Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated the 31st December, 1984, passed by respondent No.1 and the order consequent thereto dated the 17th January, 1985, which was forwarded by the Superintendent of the Patna Medical College Hospital, dated the 14th February, 1985, as contained in Annexures-1 and 2, respectively, to the writ application, whereby and whereunder the respondents have directed reduction of pay scale of toe petitioners below the scale of Rs.680-965- which they had been getting as laboratory Technicians. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass, and are not much in dispute. 3. The petitioners No.1 is said to be the Honorary General Secretary of the Health Department Association of Laboratory Technicians, previously known as Laboratory Assistants (trained) and the petitioners 2 to 11 are said to be erstwhile Laboratory Assistants (trained) who have now betn serving the State of bihar in the capacity of Laboratory Technicians. 4. It is an admitted fact that the Government Medical Colleges and hospitals attached thereto in the State of Bihar in trial a had two types of subordinate staff designated ; i. e. as Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory assistants. The post of Laboratory Technicians was further sub-divided into two sub-cadres namely Laboratory Technicians (untrained) and Laboratory technicians (trained ). Such Laboratory Technicians who obtained training and passed the examination held by the Medical Laboratory Technicians Institute were placed in that category whereas the rest who did not obtain such training were placed as untrained technicians. Besides the aforementioned two posts of laboratory Technicions, there were posts of Laboratory Assistants who were given the facilities of obtaining the training. 5. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that post 1971 scales of pay of Laboratory Technicians (trained) was Rs.240-396- ; whereas, the scale of laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Assistants both were in the scale of rs.220-315- However, after the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision committee was accepted by the State of Bihar, the scale of pay was fixed so far as Laboratory Technicians (trained) are concerned at Rs.580-860-; and so far as Laboratory Technicians (untrained) as well as Laboratory Assistants are concerned, the same was fixed at Rs.535-765 -. However, later on, a corrigendum was issued by virtue of a resolution dated the 3rd February, 1982 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the scale of pay of trained Laboratory Technicians was corrected from Rs.580-860-to Rs.535-765 -. In the said corrigendum it was stated that the higher scale of pay for Laboratory Technicians was also (trained) was shown owing to clerical mistake. It is, therefore, clear that, after the issuance of the aforementioned corrigendum, the scale of pay in respect of old the three posts became the same. It is admitted that the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee was accepted by the Government of Bihar by a resolution bearing No.10770 dated the 31st December, 1981. It appears that there existed provision for imparting training to untrained Laboratory Assistants and Laboratory Technicians in government service, if they are matriculate as is evident from the letterdated the 26th July, 1979 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. 6. From Annexure-3/1, to the writ application, it appears that there existed a syllabus for Medical Laboratory Technicians training course. 7. The petitioners have asserted in para 9 of the writ application that from the very beginning the duties attached to the posts of Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Assistants were the same except that the Laboratory Technicians were trained whereas the Laboratory Assistants were untrained 8. By a letter dated the 11th July, 1973, the Principals of the Government medical Colleges and the Superintendents of the Government Hospitals were informed that it was decided by the Government that urgent steps should be taken for getting untrained Laboratary Technicians trained in the M. L. T. training course and, as soon as they completed their training and come out successful, they would be allowed the scale of pay approved by the Government for the trained Laboratory Technicians. A copy of the said letter is contained in annexure-5 to the writ application. 9. By another letter dated the ah February, 1981, the State of Bihar issued a direction that Laboratory Techincians with the minimum academic qualification of I. Sc. or higher qualifications should be allowed to join the course which would be for a period of one year and the syllabus thereto should be the same as prescribed earlier lor the M. L. T. Training Course. or higher qualifications should be allowed to join the course which would be for a period of one year and the syllabus thereto should be the same as prescribed earlier lor the M. L. T. Training Course. In the said letter, it was pointed out that even earlier to that the period of the training as also the syllabus were the same. A copy of the said letter dated the 6th february, 1981, is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. 10. The petitioners have asserted in paragraph 12 of the writ application that pursuant to the aforementioned Government directives, they undertook one year M. L. T. training course and the passed the said examination between 1966 and 1975. A chart has been given in the said paragraph for the purpose of showing as to which petitioners opted training in which year which are as follows :- 10_938_BLJ1_1988.htm Petitioners have further asserted that the petitioners Nos.2, 7, 8 and 11 are all matriculates and have all passed the M, L. T. training course, before the minimum qualification for admission to the said training course was prescribed as I. Sc. by the Government letter dated the 6th February, 1981, as contained in annexure-6 to the writ application. 