JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This petition is directed against the two orders of the State Government dated 18-2-1974, cancelling the petitioner's appointment on the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer and appointing respondents No. 2 to 6 on the said post. 2. Rang Nath Rai and B. N. Shukla, the two petitioners were employed as junior accounts clerks in the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. They were promoted and appointed to the post of Chief Accountant in the scale of Rs. 160-320 now revised scale of Rs. 300-500. The Government by its order dated 17-11-1973 created 8 temporary posts of Regional Assistant Accounts Officer in connection with Rabi procurement scheme. Those 8 posts were filled in by persons from various departments The petitioners were promoted and appointed temporarily to the post of Assistants Regional Accounts Officer by an order dated 19-12-1973. On 18-2-1974 the State Government passed two different orders. By one order it cancelled its earlier orders dated 10-12-1973 and 19-12-1973 whereby the petitioners had been promoted and appointed to the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer. By the second order the State Government appointed respondents on the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer. The petitioners challenged the validity of these two orders in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order practises a hostile discrimination against them in the matters relating to employment and thereby it violates Article 16 of the Constitution, it is urged that the petitioners are senior to the opposite parties, the petitioners have been reverted while the opposite parties have been promoted to the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer. In the counter affidavit it is asserted that after the report of the U. P. Pay Commission, the revised pay scale of Chief Accountant was in the scale of Rs. 300-500 the Senior Auditor Rs. 350 - 700 and the Assistant Regional Accounts Officer Rs. 450 - 950. The Government accepted recommendations of the Pay Committee. It reconsidered the channel of promotion and took a policy decision that since the senior auditors were entitled to higher scale of salary, they should be treated on higher level than the Chief Accountants who were given a lower scale of salary. 450 - 950. The Government accepted recommendations of the Pay Committee. It reconsidered the channel of promotion and took a policy decision that since the senior auditors were entitled to higher scale of salary, they should be treated on higher level than the Chief Accountants who were given a lower scale of salary. The State Government further took a decision that only senior auditors should be eligible for promotion and appointment to the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer. Prior to the U. P. Pay Commission Report the Chief Accountant as well as the Senior Accountant both were eligible for promotion on the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer. After the revision of policy the State Government took decision that the Chief Accountant should not be eligible for promotion and appointment to the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer instead they should be eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Auditors and the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer should be filled in by promotion from amongst the senior auditors. 4. In order to implement this policy the impugned order dated 18-2-1974 was issued by the State Government cancelling petitioners appointment, who held the post of Chief Accountant in a temporary capacity. By another order of the same date the State Government permitted the respondents, who were holding the post of senior auditors in a higher scale to hold the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer. These facts clearly show that the petitioners and the respondents did not form the same class. They are in different services drawing different scales of pay. The petitioners did not hold the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer in substantive capacity they had no legal right to hold that post. The Government took a policy decision to exclude the Chief Accountants from the field of eligibility to the post of Assistant Regional Accounts Officer. There is no statutory rules regulating these matters. It was open to the Government to implement its policy through executive orders. Since the petitioners constituted different class than the respondents, no discrimination was practised nor there has been any violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners' contention is misconceived. 5. In view of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 5-3-1974 is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.