( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the decision of the State government to impose a qualification test on the petitioners before granting them the new scales of pay and praying for an order directing the State to place the petitioners in the aforesaid higher revised scale of pay unconditionally.

( 2 ) THE facts, as stated in the affidavit supporting the petitioners, are these. The petitioners, who are 37 in number, are Auditors in the Cooperative Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. They have varying lengths of services to their credit, the number of years for each is being specified iu paragraph 5 of the affidavit. They have been engaged in what the petitioners describe as the "highly qualified work of auditing. " At the time of the recruitment of the petitioners the minimum educational qualification was the passing of the Intermediate examination or any equivalent examination thereof. Previously the entire auditing Department consisted of a single section, in which every Auditor enjoyed the same status and rate of pay. But, with the growth of Cane Co-operative Societies in Uttar Pradesh, the Department was split up in two sections, the Cane Co-operative Societies Auditing Section and Co-operative Societies auditing Section (General), to be called hereinafter as the Cane Auditors and General Auditors respectively. Since the splitting up of the Department, the oetitioners have been placed in the general Section.

( 3 ) IN the year 1948 a committee was appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider and suggest revision of pay of the State employees in different Departments. It is generally known as the U. P. Pay Committee. It made certain recom-mendations for raising the scales of pay for the auditors of the Cooperative Department. These were partially accepted by the Government. The petitioners contend that the auditors in the Cane Department, who at one time formed part of the auditors of the Cooperative Department, were sanctioned a revised scale of pay in the grade of rs. 120-6-200-E. B. 10-250. No qualifying test was prescribed in their case to enable them to enjoy the revised scale of pay. The same grade of pay was sanctioned for the General Auditors including the petitioners. But in their case a qualification test was prescribed by the Department.

( 4 ) THE petitioners grievance is that the imposition of this test on the auditors in the Cooperative department (General) is arbitrary and unjust, and amounts to illegal discrimination between the general Auditors and the Cane Auditors. They allege that there is no difference in the work and qualification of Auditors employed in the two Branches of the Cooperative Audit Department. The experience of the employees in the two Departments is not distinguishable. There is no reasonable basis for distinguishing between the employees of the two Departments for the purpose of revising their scales of pay. The petitioners further contend that there is no difference in the nature of the work, to be done by the Auditors of the two Sections or the responsibility imposed on both of them. The petitioners further contend that the decision to revise the scale of pay was based on the consideration that changed economic conditions required higher scale of pay. It was not due to a decision to impose better or superior qualifications. Therefore, the re- quirement of a qualification test from the general Auditors while exempting the Cane Auditors amounts to an arbitrary discrimination against the former class of Auditors against which the petitioners have come to this court under article 226 of the Constitution and pray for the reliefs mentioned above.

( 5 ) THE petition is opposed by the State of: Uttar Pradesh and a counter affidavit has been filed on its behalf. A preliminary objection has been taken that a joint writ petition containing a prayer for mandamus cannot be filed on behalf of 35 persons. The counter affidavit states t