NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was Assistant Lecturer in the S. J. Polytechnic for Boys, Bangalore complains that though he had the required educational qualifications for receiving the higher pay scale of Rs. 260-500 of Demonstrators (or Asst. Lecturer) in Technical Institutions under the Govern-Order dt. 21st August, 1964, he has been denied the same on the ground that he was only a local candidate and not already in regular Government service. ( 2 ) THE order of the Government mentioned above gave the benefit of certain higher scales on the recommendations of the All India Council of Technical Education with the aid of funds placed at the disposal of the State Government by the Central Government. ( 3 ) THAT the petitioner at the relevant period was working as an Asst. Lecturer or Demonstrator and that he held Diploma in the particular branch of Engineering in which he was functioning as an Assistant lecturer, is not denied. The only ground on which his claim has been turned down is that he was not in regular service but was a local candidate. That he was a local candidate at the relevant time is admitted by the petitioner. His contention is that, on the language of the Government Order itself, there can be no doubt that he should be given the benefit of the higher scale. The paragraph of the order relied upon is paragraph 4 which reads:"the revised scales of pay as sanctioned herein are not a part of general revision of scales of pay and hence, they are not automatically applicable to the incumbents of the several posts mentioned in the appendix to this Order. The revised scales of pay shall apply to those who satisfy the qualifications prescribed for the concerned posts. In all other cases, the existing scales of pay shall continue. "the argument is that there is nothing in this paragraph to exclude the local candidates and that on the contrarv they provide that if the incumbent of a post has the qualifications prescribed in the Annexure he should be given the benefit of the appropriate pay scale. ( 4 ) THE argument on behalf of the State Govt. is that the entire order was intended for the benefit of persons regularly recruited to and working in the department of Technical Education. ( 4 ) THE argument on behalf of the State Govt. is that the entire order was intended for the benefit of persons regularly recruited to and working in the department of Technical Education. Even in the case of regular Government servants working in othpr departments who are lent to the Department of Technical Education were not to be given the benefit of these scales as per paragraph 7 of the Government Order. It reads; "the revised scales of pay are not applicable to the officers of other Departments deputed to the department of Technical Education. " ( 5 ) IT is implicit therefore, according to the argument, that no person other than a regular Government servant working in the Department of technical Education could get the benefit of the higher scales. ( 6 ) IT appears to us that the argument on behalf of the State Government is acceptable. ( 7 ) PRIMA facie the benefit of higher scales and upward revision of pay scales had been extended to regular employees of the State Government. Local Candidate, according to the definition contained in C1. (27a) of Rule 8 of the MCSRs. is a temporary Government servant not appointed regularly as per rules of recruitment to the service concerned. The tenure and the rights of such a person are to be gathered from and limited to the terms of the order of appointment Unlike recular Government servant answering a particular description he dors not become entitled to every right or every benefit extended to regular Government servants by mere description. Whatever additional or special rights he claims ; should be a right expressly given to him by the Government either by a particular order in his case or by rules expressly made applicable to him or to the category to which he belongs. No doubt under the rules providing for regularisation of services of a local candidate, the benefit of previous service is extended to all of them upon regularisation for the purpose of leave, increments and pension though not for purposes of seniority. No doubt under the rules providing for regularisation of services of a local candidate, the benefit of previous service is extended to all of them upon regularisation for the purpose of leave, increments and pension though not for purposes of seniority. ( 8 ) IT does not, however, mean that, because upon regularisation and as a term of regularisation the previous service described as local service or service as a local candidate can be counted for purposes of increments even before regularisation and in the absence of any express order applicable to him, a local candidate can claim benefit of a higher scale or higher privileges attached by prescription to persons holding the category of posts to which he is posted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. --- *** --- .