11 The petitioners have contended that they were, therefore, apart from the scale of pay fixed upon the acceptance of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee in terms of the policy decision of the State of Bihar, entitled to the same scale of pay. However, after the aforementioned resolution dated the 3rd February, 1982, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, was issued, the Government considered that in view of the fact that the qualifications for the three posts as also the training undergone by them being the same and as they had been getting the same scale of Rs.535-765/, different cadres should be merged and the same was or done by the resolution dated the 1st June, 1982, as contained in. Annexure-8 to the writ application. The petitioners have asserted that, in terms of the aforementioned resolution dated the 1st June, 1982, they became the members of the same unified cadre. 12. Annexure-8 to the writ application. The petitioners have asserted that, in terms of the aforementioned resolution dated the 1st June, 1982, they became the members of the same unified cadre. 12. It has further been asserted that in the said cadre, that the erstwhile laboratory Assistants whether trained or untrained could be transferred to a post sanctioned for the Laboratory Technicians, whether the said Laboratory technicians previously were trained or untrained or vice versa on instance wherefor, has been given in Pare 23 of the writ application. It has further been asserted in the writ application that some Laboratory assistants who had already been confirmed prior to the 1st June, 1982, became permanent members of the unified cadre of Laboratory Technicians from the said date. However, thsoe Laboratory Assistants who were not so confirmed till the issuance of the aforementioned notification dated the 1st June, 1982, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application were later on confirmed in the said unified cadre by the appointing authorities, namely, the Principais of the medical Colleges, as the case may be. 13. However, by a letter dated the 16th July, 1983, issued by the State of Bihar and addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar, it was stated that all the employees holding the posts of Laboratory Technicians whether trained or untrained or Laboratory Assistants would be entitled to the same scale of pay with effect from the 1st April, 1981. By a letter dated the 7th December, 1983, as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application, the Deputy Director of health Services made certain queries with regard to certain matters and requested the concerned authorities to submit a report in respect of the following : - (i) A comparative chart showing the period of the training and syllabus required for the post of Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory assistants. (ii) Date and year of the commencement of the aforementioned two trainings, (iii) A comparative chart showing the duties of Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Assistants, (iv) Minimum qualification required for appointment of Laboratory technicians and Laboratory Assistants and procedures thereof. 14. (ii) Date and year of the commencement of the aforementioned two trainings, (iii) A comparative chart showing the duties of Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Assistants, (iv) Minimum qualification required for appointment of Laboratory technicians and Laboratory Assistants and procedures thereof. 14. By a letter dated the 9th December.1983, as contained in annexure-12, the Head of Microbiology Department of the Patna Medical college, Patna, in reply to the aforementioned letter sent the following report with reference to the quaries mentioned hereinbefore wherein it was stated as follows ;- (1) The period of training and syllabus in respect of both the Laboratory technicians and Laboratory Assistants are the same. The certificates granted to both kinds of trainings are also the same being M. L. T. (2) The period of training of M. L. T. is for the year 1981 and the session thereto commences from January and ends in December. (3) Duties prescribed for Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory assistants are the same. (4) Minimum qualification for direct recruitment to both the posts are the same. 15. Similarly, by a letter dated the 11th January, 1984 (Annexure-13), the Director ot the Public Health Department gave a similar report to the afoerementioned query. 16. By a letter dated the 12th December, 1983, the Principal of the Patna medical College (Annexure-18 to the supplementary affidavit sent a similar reply. Similarly, the Principal of the Rajendra Medical. Colkge, Ranchi, by his letter dated the 22nd December, 1983 (Annexure-19 to the supplementary affidavit) sent a similar report to the Deputy Director of Health Services. 17. The petitioners have further asserted that even an advertisement was issued in the newspapers on the 27th November, 1975, for appointment to the posts of Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Assistants wherein the same scale of pay was offered for both the posts and the qualifications and eligibility in respect of both the posts were also the same. A copy of the said advertisement contained in Annexure-21 to the reply to the counter-affidavit. Even in a recent advertisement issued in the newspapers on the 15th August, 1987, the qualification for the posts of Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory Technicians has been shown to be that of I. Sc. A copy of the advertisement is contained in annexure-22 to the reply to the supplementary counter-affidavit. Even in a recent advertisement issued in the newspapers on the 15th August, 1987, the qualification for the posts of Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory Technicians has been shown to be that of I. Sc. A copy of the advertisement is contained in annexure-22 to the reply to the supplementary counter-affidavit. The petitioners have also annexed a copy of another advertisement issued on the 22nd February, 1988, inviting applications for filling up posts of Laboratory Technicians wherein the eligibility required therefor has been shown to be in respect of persons who are matriculates prior to 1981 but I. Sc. who have passed the said examination afttr 1982. A copy of the said advertisement is contained in Annexure-23 to the writ application. 18. The petitioners, therefore, contend that as there has been a complete merger of the cadre of Laboratory Assistants with that of Laboratory Technicians with effect from the 1st June, 1982, and the employees of both the cadres having been brought into an unified cadre from the 1st June, 1982, they, although come from two different sources, cannot be discriminated against in the matter of scale of pay by a subsequent order as is purported to be done by reason of the impugned orders as contained in Annxures-1 and 2 to the writ application. It has further been pointed out that they have been drawing the scale of pay in the unified cadre for a period of more than 2 years and, as such, a different scale of pay as is purported to be fixed by the impugned orders and the direction contained therein to the effect that the petitioners must refund the excess pay drawn by them are all illegal and without jurisdiction. 19. Appears, that, during the pendency of this application, the Principal of the Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, issued an office order to the effect that the scale of pay of Laboratory Assistants should be Rs.535-765-whereas that of Laboratory Technicians should be Rs.680-965. By reason of the said office order, the office order bearing No.3656 dated the 27th August, 1983, was cancelled. 20. The petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ application on the 29th January, 1988, and this Court, by an order dated the 1st February, 1988, allowed the said prayer. 21. In this case, the respondents have filed several counter-affidavits. 20. The petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ application on the 29th January, 1988, and this Court, by an order dated the 1st February, 1988, allowed the said prayer. 21. In this case, the respondents have filed several counter-affidavits. One counter-affidavit was filed on the 17th March, 1988, which was sworn by the Principal of the Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, and another was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 which was sworn by one Rambachan Prasad, section Officer of the Health Department and one supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Principal, Medical College, Ranchi, respondent No.5, on the 17th March, 1988. 22. In the aforementioned counter-affidavits, it has been pointed out that in terms of the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Sec.30 of the Indian Medical Council act, 1956, in each department of the Medical Colleges, there should be a separate post of technician, namely senior technician and junior technician and pursuant thereto in all the Medical Colleges situate in the State of Bihar there had been posts of Laboratory Technician and Laboratory Assistant. It has, however, been admitted that the 4th Pay Revision Committee recommended the same scale of pay for both the aforementioned posts which was accepted by the State of Bihar. It has further been admitted that, by resolution No.284 (25) dated the 1st june, 1982, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, the designation of Laboratory Assistant was changed to Laboratory Technicians. The respondents have, however, submitted that there has not been any merger of the cadres of Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Assistant but merely the name was changed as no notification of merger of two different cadres was issued by the State of Bihar. The respondents have asserted that at a later stage, the Department of Finance thought that the same scale of pay be given to both Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Assistants, and, as such, by a resolution dated the 31st December, 1984, the department of Health re-changed the nomenclature and designation of Laboratory Assistant which was changed to laboratory Technician, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 23. 23. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the Principal, Rajendra medical College, Ranchi, it has been asserted that the minimum qualification for appointment in the posts of Laboratory Technician is matriculation with science while the minimum qualification for appointment to the posts of Laboratory technician is I. Sc. with Medical Laboratory Technology certificate. It has further been asserted that the duty of Laboratory Assistants is to assist laboratory Technicians their duties. In the said affidavit, it has further been asserted that Annexures-18 and 19 referred to hereinbefore being not the government notifications should not be relied upon. It may however be noticed that the letter dated the 22nd December, 1983, as contained in Annexure-19 to the writ application was also issued by the Principal of the Rajendra Medical college, Ranchi. 24. Mr. Sarojendu Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appering on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that, in view of the fact that both the cadres of laboratory Assistants and Laboratory Technicians have bsen completely amalgamated, the State of Bihar had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders, The learned conusel, in this connection, has also drawn my attention to the statements made in paras 9 and 32 of the writ application as also the application for amendment of the writ application wherein it was asserted by the petitioners that the duties of both the Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory assistants are the same. The learned counsel in this connection has placed strong reliance in the case of General Manger, S. C. Railway v.4. V. R. Siddhanti and others, AIR 1974 SG 1755 = 1974 (4) SCC 335 . 25. Learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Government has the absolute discretion to the designation of the employees as also the scale of pay. He further submitted that there had been no merger of the aforementioned cadres of Laboratory Technician and Laboratory Assistant in fact nor there could be any in the teeth of the regulations framed by the Medical Council of india in terms of Sec.30 of the Medical Council Act. He further submitted that, in the teeth of the aforementioned directives of the Indian Medical Council, it was not possible for the State of Bihar to abolish the post of Laboratory assistant and, as such, the order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application was not valid. He further submitted that, in the teeth of the aforementioned directives of the Indian Medical Council, it was not possible for the State of Bihar to abolish the post of Laboratory assistant and, as such, the order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application was not valid. The learned counsel has further submitted that at that material time, the qualification and the training required for the posts of laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Assistants being different, there could not have been any merger of the aforementioned cadres. He has further pointed out that by reason of the resolution as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, only the designation was changed but the two cadres were not unified. According to him, even the 4th Pay Revision Committee recommended for keeping two different posts, although the same scale of pay was payable to the petitioners as also the Laboratory Technicians. In this connection, the learned Government Advocate has relied upon a decision in the case of The State of Punjab V/s. Joginder Singh, AIR 1963 SC 913 . 26. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that by issuing the orders as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application, merely status quo ante has been restored back and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. In this connection, the learned Government Advocate has further submitted that it is permissible for the State to treat a section of employees as a class and, as such, the classification does not infringa Articles (4 and 16 of the Contitution of India. For the purpose of the aforementioned proposition, the learned government Advocate has relied upon decisions in the case of M/s. Pannalal binjraj V/s. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 397 ; Lakhmandas Kewalram and another V/s. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 235 ; C. A, Rajendran V/s. Union of india and others, AIR 1968 SC 507 ; J. Pandarangarao V/s. The Andhra Pradesh public Service Commission and another, AIR 1963 SC 268 ; Madhubhai amathalal Gandhi V/s. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 21 . 27. In reply to the aforementioned submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petioners submitted that the State of Bihar has not denied that the employees like the petitioners are carrying out the same work and performing the same duties and their basic traiaing and qualification required therefor are also the same. 27. In reply to the aforementioned submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petioners submitted that the State of Bihar has not denied that the employees like the petitioners are carrying out the same work and performing the same duties and their basic traiaing and qualification required therefor are also the same. He further submitted that the respondents cannot attack their own orders as they purport to do nor caa they supplement the order passed by a public authority by filing a counter-affidavit. The learned counsel further submitted that the State has not alleged that Annexure-8 was issued by mistake and, as such, the question of rectification of the purported mistake committed thereby by reason of Annexure-1 thereto does not and cannot arise. It was further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitionen that, in blj-119 view of the fact that there has been a merger of cadres, there cannot be any doubt that a class cannot be created within that class and the same, if done, would infringe Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has further submitted that the previous history in relation to the two different posts cannot be taken into consideration after a Government order is passed for unification of the cadres nor the same is relevant. It has further been submitted that, in any event, as the qualification and duties of both the posts are the same, there cannot be any rationale in granting a higher scale of pay to Laboratory technicians and reduce the scale of pay of others only because they were initially appointed as Laboratory Assistants. 28. From the facts stated hereinbefore and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the moot questions that emerge for consideration in this writ application are as follows :- (i) Whether the resolution dated 1-6-1982 as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application is hit by the regulations framed by the medical Council of India under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (ii) Whether there had been a merger of the cadres of Laboratory technician and Laboratory Assistant ? 29. So far as the first point is concerned, the same may not deter me for a long time. It is now well known that the directions contained in the regulations framed by the Medical Conucil of India are merely recommendatory in nature. 29. So far as the first point is concerned, the same may not deter me for a long time. It is now well known that the directions contained in the regulations framed by the Medical Conucil of India are merely recommendatory in nature. The Medical Council of India has framed regulations for the purpose of maintaining standard in medical education and in that view of the matter it has laid down that there should exist different posts in the Medical College. 30. In my considered view the State of Bihar has not violated the recommendation of the Medical Council of India only by imparting training to laboratory Assistants and posting them as Laboratory Technicians. By the aforementioned Act, the State of ihar cannot be said to have interfered with the minimum standard prescribed by the Medical Council of India ; in fact thereby the standard has been raised, in terms of the aforementioned recommendations, it was possible for the State of Bihar to employ both trained and untrained hands but it does not mean that the State of Bihar could not insist on employing only trained bands. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the aforementioned contention raised by the learned Government Advocate must be rejected. 31. So far as the question as to whether there has been a marger of the cadres of Laboratory Technician and Laboratory Assistant is concerned, as seen hereinbefore, the basis facts are not denied. However, at the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that the basic educational qualification at the initial stage for both Laboratory Technician and Laboratory Asistant were the same, whereas the Laboratory Technicians were required to have a certificate of training, the laboratory Assistants were not so required- This aspect of the matter was under consideration of the State of Bihar itself which provided for imparting training to Laboratory Assistants. The duration and the syllabus of the training being the same for both Laboratory Assistants and Laboratory Technicians as noticed hereinbefore even prior to the ist June, 1982, the State of Bihar directed that as and when the Laboratory Assistants obtains a certificate of training after passing the examination prescribed therefor he would also be entitled to the same scale of pay. 32. 32. Learned Government Advocate may be correct in his submission that thete may be circumstances in which two different posts may be carrying the same scale of pay but the question, in the instant case, is as to whether there has been a merger and/or unification of cadres of Laboratory Assistants and Laboratory Technicians or not. The same has to be taken into consideration in the backdrop of the admitted events. The only difference, so for as the qualification of Laboratory Assistants and Laboratory Technicians is concerned was that whereas Laboratory Technicians were required to have training, laboratory Assistants did not have. Prior to 1981, the minimum qualification for both the posts were the same whereas after 1981 the minimum qualification for the posts of Laboratory Technicians was raised to I. Sc. As is evident from the letters as contained in Annexures 13, 18 and 19 as olso the various advertisements issued by the State of Bihar as contained in Annexures 21, 22 and 23, and as referred to hereinbefore, it would be evident that not only their requisite basic qualification was the same but their duties and functions were also the same. 33. The Fourth Pay Revision Committee also recommended the same scale of pay both for Laboratory Assistants and laboratoty Technicians, and the same has also been accepted by the State of Bihar. 34. Upon taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, the resolution dated the 1st June, 1982, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application has to be construed. There is no denial of the fact that the aforementioned resolution fulfils the requisites of Articles 162 and 166 of the Constitution of India. 35. From a perusal of the said resolution, it is evident that the State of bihar directed change of designation of Laboratory Assistant to that of laboratory Technician not only in view of the fact that they have been getting the same scale of pay but also after taking into consideration that there was absolutely no necessity to keep both the designations for the said posts. The aforementioned resolution was adopted after analysing the relevant facts and by the said order it was directed that not only the designation of Laboratory assistant would be changed to Laboratory Technician but the designation or laboratory Assistant would be deemed to have come to an end on and from the date of publication of the said resolution and further it was directed that, in future, fresh appointments against the sanctioned posts of Laboratory Assistant shall be done in the name of Laboratory Technician. 36. It has been accepted in the counter-affidavit that the aforementioned resolution had been given effect to by all concerned. Further, it has not been controverted in the counter-affidavit that after the aforementioned resolution was given effect to, there had been inter se transfers amongst the persons who were earlier designated as Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory Technician. It is also clear from the letters as contained in Annexures-13, 18 aad 19 which have been issued by responsible officers that the basic qualification, training as also the duties and functions of both Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory technicians were the same. The conduct of the State of Bihar in treating both the posts in the same cadre is also manifest from the advertisement as contained in Annexures-21, 22 and 23 to the writ application. Even in the impugned order as contained in Annexure-i to the writ application, it has been meationeu that by reason of the resolution dated the 1st June, l992 (Annexure-8) there had been a merger of cadres of Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory technician. 37. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is absolutely no doubt that there had been a unification/merger of the cadres of the posts of Laboraton assistant and Laboratory Technician. True it is that in the resolution date the 1st june, 1992, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, it-vi not specifically stated that both the cadres of Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory technician would be merged but in effect and substance, the same was the purport of the aforementioned resolution which is also clear from the subsequent conduct of the State of Bihar itself and its officers as also the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 38. 38. In view of my finding aforementioned, the only fact which requires consideration as to what will be the effect of the order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. In the case of the General Manager, South Central railway, Secunderabad, (supra) the Supreme Court has held that if the Government servant is recruited by different methods but are absorbed into one integrated class of the same department, they cannot be treated differently to their original source for the purpose of absorption and seniority. In the case of Punjab Electricity Board V/s. Rabindra Kumar Sharma and others. , 1987 SC 36 (supra) it has been held that, if a common seniority list is maintained both for diploma holders and non-diploma holders, no differenctation can be made by providing for a quota of promotion fixed for each category and by giving preferential treatment to the diploma holders. In the said decision, the supreme Court has quoted with approval its earlier decision in Sujat Alis case 1975 (i) SCR 455 : AIR 1974 SC 1 631 at page 1655. In this case it has been held as follows - ". . . . . . . . . . . . But where graduates and non-graduates are both regarded as fit and. therefore, eligible for promotion, it is difficult to see how, consistently with the claim for equal opportunity, any differentiation can be made between them by laying down a quota of promotion for each and giving preferential treatment to graduates over non-graduates in the matter of fixation of such quota". In the State of Mysore V/s. B. Basavalingappa, AIR 1987 SC 411 , it has been held that two scales of pay under the same cadre cannot be fixed with reference to qualification held by the candidates. 39 It is, thus, clear that it is not permissible to create a class within a class for any purpose whatsoever except for laying down a higher qualification for occupying a higher post as was the case before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. Triloki Natn Khosla, AIR 1974 SC 1 . 40. There cannot absolutely be any doubt that the State of Bihar has the power to rectify its mistake or to create a new class of posts but the same has to be done prospectively and not retrospectivelv. 40. There cannot absolutely be any doubt that the State of Bihar has the power to rectify its mistake or to create a new class of posts but the same has to be done prospectively and not retrospectivelv. The impugned order, which was given retrospective effect, whereby and whereunder the vested right accrued to the petitioners has been taken away cannot be sustained. It is now well know that, although the power of the State in terms of Article 162 of the constitution of India is a vide one but the said power has to be exercised subject to other provisions of the constitution. By reason of the resolution as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application and the subsequent Government orders, the petitioners had been getting the higher scale of pay and were equated with the Laboratory Technicians. The petitioners having received their salaries under a valid and proper appointment and in view of the fact that is the same is not under challenge acquired a right of property in relation thereto. It is also well known that the right to get the salary is an enforceable right and is a right under Article 300-A of the constitution. Further any executive order which is issued in terms of Article 1 (2 of the constitution must be reasonable. In my opinion, an order passed by the State of Bihar in exercise of its power under Article 162 of the constitution cannot be given a retrospective effect. 41. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, it must be held that the purported direction giving a retrospective effect to the order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application as also a direction to the effect that the petitioners are liable to refund the excess salary drawn by them, in my opinion, cannot be said to be reasonable and, in that view of the matter, the same has to be struck down. The same even could not have been done by framing a rule under Article 309 of the constitution of India. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of T. R. kapur V/s. State of Haryana, 1986 (Supp) SCC 584 : AIR 1987 SC 415 ; Ex-Capt. The same even could not have been done by framing a rule under Article 309 of the constitution of India. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of T. R. kapur V/s. State of Haryana, 1986 (Supp) SCC 584 : AIR 1987 SC 415 ; Ex-Capt. K. C. Ar or a and another V/s. State of Haryana and others, 1984 L1c 10l5 = AIR 1987 sc 1858 and Amar Singh V/s. State of Haryana, 1988 LIC 254. 42. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application shll be valid so far as the same is given prospective effect. It also goes without saying that the respondents, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, cannot be permitted to challenge its own order contained in Annexure-8 to the- writ application directly or indirectly as a respondent. In this connection, in my opinion, Mr. Mukherjee has rightly placed reliance on a decision in the case of State of Assam and another V/s. Raghaw Rajgopalachari, 1972 SLR 44. 43. Further, in view of the statement made in paras 30 and 32 of the writ application as also in view of the letters as contained in Annexure-13, 18 and 19 to the writ application to the effect that the employees posted as Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Assistants having the same qualification and having undergone the same training, discharging the same functions and performing the same duties clearly goes to show that they are equally placed and, as such, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is also applicable in their case. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision in the case of the Daily Rated Casual Labour emyloyed under the Post and Telegraphs Department V/s. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 2342 . 44. In view of my findings aforementioned, this writ applisation must succeed and it is accordingly allowed and the orders as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 17 are hereby quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Writ application allowed.