( 1 ) A common question of law is involved in these 12 writ petitions, and therefore, they shall stand disposed of by this order. In all these petitions, the main relief asked for is, for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents to extend to the petitioners all the conditions of service of Junior Engineers, including the revised seales of- pay of Rs. 275-550 from 3-7-1969; the date on which the Mysore Public Works Engineering Department (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1969, came into force. ( 2 ) THE facts are these: In the Mysore Public Works Department, there is a cadre called "the Junior Engineers". The petitioners belong to the said cadre. Among the Junior Engineers, some are allottees, who were allotted to the State of Mysore, consequent on the Reorganisation of States and some were directly recruited after 1-11-1956. Among the allottees some are holders of degree while others possess diploma in Engineering. Same also is the position amongst the direct recruits in the new State ofr Mysore. A little more background relating to the cadre and designation of the petitioners may be necessary. The Cadre and' Recruitment Rules for the public Works Department, made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the constitution, was notified on 3-12-1960 and brought into force with effect from 1-31-1958. The said rules provided, among others, for recruitment to two categories of posts, viz. , Junior Engineers and Supervisors, as follows: (1) Junior Engineer; By direct recruitment by the Public Service Commission after interview and oral test. Age: Must not be above 31 years. A pass in Civil or Mechanical Engineer. Graduation Examination of a recognised University or Diploma or certificate "of a recognised Institute of Engineers that the candidate has passed the Part A and B of the Institution of Engineers or equivalent qualification. Probation: One year. (2) Supervisors: Direct recruitment. Age: Must not be above 29 years of age. A Diploma or Certificate in civil or Mechanical Engineering from a School of Engineering or polytehchnic in Mysore or extra equivalent qualifications. Probation: One year in the case of Diploma holders and two years in the case of Certificate holder. As the petitioners were diploma holders, they were directly recruited as supervisors. ( 3 ) THE Cadre and Recruitment Rules were amended by a Notification dt. 18-6-1969, published in the Mysore Gazette dt. 3-7-1969. Probation: One year in the case of Diploma holders and two years in the case of Certificate holder. As the petitioners were diploma holders, they were directly recruited as supervisors. ( 3 ) THE Cadre and Recruitment Rules were amended by a Notification dt. 18-6-1969, published in the Mysore Gazette dt. 3-7-1969. The following entry in place of Rule 3 (4) of the Original Rules was substituted : " (i) Fifty per cent by direct recruitment from amongst persons possessing the qualifications specified at (A) in column 3. (A) (i) Should be holder or a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a University established by law in India, or should be holder of a Diploma Certificate from a recognised Institute of Engineers that he has passed Parts A and B of the Associate Membership Examination of the Institute of Engineers, or equivalent qualification. (ii) Age limit: Should not have attained the age of 33 years, (ii) Fifty per cent by direct recruitment from amongst persons possessing the qualifications specified at (B) in column 3. (B) (i) Should be holder of diploma or certificate in Civil or mechanical Engineering from a School of Engineering or Polytechnic in Mysore State or an equivalent qualification. (ii) Age limit: Should not have attained the age of 31 years. probation; Two years. (iii) Category of posts of Supervisors, entries relating to it shall be omitted. " ( 4 ) BY the amended recruitment Rules, the category of Supervisors was omitted and the only class of posts with designation as 'junior Engineers' remained. This is also evident by the communication dt. 25-1-1971, issued by the State Government to all Chief Engineers. Consequently the petitioners came to be designated as Junior Engineers. In this class, both graduate and non-graduate allottees and non-allottees are included. Upto 5-3-1971, the pay scales of non-graduate and graduate Junior Engineers were different. The graduate Junior Engineers were given a higher pay scale. The Government by order No. PWD 67 SPN 69 dt. 5th March 1971 extended the benefit of the higher pay scale of the graduate Junior Engineers to all the non-graduate Junior Engineers, who were allotted to the state of Mysore. The said order reads thus : " PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE (Public Works and Electricity Department) sub:-Extension of the pay scale of graduate Jr. Engineers to non-graduate Engineers-equated as Jr. Engineers and included in the combined ISS List-regarding. The said order reads thus : " PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE (Public Works and Electricity Department) sub:-Extension of the pay scale of graduate Jr. Engineers to non-graduate Engineers-equated as Jr. Engineers and included in the combined ISS List-regarding. ORDER No. PWD 67 SPN 67, Bangalore dt. 5th March 1971. The Final Inter-State Seniority List of Jr. Engineers of Public works Department has been published in accordance with the decision of Government of India under notification No. GAD 32 INS 68 dt. 26-12-68. According to the final decision of Govt. of India on equation of posts both the graduate and non-graduate Jr. Engineers have been equated together. The High Court of Mysore, in the WP. No. 1757/ 67 filed by Sriyuths: M. Muniramaiah and Ishwara Bhat, non-graduate engineers, ordered that these two persons having been equated as junior engineers (graduates) their pay scales have to be determined on that basis along with the benefit of the revision of pay scales sanctioned in 1957 and 1961. The question of giving the benefit of the scale of pay sanctioned to graduate Jr. Engineers in respect of the petitioners only, was also examined, and it has been decided that all the non-graduate engineers equated with Jr. Engineers are entitled to get the revised pay scale sanctioned to graduate Jr. Engineers sanctioned from 1-1-57, 1-1-61, 1-4-66 and 1-1-70 inasmuch as the equation has been finally approved by the Govt. of India, and the same cannot be challenged. ( 5 ) IN the above circumstances, the Governor of Mysore is pleased to direct that all the non-graduate engineers (superiors) equated with Jr. Engineers (graduates) shall be given the revised scales of pay sanctioned to the Jr. Engineer (graduates) with effect from 1-1-57 and 1-1-61, 1-4-66 and 1-1-70 and their pay shall be fixed up in accordance with the instructions issued in O. M. No. GAD 8 IFP 64 dt. 12-12-64. The posts held by these officials shall be treated as upgraded to that of Jr. Engineers wef . the date they were designated as Jr. Engineers. Separate orders will issue regarding the payment of arrears of pay. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their un-official Note No. FD. 9/189/cw-1/71 dt. 17-2-71. Sd. C. R. Subba Rao, under Secy to Govt. PWD and Elec. Dept. To All the Chief Engineers. Engineers wef . the date they were designated as Jr. Engineers. Separate orders will issue regarding the payment of arrears of pay. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their un-official Note No. FD. 9/189/cw-1/71 dt. 17-2-71. Sd. C. R. Subba Rao, under Secy to Govt. PWD and Elec. Dept. To All the Chief Engineers. " the benefit of the aforesaid order was not given to the petitioners on the sole ground that they were not allottees. It is stated by Counsel before us that pursuant to the said order, an allottee (non-graduate) Junior engineer is given the pay scale of Rs. 275-550 with effect from 1-1-1970, while a direct recruit (non-graduate) Junior Engineer like the petitioners, is given the pay scale of Rs. 175-450. complaining against this discrimination, the petitioners made representations to the Government that they should also be given the same pay scale, as given to their colleagues who are non-graduates. The Government did not accede to their demand. Hence they have approached this Court under Art. 226, for the above stated relief, seeking equal protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the constitution. ( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit, the grounds taken by the Government, to justify the discrimination are as follows: the petitioners were directly recruited after 1-11-1956 as Supervisors. It was only their designation was changed into Junior Engineers by the amending Cadre and Recruitment Rules dt. 18-6-1969. By that change of designation, the petitioners cannot claim by right that they should be given the pay scale of the non-graduate Junior Engineers who were allottees and who were equated to the cadre of graduate Junior Engineers. In other words, the contention appears to be, that the petitioners form a separate class by themselves and they do not belong to the group of non-graduate junior Engineers who were allottees. ( 7 ) WITH that, we shall now turn to the question whether the classification made by the State Government satisfies the requirements of Art. 14 of the Constitution. When a law is challenged as offending the guarantee in Art. 14, the first duty of the Court is to examine the purpose and policy of the law and then to discover whether the classification made by the law has a reasonable relation to the object which the law seeks to obtain. When a law is challenged as offending the guarantee in Art. 14, the first duty of the Court is to examine the purpose and policy of the law and then to discover whether the classification made by the law has a reasonable relation to the object which the law seeks to obtain. Having ascertained the object and policy, the Court then should apply the dual test in examining its validity, i. e. , whether the classification is rational and based on intelligible differentia and whether the basis of differentiation has any rational nexus or relation -with the avowed policy and object of the law. There are many cases on Art. 14. We do not propose to have a lengthy review of them since the above ptinciples are well settled. But we may extract herein a passage from the decision of the Suprreme Court in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of india, AIR 1970 SC 564 . : " 78. By Art. 14 of the Constitution the State is enjoined not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The Article forbids class. legislation, but not reasonable classification in making laws. The test of permissible classification under an Act lies in two cumulative conditions, (i) classification under the Act must be founded on an intelligible differentia distinguishing persons, transactions or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) the differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act: there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object. of the Act. 79. The Courts recognise in the Legislature some degree of elasticity in the matter of making a classification between persons, objects and transactions. Provided the classification is based on some intelligible ground, the Courts will not strike down that classification, because in view of the Court it should have proceeded on some other ground or should have included the class selected for special treatment some other persons, objects or transactions which are not included by the Legislature. The Legislature is free to recognise the degree of harm and to restrict the operation of law only to those cases where the need is the clearest. The Legislature is free to recognise the degree of harm and to restrict the operation of law only to those cases where the need is the clearest. The legislature need not extend the regulation of a law to all cases, it may possibly peach, and may make a classification founded on practical grounds of convenience. Classification to be valid must, however, disclose a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law which makes the classification. . . " ( 8 ) THE case on hand, seems to us, to be a simple one. The policy or the purpose of making the Government order dt. 5th March 1871, was to give higher pay scale to the non-graduate Junior Engineers. By the said order, the Government was not protecting the pay scale or the conditions of servie of the allottee guaranteed under S. 115 (7) of the States Reorgarasation Act, 1956. Therefore, the contention for the Government that the petitioners were not allottees and they cannot claim the revised pay scale, is untenable. Earlier to that Government order all the non-graduate junior Enigneers whether they were allottees or not, were treated alike and they were on a common pay scale. They formed one class Pursuant to the said Government order, the non-graduate Junior Engineers who were allottees were only given a higher pay scale. Their colleagues were denied of such benefit solely on the ground that they were not allottees. This classification is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. In the new State of Mysore, all the non-graduate Junior engineers formed one class. They possess similar qualifications, with the same duties and responsibilities. They are treated alike even for the purpose of further promotion, i. e. , to the cadre of Assistant Engineers in Division II. There is absolutely no difference between an allotted non-graduate Jr. Engineer and the one recruited after 1-11-1956. Such being the case, the denial of the higher pay to the petitioners is violative of Art. 14 of the constitution. Besides, the classification made by the Government as an allottee and non-allottee has no rational nexus or relation with the object of the Government order dt. 5th March 1971. ( 9 ) THIS takes us to the question from what date the petitioners should be given the benefit of the pay scales which were given to the non-graduate Junior Engineers (allottees ). 5th March 1971. ( 9 ) THIS takes us to the question from what date the petitioners should be given the benefit of the pay scales which were given to the non-graduate Junior Engineers (allottees ). It was provided by the government order dated 5th March 1971 that the non-graduate Junior engineers (allottees) equated with that of the graduate Junior Engineers shall be given the revised scale of pay sanctioned to the graduate Junior engineers wef. 1-1-1957, 1-1-1961, 1-4-1966 and 1-1-1970 It was also pro. vided that orders would be issued regarding payment of arrears of pay- it was submitted by the learned Government Advocate that those officials were not given any arrears of pay. He also urged that the petitioners cannot, in any event, claim parity in pay scales earlier to 3-7-1969. We agree with him. It was on 3-7-1969, the Mysore Public Works Engineering services (Recruiment) (Amendment) Rules, 1969, came into force and from that date the petitioners were designated as Junior Engineers. The proper order that we should make in these petitions is therefore to issue a direction to respondent 1 to extend to these petitioners the benefit of the revised scales of pay viz. , Rs. 250-400 and Rs. 275-550, from 3-7-69 and 1-1-1970 respectively, and to pay the arrears from 5-3-1971 after fitting them in the revised scales. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .