The petitioner Surendra Natn Misra, who appointed as Lecturer in English Department of K. N. Government Degree College, Gyanpur, which is a Government College, on 30th October, 1961, in the pay scale of Rs. 250-500, and imparted education to the students of Graduate and Post Graduate classes and was selected by the Public Service Commission as Lecturer in the said institution in the pay-scale of Rs. 225-450 on 24th August, 1962 and was directed by the Government to continue to impart education in K. N. Government Post Graduate College, Gyanpur in the pay scale of Rs. 250-500, in which capacity he was working since 30th October, 1961, by means of this writ petition, he has challenged the vires of Rule 20 (l) (c) of U. P. Higher Education (Group-A) Services Rules, 1985. He has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite-parties to fix the seniority of Lecturers from the date of their appointment in service by giving credit of continuous length of service and by making promotion on the basis of seniority as such and not with effect from 5tp June, 1972, from which date the Degree College Lecturers were declared Gazetted Officers. 2. It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that prior to 4th September, 1973 the Lecturers who were imparting education to Graduate classes and the teachers who were imparting education to Post Graduate were treated as two different cadres, but by means of the Government Order dated 4th September, 1973, both the cadres of teachers were merged into one cadre. It was provided in the said Government Order, dated 4th September, 1973, that as since 5th June, 1972, all those Lecturers who were imparting education in Government Degree Colleges became Gazetted Officers, hence the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 9 (31) (C) of Financial Handbook Vol. 2 to 4 has directed that from that date all the Lecturers imparting education in Government Degree Colleges in the scale of Rs. 250-25-330-E. B.-25-450-E. B.-30-600, will be treated as one cadre. 2 to 4 has directed that from that date all the Lecturers imparting education in Government Degree Colleges in the scale of Rs. 250-25-330-E. B.-25-450-E. B.-30-600, will be treated as one cadre. The question as to whether if two persons appointed on, different cadres are amalgamated into one cadre and they continued as such for about a decade or more, can again be discriminated, deserve to be tested on the scale of the provisions of equality, as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. According to Rule 20 (l) (c), of the impugned rules it has been provided that a lecturer recruited by the Commission for appointment in the post-graduate colleges and appointed as such before June 5, 1972 shall be senior to a lecturer recruited by the Commission for appointment in Degree College as appointed as such. The object sought to be achieved from the said provision appear to be, that those who have been imparting education in post Graduate classes prior to June 5, 1972, shall be senior to a teacher recruited by the Commission for appointment in Degree Collage, as appointed as such. If that is so, then what would be the relevancy of that cut off date, that is, June 5, 1972. The effect of the said rule would be, that if a lecturer recruited by the Commission for appointment in the Post Graduate Colleges and appointed as such on 5th June, 1972, would not be senior to a lecturer, recruited by the Commission for appointment in Degree College, as appointed as such. 4. In the counter-affidavit this cut off date has sought to be explained that on 5th June, 1972, all the lecturers working in Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges have been made Gazetted Officers. We are not able to understand as to what is the nexus of the conformation of powers of Gazetted Officers upon the lecturers for purposes of determining their seniority. If the rule would have conferred certain benefits like Selection Scale, or Suppertime Scale to those who were appointed lecturers in Post Graduate Colleges prior to 5th June, 1972, probably it could be tested on the scale of equality. It is not disputed that the lecturers whether imparting education. in Degree Colleges or post Graduate Colleges are recruited by the Commission. It is not disputed that the lecturers whether imparting education. in Degree Colleges or post Graduate Colleges are recruited by the Commission. There is no differentiation in the minimum qualifications of such lecturers whether they impart education in Degree Colleges or Post Graduate Government Colleges. The minimum qualification of their appointment are the same. The duties which are assigned to them are also similar ; meaning thereby that they teach graduate classes as well as post graduate classes. The petitioner before us, has categorically stated that he has been taking the classes of Degree as well as post Graduate. Earlier more than a decade back the lecturers, imparting education in Degree classes and post Graduate classes were treated as separate cadre, but both the cadres were amalga mated into one cadre, and that process continued till the- year 1985, when the aforementioned rule came into effect. 