( 1 ) IN 1961, the petitioner was appointed as a, Second Division Clerk as a local candidate in the Judicial Department of the State. He was then a non-graduate. In 1965, he became a graduate. Thereafter, he was given rs. 12 as advance increment. On 7-11-1969, his services were regularised. Respondents 2 and 3 have now made an order stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the advance increment from the date of his graduation, but only from the date of regularisation of his services, and they have asked the petitioner to refund the excess amount drawn by him. ( 2 ) THE Government Order dt. 25th June 1962 confers certain benefits to non-graduate Second Division Clerks who graduate themselves while holding their posts. The relevant portion of the order reads thus :" (1) Graduates recruited to the II Dn. Clerical or junior assistant post on or after 1st January 1961 will be entitled to a starting pay of Rs. 92 per month in the revised scale of Rs. 80-150. (2) Non-graduate II Dn. Clerks or junior assistants who graduate while holding the II Dn. Clercial or junior assistant's posts on or after 1-1-1961 will also be entitled to a higher start of Rs. 92 or an increase of rs. 12 over their pay whichever is more advantageous to them from the date of their graduation. " ( 3 ) BY a subsequent order dt. 24th July 1962, it was clarified that the above order was not applicable to local candidates. Therefore the benefit of higher start in the pay scale of Second Division Clerks or an increase of rs. 12 over their pay cannot be extended to local candidates. This position is not disputed by Mr. Goulay, Counsel for the petitioner. But, he challenges the validity of the Government Order dt. 25th June 1962. According to him it is discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 and art. 16 (1) of the Constitution. The basis of the attack is that the discrimination made on the basis of the nature of posts held by graduates for the purpose of giving advance increments is unreasonable and has no nexus between the basis of the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the said order. 16 (1) of the Constitution. The basis of the attack is that the discrimination made on the basis of the nature of posts held by graduates for the purpose of giving advance increments is unreasonable and has no nexus between the basis of the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the said order. Counsel added that the purpose of the said order was to encourage ' efficiency in services' and therefore there is no basis why the benefit of advance increment should be denied to local candidates who are also serving along with regular candidates. ( 4 ) IN support of his contention that there is ha nexus between the basis of the classification and the object sought to be achieved, learned Counsel' relies upon the decision of this Court in Vishwanath v. State of Mysore, (1973) 1 Mys. L. J. 284. ( 5 ) THE question urged centres round a narrow compass. Equality of opportunity in matters of employment can be predicated only as between persons who are either seeking the same employment or have obtained it. It must mean equality as between members of the same class of employees and not eauality between members of separate independent classes. Ordinarily, the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work, has nothing to do with Art. 14, and incremental scales of pay can be validly fixed dependent upon the nature and duration of an officer's service. Local candidates form a distinct class from regularly recruited candates. Their conditions of service are precarious. They are ordinarily appointed as a stop-gap arrangement. Unless and until their services are regularisel, they have no right at all to continue in their posts. It is for this reason that the Government, with a view to improve efficiency in service among regular candidates and also to give some incentive to them, made the impugned order giving higher start of pay or an increase of Rs. 12 over their pay whichever is more advantageous from the date of their graduation. The classification of local candidates and regularly recruited candidates is not only reasonable but also related to the object of the impugned order of the Government. Suffice it to say that local candidates who form a distinct class by themselves, cannot claim equality of treatment with regular candidates, in matters of employment. The classification of local candidates and regularly recruited candidates is not only reasonable but also related to the object of the impugned order of the Government. Suffice it to say that local candidates who form a distinct class by themselves, cannot claim equality of treatment with regular candidates, in matters of employment. ( 6 ) FOR this reason alone, the contention for the petitioners that there is no nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved by the impugned order, must fail. In that view, it is unnecessary to examine the applicability of the principles laid down in Vishwanath's case (1 ). ( 7 ) THERE is one other relief claimed in the petition viz. , that the petitioner's services should have been regularised under Rule 4 of the Mysore state Civil Services (Recruitment of Local Candidates to Class III Posts) Rules, 1966. Mr. Goulay seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the said prayer. Leave is granted. Before I conclude, I may observe one tiling. By the impugned order the learned District Judge, Dharwar, has stated that the excess amount drawn by the petitioner up to the date of regularisation of his services, i. e. upto 7-11-1969, should be recovered from him immediately. The petitioner for no fault of his. was permitted to draw advance increments. He is a class III Official. Recovery of the said amount in one lumpsum would affect him very much in these days. The learned District Judge may therefore permit him to refund the amount in easy monthly instalments. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .