CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the Order of Jagannatha Shetty J. in WP. 4198 of 1970. The respondent herein was the petitioner therein. He is a Village accountant. He had prayed for a direction to the State Govt to allow him the higher pay scale given to Village Accountants who have passed SSLC examination. ( 2 ) THE Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act 1961 abolished hereditary village Offices. For recruitment of Village Accountants in place off hereditary Village Accountants the Mysore General Services (Revenue subordinate Branch) Village Accountant (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Recruitment Rules) were made under the proviso to Art. 309 pf the Consn. Rule 7 of those Rules prescribed a pass in SSLC or equivalent examination as the minimum educational qualifiction for the post of Village Accountant. However Rule 10 of those rules relaxed that qualification in cases oi persons holding Village Offices on the date of commencement of those Rules (i. e. 1-12-1961 ). The writ petitioner who was appointed as Village Accountant in the year 1943 and was holding that post on 1-1 2-1961 was appointed as Village Accountant under those Rules though he had not passed SSLC Examination. ( 3 ) UNTIL the revision of pay of the State services by the Karnataka Civil services (Revised Pay) Rules 1970 there was a uniform pay scale for village Accountants i. e. Rs. 65-1-70-2-90. The aforesaid Pay rules introduced two pay scales namely Ra. 90-3-105-4-145-EB-5-200 for Village accountants who have passed SSLC Examination and another pay scale i. e. Rs. 80-2-90-3-120-4-140-5-145 for Village Accountants and Talatis who have not passed SSLC examination. The writ petitioner who had not passed SSLC Examination was put in the lower pay scale. ( 4 ) IN the writ petition it was contended that differential pay scales to officials in the same cadre on the basis of different qducational qualifications are violative of Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constn. This contention found favour with the learned Single Judge who purported to follow the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S. N. Byroji Rao v. State of mysore. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constn. This contention found favour with the learned Single Judge who purported to follow the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S. N. Byroji Rao v. State of mysore. The learned Single Judge said that all Village Accountants irrespective of their educational qualifications form one class or cadre and were recurited by one method; that there was a common training for them; that they had no separate avenues of promotion and that in those circumstances granting a higher pay scale to Village Accountants who had passed SSLC Examination and not granting the same to those whq had not passed SSLC Examination clearly offended the equality clause guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. ( 5 ) IN this appeal the learned Govt Advocate contended that in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of J and K v. Triloki Nath khosa, AIR 1974 SC 1 . the view taken by the learned Single Judge and also the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Byroji Rao's case (1) are no longer good law that the classification of Village Accountants op the basis of their educational qualifications is a valid classification for the purpose of giving them different pay scales and does not offend Arts. 14 and 16 (1 ). The learned Govt Advocate maintained that the mere circumstances that all Village Accountants irrespective of their having passed or not passed sslc Examn were in the same pay scale prior to 1-1-1970 would not preclude the State from giving a higher pay scale to Village Accountants who possess higher educational qualification. ( 6 ) ON the other hand Mr. M. Rama Jois learned Counsel for the respondent (the writ petitioner) contended that the decision of the Supreme court in fixate of J and K's case (2) has no application to the present case. ( 6 ) ON the other hand Mr. M. Rama Jois learned Counsel for the respondent (the writ petitioner) contended that the decision of the Supreme court in fixate of J and K's case (2) has no application to the present case. He maintained that under the Karnataka General Services (Revenue subordinate Branch) Village Accountants (Recruitment) Rules 1970 as amended by the Karnataka General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) village Accountants (Recruitment) (Second Amendment) Rules 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Recruitment Rules) persons who have passed SSLC Examination have been equated with persons who have passed only VIII Standard Examination and also possess experience of not lessthan 10 years of service as Village Panchayat Secretaries and that when once such equation of qualifications has been made for the purpose of recruitment it is no longer open to the State to pick out one of such equivalent qualifications for giving a preferential treatment by way of higher pay scale. ( 7 ) AS stated earlier the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1969 under the 1961 Recruitment Rules and not under the 1970 Recruitment rules. Under the former Rules passing of LS Examination coupled with previous experience in any post was not regarded as equivalent to SSLC examination. The