5. In the case of D. S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 , Honble Mr. Justice D. A. Desai (as he then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench indicated : "the fundamental principle is that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. It was further indicated : "legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained if it satisfied the twin tests of reasons able and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. The State, therefore, would have to affirmatively satisfy the Court that the twin tests have been satisfied. It can only be satisfied if the State establishes not only the rational principle on which classification is founded but correlates it to the objects sought to be achieved. fixing the specified date for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, it was held the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and being wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the. . ,. fixing the specified date for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, it was held the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and being wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the. . ,. eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, the eligibi lity for liberalised pension scheme of being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date in the memo randa, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. " 6. In the case of General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another v. A. V. R. Siddhanti and others, AIR 19/4 SC 1755, Honble Mr. Justice R. S. Sarkaria (as he then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench in which Honble Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer (as he then was) was also a Member indicated in Para 35 of the report :-- "the impugned directions of 1957 and 1961, in so far as they pertain to categories (ii) and (iii) are hit by this rule in Koshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (1968) SCR 185 : AIR 1967 SC 1889 , according to which once the persons coming or recruited to the ser vice from two different sources-in that case promotees and direct recruits-are absorbed into one integrated, class with identical service conditions, they cannot be discriminated against with reference to the original source, for the purposes of further promotion to the higher grade. What was said about further promotion in Roshan Lal Tandon case (supra), is equally appli cable to absorption and seniority in the instant case. " 7. In the instant case the lecturers of Degree classes and post Graduate classes wore recruited from two different sources and remained as such till 4th September, 1973, when they were merged into one cadre and remained as such even now as one cadre. The criterion that those lecturers recruited by the Commission for appointment in Post Graduate Colleges and appointed as such before June 5, 1972, would be senior to a lecturer by the Commission for appointment in Degree Colleges as appointed as such does not appear to have based on any reasonable and rational principle, correlated with the object sought to be achieved. Hence the ratio of the decision in the case of The General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad and another v. A. V. R. Siddhanti and others, (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. 8. In the case of T. R. Kapur and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 415 , Honble Mr. Justice A. P. Sen, speaking for the Bench indicated in para 16 of the report : "it is equally well settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotional is a condition of service although mere changes of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to Say down qualifica tions for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion of conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well-recognised principle that the bene fits acquired under the existing rules Cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. " 9. It was further indicated at the bottom of Para 17 of the report : "todays equals cannot be made unequal by saying that they were unequal twenty years ago and we will restore that position by making a law today and making it retrospective. Constitu tional rights, constitutional obligations and constitutional consequences cannot be tampered with that way. A law which is made today would be plainly invalid as offending constitutional provisions in the context of the existing situation cannot become valid by being made retrospective. 10. The impugned rules are not retrospective in nature, but in effect its retrospectively dates back to 5- 6-1972, meaning thereby that a lecturer appointed before June 5, 1972 in the Post Graduate classes would be senior to that lecturer who was appointed in Degree College. In effect it only puts an impediment against the Degree College Lecturers who were appointed prior to June 5, 1972, but it adversely affect their seniority, resulting into loss of promotion. 11. The attention of this court was drawn towards the seniority list which has been annexed as Annexure-III to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner. In effect it only puts an impediment against the Degree College Lecturers who were appointed prior to June 5, 1972, but it adversely affect their seniority, resulting into loss of promotion. 11. The attention of this court was drawn towards the seniority list which has been annexed as Annexure-III to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the same would indicate that the petitioner Surendra Nath Misha, whose name finds place at serial No. 87 of the said seniority list was appointed in the year 1962, but the list indicates that several persons who were appointed in the year 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970 were made senior to him and their name finds place in the seniority list, much above the petitioner. 12. The learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards the averments made in the supplementary affidavit, wherein it was indicated in Paragraphs 6 and 7 that the State Government vide Government Order dated 1st June, 1971, has given the status of gazetted officers to the Lecturers of Degree Colleges working at Government Raza College, Rampur. On the said date the petitioner was also lecturer in English and was teaching Post Graduate Classes, The Order was later on kept in abeyance for one month and thereafter, on 3th June, 1972 again it has been revoked. . Thus this fact alone goes to show that the date mentioned in Rule 22 (l) (c) of the said Rules is artificial, unreasonable and discriminatory as it makes two separate classes within a cadre. In Paragraph 43 of the counter-affidavit this again was sought to be explained by the standing Counsel by indicating that before 5th June, 1972 the cadre of Degree College lecturer was different to that of Post Graduate College lecturers. The Degree College lecturers ware designated as Junior Lecturers while Post Graduate College Lecturers were called lecturers. The Degree College lecturers were non-gazetred before 5th June, 1972 and the lecturers of Post Graduate Colleges were gazetted. However, they were given gazetted rank since 5th June, 1972. Thus on 5th June, 1972 the cadre of the Junior lecturers were merged with the cadre of lecturers working in Post Graduate College, hence the length of service will be seen from the date o 5th June, 1972 and not prior to this date when the cadre was different. 