ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State in both the writ applications. 2. The questions of law and facts for consideration in both the applications are common. They are thus disposed by a common order. Counter affidavit has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 5581 of 2010. In C.W.J.C. No. 7016 of 2009, learned counsel for the State acknowledges receipt of instructions but is unable to assist the Court from the same on the legality of the sub classification sought to be done under Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the post of non-matric Sarkari Amin held by them is a feeder post along with non Matric Karamchari for the next promotional post of Circle Inspector and next as Assistant Settlement Officer. The non-matric holders of the feeder post therefore form a class. Difference in pay scale consequent to grant of A.C.P. may be justified between matriculates and non matriculates. But, there can be no differentiation for grant of A.C.P. scale between persons who form a class of non matriculates. This sub classification between persons who form a class is not permissible in Article 14. Non-matriculate Karamchari and Sarkari Amin have to be given an uniform A.C.P. scale. 4. The respondents in their counter affidavit state at Paragraph-7 that “Karamchari must be matriculate and petitioners have been appointed on non-matriculate, hence petitioners are not entitled to get the promotion of Circle Inspector”. The language is a little incomprehensible. Does it mean that only matriculates are entitled to be appointed as Karamchari as distinct from a Sarkari Amin who can also be appointed being a non matriculate. Does it mean that difference in A.C.P scale has been done between Karamchari who are matriculates and Sarkari Amin who are non-matriculates. Clarity of expression would perhaps have helped the Court in concluding matter decisively. 15. Article 14 of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination between a class of persons permits classification by grouping persons who form a class together as different from others. But there can be no sub-classification within a class. 16. In (2005) 1 SCC 394 (E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of A.P) it has been observed at Pargraph-43 as follows:– “43. 15. Article 14 of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination between a class of persons permits classification by grouping persons who form a class together as different from others. But there can be no sub-classification within a class. 16. In (2005) 1 SCC 394 (E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of A.P) it has been observed at Pargraph-43 as follows:– “43. The very fact that the members of the Scheduled Castes are most backward amongst the backward classes and the impugned legislation having already proceeded on the basis that they are not adequately represented both in terms of clause (4) of Article 15 and clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution, a further classification by way of micro-classification is not permissible. Such classification of the members of different classes of people based on their respective castes would also be violative of the doctrine of reasonableness…….” 7. The matter has to be remanded to respondent no. 2 for a fresh decision by reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order discussing all aspects of the matter including the grounds for such distinction between holders of the feeder post who may be both non-matriculates. 8. It is expected that if the respondents finds justification in the claim or in any part of the claim, necessary consequential orders shall be issued simultaneously. 9. The application stands disposed.