JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - Two advertisements were made - Annexures 1 and 1(i) - for appointment of Lecturers in English in Government colleges and non-Government colleges respectively. The Petitioners and opposite party Nos. 3 to 13 were candidates. Two separate merit lists were prepared fat appointment in Government and non-Government colleges. The Petitioners were selected for appointment In Government colleges; whereas opposite party Nos. 3 to 13 were selected fat appointment in non-Government colleges. Accordingly, appointment orders were issued and they joined in the a respective colleges. All the appointments were on ad hoc basis. The appointment of the Petitioners was also on ad hoc basis subject to final selection by the Orissa Public Service Commission. Opposite party Nos. 3 to 13 were appointed subject to finalisation by the Selection Board. The appointment of opposite parties 3 to 13 was extended from time to time and ultimately they were absorbed by virtue of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1978. The Petitioners contend that their appointment has not yet been regularised by the Orissa Public Service Commission; whereas the appointment of opposite party Nos. 3 to 13 has been regularised by the aforesaid Act. It is contended that opposite party Nos. 3 to 13 were assigned lower merit positions and were appointed in non-Government colleges, but without any formal selection their appointment has been regularised; whereas the appointment of the Petitioners who were assigned higher merit positions and were appointed in Government colleges has not yet been regularised. They had a right for appointment in non-Government colleges as they had also submitted applications along with opposite parties 3 to 13. Government has acted in Contravention of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as opportunity was not given to the Petitioners for their appointment in non-Government colleges. If selection would have been made by the Selection Board as envisaged in the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974, the Petitioners would have been eligible to be considered for selection on regular basis in non-Government colleges. If regularisation would have been made on the basis of merit, the Petitioners who had been assigned higher merit positions would have been selected and their service would have been regularised. If regularisation would have been made on the basis of merit, the Petitioners who had been assigned higher merit positions would have been selected and their service would have been regularised. As no equal opportunity was given to the Petitioners, they contended that the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1978 is ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it has been promulgated for the benefit of opposite parties 3 to 13 only, namely, lecturers in non-Government colleges. As the appointment of opposite parties 3 to 13 has been regularised by the aforesaid Act, the appointment of the Petitioners should have also been regularised. 2. In the return filed on behalf of the State Government and the Director of Public Instruction, it is contended that two merit lists were prepared and the Petitioners having assigned higher merit positions were offered appointment in Government colleges which they accepted. The appointments were purely on ad hoc basis and regular appointments were to be made on the recommendation of the Orissa Public Service Commission. So also the appointment of opposite parties 3 to 13 was on ad hoc basis and the same was regularised by the Selection Board under the Orissa Education Act. The Petitioners being appointed in Government colleges were entitled to better chances to be recommended for regular appointment as lecturers and other service benefits, incremental benefits etc. from the date of their joining. The avenue of promotion in Government colleges in quite sound and the Petitioners being meritorious candidates were posted in Government colleges to enjoy such benefit of promotion to the posts of Readers, Professors, Principals etc. which are not available in non-Government colleges. It was never the intention of Government that lecturers appointed in non-Government colleges would be appointed on regular basis without being sponsored by the Selection Board. The appointment of the Petitioners in Government colleges was very much to their advantage. Had the situation not been more advantageous to the Petitioners, they would have naturally come up with representations for their appointment in non-Government colleges instead of Government colleges at the time of appointment. The appointment of the Petitioners in Government colleges was very much to their advantage. Had the situation not been more advantageous to the Petitioners, they would have naturally come up with representations for their appointment in non-Government colleges instead of Government colleges at the time of appointment. Regularisation of the appointment of opposite parties 3 to 13 has been made in contravention of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974. The method of recruitment of lecturers fat non-Government colleges through a Selection Board came into force with effect from 1-12-1976. The aforesaid Rules came into force with effect from 1-4-1975. For the intervening period, namely, from 1-4-1975 to 1-12-1970, there was no agency or method to make regular appointment in non-Government colleges. According to the provisions of Section 10 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, the State Government is empowered to make rules to regulate the service conditions of teachers and other members of the staff of aided educational institutions. In view of such provision, the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1978 was passed. In pursuance of this Act, ad hoc appointees in non-Government colleges within that particular period, namely, from 1-4-1975 to 1-12-1976 have become regular appointees and the recommendation of the State Selection Board for their appointment was not necessary. Prior to introduction of the Orissa Education Act of 1969 as well as the Rules of 1974, the Director of Public Instruction was approving the appointment of Lecturers in private colleges and there was no complaint from the side of the Petitioners. The avenue of promotion in Government colleges is very wide; whereas the lecturers in private coneges are to retire as lecturers and they have no chance of promotion as they are confined to particular colleges and there is no cadre for them. Had the Petitioners applied for appointment only in non-Government collages, there would not have been any scope to appoint them in Government colleges. Since they had applied for appointment both in Government colleges as well as non-Government collages, on the basis of their merit they were appointed in Government colleges having better prospects. Had the Petitioners applied for appointment only in non-Government collages, there would not have been any scope to appoint them in Government colleges. Since they had applied for appointment both in Government colleges as well as non-Government collages, on the basis of their merit they were appointed in Government colleges having better prospects. Accordingly, the contention of the Petitioners that they run the risk of not being selected by the Orissa Public Service Commission for regular appointment is hypothetical and not acceptable. The Validation Act was enacted in the interest of teaching staff in non-Government colleges and also in the interest of public education and it does not in any way violate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 3. Undisputedly there were two advertisements for appointment of lecturers in Government colleges as well as in non. Government colleges. Undisputedly also the