minimum education qualification prescribed was only one namely haying passed SSLC or equivalent examination. However this qualification was relaxed in the case of persons who were holding the posts of Village Accountants on 1-12-1961. Hence the contention of Mr. Rama Jois based upon tine 1970 Recruitment Rules has no relevance to the present case in which the writ petitioner was appointed under the 1961 recruitment Rules. ( 8 ) IN State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC. 349 . there were two separate grades fo Tracers one consisting of persons who had passed sslc Examination and another consisting of persons who had not passed SSLC examination. The former grade was given a higher pay scale than the latter grade. The Supreme Court held that such differential pay scales for those two grades of tracers did not offend Arts. 14 and 16 of the Const as the classification between Tracers was based upon educational qualification. The Supreme Court observed that it is open to the State to consider the the general educational attainments of candidates and to give preference to candidates who have better educational qualifications. 14 and 16 of the Const as the classification between Tracers was based upon educational qualification. The Supreme Court observed that it is open to the State to consider the the general educational attainments of candidates and to give preference to candidates who have better educational qualifications. In Byroji Rao's case (1) differential pay scales as between Craft instructors who possessed a diploma and Craft Instructors who possessed only a certificate were assailed as beting violative of Arts. 14 and 16. On behalf of the State reliance; was placed on the decision of the Supreme court in State of Mysore v. Narasinga Rao. The Division Bench of this court held that Byroji Rao's cose (1) was distinguishable from Narasinga eao's case (3 ). Narayana Pai J. (as he then was) who spoke for the bench observed thus :" There was not therefore in the said case (State of Mysore v. Narasinga Rao) as in the present case recruitment on the basis of several qualifications treated as equivalent and one single pay scale irrespective of qualifications; nor is there in the present case a reorganisation of the cadre into two grades as in the case of tracers. " ( 9 ) IN State of J and. K v. Triloki Nath Khosa the Supreme Court considered the validity of the J and K Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules 1970 which provided that only those asst Engineers who were graduates were eligible for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers and other higher cadres and that Asst Engineers who were diploma holders were not eligible for such promotions. It was contended before the Supreme court that such discrimination between the degree holders and the diploma holders was arbitrary and capricious because academic or technical qualifications could be germane only at the stage of initial recrultment and that once candidates with different academic or techiical qualifications were appointed to the same cadre having the same pay scale and similar duties such candidates formed one class and that they could not be further classified for the purpose of promotion on the basis of their educational qualifications. Repelling that contention the Supreme Court held that a classification on the basis of educational qulifications made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency was a valid one. Repelling that contention the Supreme Court held that a classification on the basis of educational qulifications made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency was a valid one. The Supreme Court observed thus at page 16 :" We are therefore of the opinion that though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of asst Engineers they could for purposes of promotion to the cadre of executive Engineers be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. The rule providing that graduates shall be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion of diploma holders does not violate Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constn and must be upheld. " ( 10 ) IN the light of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Byroji Rao's casc (1) that the circumstances of there being only one single cadre and only one single pay scale irrespective of qualifications would come in the way of introduction of a higher pay scale for officials in that cadre who possess a higher educational qualification is no longer good law. Even though persons who had passed SSLC Examination and persons who had not passed SSLC Examination were recruited to the same cadre of Village Accountants under the 1961 Recruitment Rules and were given a uniform pay scale prior to 1-1-70 if was open to the State in our opinion to make a valid classification of those Village Accountants on the basis of thier educational qualifications and to give a higher pay scale to those who possessed higher educational qualifications. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that such differential pay scales are violative of Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. ( 11 ) IN the result we allow this appeal reverse the decision of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. In the circumstances of caset we direct the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .