is struck down as being void ab initio. The consequential clause : "The temporary and officiating employees who fail to succeed in the test, shall not be removed for this reason only, and continue in their present scales of pay and posts on temporary basis as long as their posts continue and designation of their posts shall be the same as they are at present. Details of qualifying tests are being worked out in consultation with the Public Service Commission and the High Court, and separate orders shall be issued in this connection." Would remain inoperative. As the present petition was a test case, the parties would bear their own costs.