Petitioners were applicants for Government collages and non-Government collages. They were more meritorious and so they were appointed in Government colleges which they accepted. Opposite parties 3 to 13 being less meritorious were appointed in non-Government collages. There also no dispute about the fact that there are promotional prospects to higher ranks in Government colleges and they form a cadre whereas lecturers in non-Government colleges are confined to particular colleges and there is no promotional prospect. There is also no cadre or them. According to the long established procedure, ad hoc appointment of the Petitioners is to be regularised by the Orissa Public Service Commission. This was also intimated to the Petitioners at the time of their appointment. The Petitioners accepted the posts being wen aware of this position. The Orissa Education Act of 1969 provides u/s 10 that the State Government may constitute a Selection Board for selection of candidates for appointment in aided educational institutions and such appointment shall be made in accordance with the rules made in that behalf. In pursuance to the provisions of Section 10 of die Orissa Education Act, the State Government passed the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 which came into operation from 1-4-1975. In chapter II of the said Rules, detail have been given how the Selection Board is to be formed and procedure has been laid down for appointment of staff in aided institutions and selection of candidates together with eligibility etc. In chapter II of the said Rules, detail have been given how the Selection Board is to be formed and procedure has been laid down for appointment of staff in aided institutions and selection of candidates together with eligibility etc. According to the provisions of Rule 4(7) of the Rules, the Selection Board has to prepare, with the prior approval of Government, regulations not inconsistent with the Act or the Rules for the conduct of its business and discharge of its functions. In pursuance to these provisions, regulations were prepared which were known as Regulations of the Selection Board for the (Conduct of its Business and Discharge of its Functions) Regulations, 1976 and these Regulations came into operation with effect from 1-12-1976. It would thus be evident that the Rules framed u/s 10 of the Orissa Education Act came into force on 1-4-1975. These Rules provide for preparation of regulations as to bow the Selection Board has to conduct its business. Till 1-12-1976 there were no regulations. Admittedly, appointment of opposite patties 3 to 13 was made within this period. There was no regulation operating in the field during that period. As such, in the interest of teachers in the non-Government colleges and in the interest of impairing education to the public, Government felt it necessary to regularise their appointment by the Validation Act of 1978.- But subsequent to 1-12-1976, Government has made it clear that all recruitments are to be made according to the provisions of the rules and regulations already enforced. Therefore, it was necessary in the interest of non-Government colleges as well as public education that the appointments made during that gap should be regularised and accordingly Government has regularised their appointments by the Validation Act. The case of the Petitioners stand on a different footing. They were offered appointment in Government colleges where there are better prospects. There was also opportunity for their absorption in the cadre. They were also applicants for Government colleges and had not confined their applications for appointment only in non-Government colleges. Therefore, being candidates for appointment in Government colleges and having been appointed in Government colleges where there are better prospects and benefits, they stand on a different footing. There was also opportunity for their absorption in the cadre. They were also applicants for Government colleges and had not confined their applications for appointment only in non-Government colleges. Therefore, being candidates for appointment in Government colleges and having been appointed in Government colleges where there are better prospects and benefits, they stand on a different footing. Till 1-12-1976, Government had not finalised the procedure for the recruitment to non-Government colleges and, therefore, it was necessary on the part of Government to take steps to regularise the service of the persons appointed during 1-4-1975 to 1-12-1976. Once the regulations came to the field and the procedure was laid down. Government has made it clear that the recruitment should be made according to the rules and regulations. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioners and opposite parties 3 to 13 are equally situated and, as such, there cannot be question of any discrimination between the two groups. 4. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners relying on E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another that Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. These two Articles require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. There is no dispute about this proposition of law, but to apply Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the pre-requisite is that both parties should be equally placed. This position has been explained in State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh. In this case, the question of discrimination between two groups of teachers was being considered. These two groups consisted of State Cadre and Provincialised Cadre. Under the scheme a member of a State Cadre stood a better chance of promotion than did a teacher belonging to the Provincialised Cadre. These cadres were formulated relating to schools run by Municipal Boards and District Boards in the Ambala and Jullunder divisions which were taken over by the Punjab Government. The Supreme Court held that the two services started as independent services. These cadres were formulated relating to schools run by Municipal Boards and District Boards in the Ambala and Jullunder divisions which were taken over by the Punjab Government. The Supreme Court held that the two services started as independent services. If the Government Order did not integrate them into a single service it would follow that the two started remaining as two distinct services. They started dissimilarly and they confined dissimilarly and any dissimilarity in their treatment would not be a denial of equal opportunity, for it is common ground that within each group there is no denial of that freedom guaranteed by the two Articles. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court relating to promotion of Engineers in the Tele-Communication Department and the Supreme Court relying on its previous decisions has held that equality is for equals, that is to say those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. The guarantee of equality does not imply that the same rules should be made applicable to all persons in spite of differences in their circumstances and conditions. 5. According to the dictum of the Supreme Court, as stated above, if the facts and circumstances of the present case are considered, it is evident that the Petitioners have started their career as a distinct group or class separate from that of opposite parties 3 to 13 and, as such, they cannot be said to be equally placed or they are in equal circumstances. Such being the position, the Petitioners cannot raise the question of discrimination among the group of the Petitioners and the group of opposite parties 3 to 13. On the aforesaid analysis, we hold that the writ petition has no merit and is liable to' be dismissed. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. P.K. Mohanti, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed