The precise controversy that calls for solution in this writ petition is whether the writ petitioner who was appointed as Head Librarian in the Tripura Engineering College is entitled to the scale of pay recommended by All India Council for Technical Education and accepted by the Govt of India. 2. It would be relevant to place on record that this petition was earlier allowed by a Single Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.5.1993. But the Division Bench, in appeal, set aside the said judgment and remitted back the case for decision afresh after enabling the respondents to file counter affidavit. 3.I have examined the pleadings of respective parties. It would appear that the petitioner was appointed as Head Librarian in Tripura Engineering College, on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission vide notification dated 11.9.69 (Annexure 1). For a brief spell, he was posted in the Postgraduate Centre, Agartala on foreign service terms. In the month of June, 1979 his services were withdrawn from the Postgraduate Centre and consequent thereupon he was posted to his substantive post of Head Librarian, Tripura Engineering College (vide Annexure 2). In the same year, the petitioner was deputed to serve as Senior Librarian in Nigeria vide Annexure 3. On completion of the terms of deputation, he was repatriated to his substantive post as Head Librarian in Tripura Engineering College. 4. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), issued a notification No.F6-l/88-T5 dated 28.2.89 calling upon the States/Union Territories to revise the pay scales of teachers, librarians, and physical instructors of Engineering Colleges and other Degree level educational institutions as per recommendation of Dogra Committee (Annexures 4 and 5). It is relevant to mention here that the recommendations of Dogra Committee was accepted by the All India Council for Technical Education, for short AICTE, in its meeting dated 8.1.88. 5. The Govt of Tripura implemented the revised pay scale for all the posts in the Tripura Engineering College, namely, Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Professors, Principals and other staffs to the exclusion of the petitioner who at that time was working as Head Librarian. According to the petitioner, his exclusion is an example of hostile discrimination and violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. According to the petitioner, his exclusion is an example of hostile discrimination and violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. The respondent State in their counter, however, submitted that the post of Head Librarian is a transferable post. According to them posts of Head Librarian are also there in MBB College, Birchan State Central Library and Poly Institute. The holders of the posts in the aforesaid colleges are liable to be transferred from one institution to another under the Education Department and the petitioner had also served as Head Librarian in other institutions. Relying on the recruitment rules for the post of Head Librarian in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution the respondents pleaded that the post being one in the cadre of Head Librarian meant for different institutions in the State of Tripura, the case of the petitioner cannot be singled out for conferring the benefit of scale recommended by the AICTE. 7. The controversy being as above, let us look into the nature of the recommendation made by the All India Council for Technical Education. It would appear from Annexure 5 of the writ petition that the Ministry of Human Resources, Development Department vide letter dated 28th February, 1989 communicated the decision of the Govt of India to implement the scheme of revision of pay scales of teachers of Engineering College and Technical Institutions including the Librarians and Physical Education Instructors with effect from January 1, 1986. The revision of the pay scales has been reflected in the Appendix thereof. In para 5 of the said letter, the State Govt were addressed as follows : “The State Govts, after taking local conditions into consideration, may also decide in their discretion, to introduce scales of pay different from those mentioned in the scheme and may give effect to the revised pay from January 1, 1986 or a latter date. In such cases the details of modifications proposed either to the scales of pay, or the date from which the scheme is to be implemented, should be furnished to the Govt of India for its approval. In such cases the details of modifications proposed either to the scales of pay, or the date from which the scheme is to be implemented, should be furnished to the Govt of India for its approval. Subject to the approval being accorded to the proposed modifications, Central assistance on the same terms and conditions as indicated above will be available to the State Govts for implementation of the scheme with those modifications provided that the modified scales of pay are not higher than those approved under the scheme.” It would appear from the scheme annexed with the said letter that the State Govt was left with the discretion to accept and implement the recommendation. The State Govt, on consideration of the recommendation of the Union Govt, decided to implement the revised pay scales to the members of the teaching staff. The Librarian of the Engineering College (writ petitioner) was excluded from the purview of the revised pay scale. On this context, this Court is required to examine whether the Govt decision in not implementing the recommendation of the All India Council for Technical Education relating to the post of Librarian has been discriminatory and offends the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. It is now the settled principle of law that the scope of Article 16 of the Constitution is wide enough to include all matters connected with the employment including the salary. In order to succeed, a petitioner has to establish that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equality of work' enshrined in Article 39(d) has been violated or that the revised pay scales has been denied to him while it has been extended to other employees of the same cadre without any rational justification. Only in one of the said two alternatives, writ of Mandamus would issue to give relief. 9. The State Govt has taken the plea that the post of Head Librarian in the Tripura Engineering College held by the petitioner is and was interchangeable with the post of Head Librarian in MBB College, Birchand State Central Library and Poly Institute, and the post of Head Librarian in Tripura Engineering College being one of the cadre posts of Librarians in the State of Tripura cannot be J singled out as a special case for discriminatory treatment. In support of this, the recruitment rules at Annexure A to the counter filed by the State may be looked into. It would appear that the recruitment rules were framed in exercise of the powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution with effect from 11.9.79. It would appear from the notification (Annexure A) that there are three posts, one each for MBB College, Tripura Engineering College and Birchand Public Library. In addition, powers, have been reserved for creation of additional posts for other institutions. This Rules of 1979 has been followed by the Education Department since its enforcement. Since this Rules is framed under the provisions of the Constitution, it has the force of law and under the provisions of this law the post of Head Librarian of Tripura Engineering College appears to have been made a cadre post of Head Librarians meant for other institutions from the year 1979, if not from before. This recruitment rules is not in challenge in this writ petition. The pleadings also show that the petitioner also accepted posting to other institutes by way of transfer, this post of Head Librarian having been placed at par with Head Librarians of other institutes, the incumbent of the post, i.e. the petitioner will have to be treated at par with his counterparts in other institutes. This position can not be altered although the petitioner was appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission in pursuance of an advertisement made specifically for a single post. Although the petitioner joined the post of Head Librarian long before the framing of the recruitment rules in 1979, there being no right vested in him, he shall be subject to the changes brought into force by the competent authorities. Such variations made subsequently shall be legal and valid unless it affects any right legally vested in him. Therefore, the petitioner cannot but be treated as one of the three incumbents of the posts of Head Librarians. This makes the positions clear. The post he hold prior to his superannuation was interchangeable. 10. The petitioner is also guilty of laches in preferring this writ petition in the year 1993 after maintaining silence for about 14 years. The Rules framed in 1979 are still in force. The post held by the petitioner can not be treated as separate entity beyond the Rules. 11. The post he hold prior to his superannuation was interchangeable. 10. The petitioner is also guilty of laches in preferring this writ petition in the year 1993 after maintaining silence for about 14 years. The Rules framed in 1979 are still in force. The post held by the petitioner can not be treated as separate entity beyond the Rules. 11. From the discussion above, it transpires that the post of Head Librarian of Tripura Engineering College along with similar posts in MBB College, Birchand State Central Library and Poly Institute constitute a common cadre of Head Librarians in the State of Tripura. It is not the petitioner's case that the State has extended the revised scale to other members of the cadre. His case is based on a wrongly perceived theoretical inequality in giving the benefit or revised scales to the Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers. This cannot be treated as a case of actual discrimination distinguishable from an abstract inequality. In the opinion of this Court., this also can not be treated as a case in unequal treatment or discrimination amongst similarly situated persons, and the differentiation appears to be well footed on intelligible criteria. The State, therefore committed no violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. My attention has been brought to a judgment passed by Division Bench of this High Court in Civil Rule No.264 of 1980 where the writ petitioner Naray an Chandra Paul was directed to be given pay scale as per recommendations under consideration. It is pertinent to mention that Shri Paul was working as Workshop Superintendent in Tripura Engineering College and the post held by him was treated as equal to that the Assistant Professor. The judgment does not indicate as to whether the post of Workshop Superintendent was relatable to any cadre common to Tripura Engineering College or other institutes within the State of Tripura. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this High Court in the aforesaid case has no application so far the present writ petitioner is concerned. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, no costs.