S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner sri R. V. V. Suryanarayana Raju on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years retired from service with effect from 31. 12. 1997 when he was holding the post of Assistant Registrar in the N. G. Ranga agricultural University, the 1st respondent herein. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition filed by him before his retirement, he has assailed the validity of Regulation 33 (b) (i) of N. G. Ranga agricultural University (conditions of service) Regulations 1965 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the University to continue him in service till he attains the age of 60 years. ( 3 ) THIS Court while issuing Rule nisi on 23. 12. 1997 granted interim direction directing the 1st respondent University to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years. However, the said interim order was subsequently vacated at the behest of the 1st respondent University in W. V. M. P. No. 3908/ 97 on 2. 1. 1998. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of this Court has preferred W. A. No. 507 of 1998. This court did not pass any interim order in the writ Appeal. Hence both the writ petition and Writ Appeal are posted before this Bench for final hearing. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for N. G. Ranga agricultural University. ( 5 ) SRI G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the University cannot make a difference between teaching staff and non-teaching staff in the matter of fixing the age of superannuation and the classification now made in the impugned Rule is not based on any rationale and therefore, the impugned rule is totally unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. The learned counsel would draw our attention to sub-section (6-A) of Section 43 of the A. P. Agricultural University Act, 1963 (as amended by Act 11 of 1964 ). The learned counsel would draw our attention to sub-section (6-A) of Section 43 of the A. P. Agricultural University Act, 1963 (as amended by Act 11 of 1964 ). It reads as under:"notwithstanding anything in sub-section (6), every such teacher or other employee of the Government or the osmania University, as the case may be shall, within a period of two months from the date of commencement of the andhra Pradesh Agricultural University (Amendment) Act, 1974, exercise his opinion to revert to the service under the Government or the Osmania university, as the case may be, to which he belongs, failing which he shall be deemed to have been absorbed in the service of the University with effect from the date notified by the Government under sub-section (1) and shall from the said date, be governed by the terms and conditions governing the said service; provided that: (i) the terms and conditions offered by the University to such teachers and other employees consequent on their absorption in the service of the university shall not be less favourable than those applicable to such teachers and other employees" ( 6 ) THE learned counsel would maintain that by virtue of the above provisions and having regard to the fact that subsequently the Osmania University, has also increased the age of superannuation up to 60 years for the non-teaching staff, the 1st respondent university ought to have extended the same treatment to the non-teaching staff also to which the petitioner belongs and the refusal to do so results in an invidious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel would further contend that in the case of some members of the non-teaching staff, the 1st respondent university itself, continued their service till they attained the age of 60 years by virtue of the interim orders granted by the Court and therefore, there is no justification in not extending the service of the petitioner too, till he attained the age of superannuation of 60 years. ( 7 ) SRI B. Shiva Reddy, learned standing Counsel of the university, on the other hand would maintain that the classification made by the University in the impugned Rule is based on a sound rationale and the validity of such classifications have been consistently upheld by the constitutional Courts. ( 7 ) SRI B. Shiva Reddy, learned standing Counsel of the university, on the other hand would maintain that the classification made by the University in the impugned Rule is based on a sound rationale and the validity of such classifications have been consistently upheld by the constitutional Courts. In support of his submission, the learned Standing counsel would place reliance on the judgment of a full Bench of this Court in S. Rama Rao vs. J. N. Technological University, AIR 1978 ap 264 and the Judgment of the Supreme court in State of West Bengal and Others vs. Gopal Chandra Paul and others, 1995 supp (3) SCC 327. ( 8 ) THE relevant provisions of Rule 33 read as under:rule 33. Retirement and Extension: a) The age of retirement for teachers shall be 60 years provided that it shall be competent for the appointing authority to review the case of any teacher at any time after he attains the age of 55 years and retire him, without assigning any reason, giving three months prior notice or after paying him three months salary in lieu of such notice. b) (i) The age of retirement of the employees other than those mentioned in clause (a) shall be 58 years provided that the appointing authority may retire an employee from service in public interest, after giving him at least three month s notice or at least three months salary in lieu of such notice at any time after completing twenty five years of qualifying service of attaining fifty years of age" b) (ii) The age of retirement of the Class-IV employees shall be 60 years, provided that the appointing authority may retire an employee from service in public interest, after giving him at least 3 month s notice or at least three months salary in lieu of such notice at any time after completing twenty five years of qualifying service or attaining fifty five years of age" ( 9 ) THE regulations are framed by the university by virtue of the powers delegated to it under Section-40 of the Act read with statute-9. ( 10 ) NO doubt, different age of superannuation has been fixed under Sub-Rule (a) and (b) for teaching and non- teaching staff. ( 10 ) NO doubt, different age of superannuation has been fixed under Sub-Rule (a) and (b) for teaching and non- teaching staff. It is also true that in the case of Class-IV employees of the University, the age of superannuation is fixed at 60 years as per clause (b) (ii) of Rule-33. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to see whether the classification made by the university under the impugned Rule can be justified on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or not. Since the guarantee of equal protection embraces the entire realm of "state action", it would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against, in the matter of exercise of his rights or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon him, but also in the matter of granting privileges, benefits and gratuities etc. However, it is pertinent to notice that what article 14 of the Constitution prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation as held by the Apex Court in Budhan chowdhry vs. State of Bihar, air 1955 SC 191 and a large number of other authorities to follow the said judgment. If the legislature or rule making authority takes care to reasonably classify persons for legislative purposes and if it deals equally with all persons belonging to a "well defined class", it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that the law does not apply to other persons. However, in order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, viz. , (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from other left out of the group and (ii) that, that differential must have a relational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute in question. ( 11 ) IN the counter filed by the agricultural University, the 1st respondent herein in para-5 it is stated, thus:"it may be mentioned here that teachers and non-teachers belong to two distinct streams of service. Their nature of duties, qualifications, mode of recruitment and pay scales etc. , are different. They are two separate and distinct categories and they are not similarly situated. Their nature of duties, qualifications, mode of recruitment and pay scales etc. , are different. They are two separate and distinct categories and they are not similarly situated. It is settled principles of law that Article 14 of the Constitution applies and is attracted when there is invidious and hostile discrimination among the same category of employees and classification is arbitrary and by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the classification between Teachers and non- teachers is arbitrary so as to attract article 14 of the Constitution of India. The superannuation falls within area of policy matters of the University and as a policy the University adopting the age of retirement for its non-teaching employees on par with Government employees". ( 12 ) IN S. Rama Rao s case (supra), the validity of categorization of the employees of the Jawaharlal Nehru technological University fixing different ages of superannuation fell for consideration. A Full Bench of this Court has opined that the classification made by way of categorization of the members of the staff of the University grouping them under academic service and subordinate service on the one hand and grouping others under administrative and ministerial service on the other hand is rational, reasonable and justifiable and is founded on an intelligible differentia and therefore, it would not violate article 14 of the Constitution of India. In gopal Chandra Paul s case (supra), the supreme Court too upheld the classification made in the matter of fixation of age of superannuation between the teaching staff and the inspecting staff and therefore, it cannot be said that the classification made and the impugned Rule fixing different ages of superannuation to the ministerial staff is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution nor should it be held that such a classification results in an invidious discrimination to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the constitution. No ground is made out by the petitioner for granting the relief. Therefore, we uphold the validity of Regulation 33 (b) (ii) of the Regulations and dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs.