JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon under the State Government with effect from 25-11-1970. On 6-7-1977, after working as Assistant Surgeon for about seven years, he was sent on deputation for obtaining D.M. in Nephrology at Government cost and having duly qualified, with effect from 24-1-1979 he was appointed as a Junior Teacher (Clinical Tutor) in Medicine. Sometime thereafter, the Orissa Medical Education Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1979 (hereafter referred to as the 'Rules') came into force. In the meantime, there arose a vacancy in the post of Reader in Nephrology and Petitioner represented that in view of his special qualifications, he should be so appointed. Government in the Health Department informed the Petitioner that such appointment would amount to discrimination and, therefore, it would be desirable for the Petitioner to come formally through the selection board as a junior teacher in Nephrology (see Annexure-4). Petitioner was not selected in to higher speciality by relying upon Rule 4. This writ application has, therefore, been filed for a direction to the opposite parties to consider the claim of the Petitioner for the post of Junior Teacher (Registrar in Nephrology) and for a declaration that Rule 4(1) of the Rules was discriminatory, unconstitutional and ultra vires. 2. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the main stand of the opposite parties has been taken. The averments therein are as follow: That in reply to the averments made in paras 4 and 5 of the petition it is submitted that as per Rule 4(1) of the Orissa Medical Education Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1979, appointment to the Junior Teacher posts in the Services shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15 of the above-mentioned rule by selection from amongst the Assistant Surgeons under the State Government or State Government Undertakings with at least on year's experience as such, in consultation with the Orissa Public Service Commission.... It is submitted that when applications were invited through an open advertisement during September. 1979, the Petitioner was then working as Junior Teacher in the Department of Medicine and applied for a post of Junior Teacher in Nephrology. Since he was not holding the post of Assistant Surgeon at the time of application he was not considered eligible for the junior teaching post in Nephrology as per Rule 4(1) of the Recruitment Rules mentioned above.... Since he was not holding the post of Assistant Surgeon at the time of application he was not considered eligible for the junior teaching post in Nephrology as per Rule 4(1) of the Recruitment Rules mentioned above.... Learned Additional Government Advocate at the time of hearing of this application raised a further factual plea that mention of 'Assistant Surgeons' exclusively in Rule 4(1) was intentional and the reason therefore was to confine certain promotional posts to doctors in the periphery and to exclude the scope of transfer from one speciality to another by permitting doctors already in employment in any speciality to join a higher speciality. There is no pleading in the counter affidavit to support these contentions of the opposite parties. 3. We have, therefore, no other material before us excepting the consideration as to whether Rule 4 excludes persons like the Petitioner from being considered for post for which it professes to apply. Undoubtedly, the post of Registrar is a Junior Teaching post as would appear from the definition of the term, occurring in Rule 3(e). That post has been defined to mean ...the posts of Registrar, Clinical Tutor, Demonstrator, Junior Surgeon, Junior Physician...and the like. Rule 4 make provision for appointment of Junior Teachers. The provision runs thus: (1) Appointment to the Junior Teaching posts in the Service shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15 by selection from amongst the Assistant Surgeons under the State Government or State Government Undertaking with at least one year's experience as such in consultation with the Commission. Learned Additional Government Advocate contends that in view of the clear provision in the aforesaid Rule that only Assistant Surgeons were entitled to the advantage, Petitioner who at the relevant time was not Assistant Surgeon was not entitled to consideration. Admittedly, Petitioner was an Assistant Surgeon in the employment of the State and worked as such for almost seven years until he proceeded for post-graduate study at Government cost and on return on 24-1-1979 was appointed as Junior Teacher (Clinical Tutor) in Medicine. If it were the intention of Government that promotion under Rule 4(1) would be confined to doctors who were at the relevant time employed as Assistant Surgeons in the periphery, clear provision for it could have been made. If it were the intention of Government that promotion under Rule 4(1) would be confined to doctors who were at the relevant time employed as Assistant Surgeons in the periphery, clear provision for it could have been made. Every person qualified as a doctor with M.B.B.S. Degree upon his first appointment holds the post of an Assistant Surgeon. In our view, reference to 'Assistant-Surgeons' in Rule 4 was only to signify that position and did not intend to exclude Assistant Surgeons, i. e. persons with the qualification of Assistant Surgeon holding other posts from being debarred for appointment to junior teaching posts. "Higher Speciality" has been defined in Rule 3(d) and the subjects have been classified into two namely Medicine and/ or Surgery. Nephrology is in the medicine division. Petitioner has specialised in Nephrology and the post that fell vacant is that of Registrar, Nephrology. By the time Petitioner was communicated by Government under Annexure-A that he should come formally through the Selection Board as Junior Teacher in Nephrology, the Rules were already operating. If the true intention of Rule 4 was as is now pleaded, the reply of the State Government could not have been in terms of Annexure-4. Article 14 of the Constitution has a mandate for the State that it shall not deny to any person equality before the Laws. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. It is too well settled that there can be reasonable classifications. As was pointed out by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of J. Pandurangarao etc. v. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and Anr. AIR 1663 S.C. 268 Article 14 forbids class legislation. It does not forbid reasonable classifications for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In the instant case, a classification has been made between Assistant Surgeons working in the periphery and Assistant Surgeons already employed in teaching posts of medical colleges. Rule 4 makes provision for appointment to teaching posts. Keeping the purpose of the Rule in view, we do not think the two tests laid down by the Supreme Court can be satisfied if. Rule 4 is interpreted in the manner learned Additional Government Advocate has asked us. On the other hand, if we hold that the true meaning of the Rule is to refer to the qualifications prescribed for Assistant Surgeons, the Rule does not suffer from the vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the true purpose of the Rule is appropriately fulfilled. It does not sound to reason that the State Government as the benevolent and reasonable employer interested in efficiency of public service could ever have intended to prefer raw Assistant Surgeons to more qualified people already in the teaching line for appointment of Junior Teachers. We are alive to the situation that a statutory rule should not be struck down if it can be sustained on a true purport of the Rule. We are, therefore, of the view that Rule 4 should be read in the proper perspective and when so read, Petitioner is not disqualified from being considered for appointment as Junior Teacher in terms of Rule 4. While holding that Rule 4(1) of the Rules is valid, we direct the opposite parties to consider the claim of the Petitioner for the post of Junior Teacher (Registrar in Nephrology) in accordance with law within three months from the date of communication of the order. The writ application is allowed to that extent: There would be no order for costs. J.K. Mohanty, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Allowed