13. However, they were given gazetted rank since 5th June, 1972. Thus on 5th June, 1972 the cadre of the Junior lecturers were merged with the cadre of lecturers working in Post Graduate College, hence the length of service will be seen from the date o 5th June, 1972 and not prior to this date when the cadre was different. 13. From the perusal of the aforesaid averments, it is evident that the length of service of the Degree College lecturers were reckoned from 5th June, 1972. In the service jurisprudence the length of service of a person is either reckoned from the date of his initial appointment, if there exists no rule or from the date of his substantive appointment, but by means of the present rule, the length of the service of the lecturers of Degree Colleges were reckoned with effect from 5th June, 1972, the date on which they were conferred the rank of Gazetted officers. The Standing Counsel has failed to indicate the rational for such a classification. The conferment of the rank of Gazetted Officer has no nexus with the seniority of a public servant by conferring a particular benefit on a particular date, the status and the criterion and classification, of a group of one cadre. The right of the peti tioner to reckon his seniority either from the date of his initial appointment or from the date of his substantive appointment has been adversely affected. It cannot be said that the conferment of the rank of Gazetted Officer amounts to substantive appointment of such lecturers. At the most it would be deemed to be a benefit, but it would not affect the seniority of such officers. 14. The Standing Counsel has cited before this Court several precedents of the Honble Supreme Court including the case of Roop Chand Adlakha and others v. Delhi Development Authority and others, AIR 1989 SC 307 and The State of Gujarat v. A. C. Shah and others, AIR 1994 SC 1269 , wherein it has been indicated that the State consistent with the requirements of the promotional-posts and in the interest of the efficiency of the service, is not precluded from conferring eligibility on Diploma Holders conditioning it by other requirements which may, include certain quantum of service experience. 15. 15. In that case, eligibility determination was made by a cumulative criterion of a certain educational qualification plus a particular quantum of service experience. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances it was held that it cannot, be said, that the choice of the State was either to recognise Diploma-holders as "eligible" for promotion or wholly exclude them as "not eligible". If the educational qualification by itself was recognised as conferring eligibility for promotion, the super-imposition of further condi tions such as a particular period of Service, selectively, on the Diploma-holders alone to their disadvantage might become discriminatory. " 16. In the instant case before us eligibility determination was not made by a cumulative criterion of a certain educational plus a particular quantum of service experience. The educational qualification of lecturers imparting education either in Graduate or Post Graduate are similar. As far as the quantum of service experience is concerned, the petitioner stand of a better footing in comparison of those teachers who were recruited to teach Post Graduate classes subsequently, 17. It has been admitted in the supplementary counter-affidavit as well that the petitioner has been teaching the Post Graduate classes, hence It was not within the power of the State Government] to discriminate between the petitioner and alike lecturer with the lecturers who teach in Post Graduate classes, when the minimum eduational qualification, the duties and obligations which they discharge, the grade which they get are similar. In view of the aforesaid situation we feel that the impugned Rule 20 (1 ) (c), if tested on the scale of equality discriminates the lecturers belonging to one cadre, whose minimum qualifications, duties, obligations and scale of pay are similar. Such an action on the part of the State is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly the petition deserved to succeed. 18. In view of what we have indicated here-iii-above, a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring Rule 20 (1 ) (c) of U. P. Higher Education (Group-A) Service Rules, 1985 ultra vires and unconstitutional is vitiated. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued commanding the opposite-parties to place the name of the petitioner in the seniority list, ignoring the aforesaid rule, in accordance with rules and procedure prescribed for determining the seniority, as we have indicated in the body of the judgment. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued commanding the opposite-parties to place the name of the petitioner in the seniority list, ignoring the aforesaid rule, in accordance with rules and procedure prescribed for determining the seniority, as we have indicated in the body of the judgment. However we indicate that the promotions which have already been made in pursuance of Rule 20 (1 ) (c) would not be upset due to our declaration of the said rule as ultra vires, but the petitioner would be entitled for national promotion within a period of three months from the dale their juniors were promoted. Petition allowed. .