Koshy, J.

The short question to be considered in these Writ Petitions is whether the ratio of 1:1 fixed between diploma holders and certificate holders for promotion to the post of Head Computer in the computing branch of the Government Presses governed by the Government Press Subordinate Service Rules, 1976 is correct or not Petitioner in OP.No.16867 of 1995 is a diploma holder in Printing Technology. Petitioners in OP.Nos.12952 and 17419 of 1995 are certificate holders. All petitioner were working in the same feeder category of Computing Supervisor. According to the special rules issued vide G.O.(P)No.327/76/PD dated 22-9-1976, qualification of diploma in Printing Technology was prescribed as one of the essential qualifications for supervisory posts like General Foreman, Head Computer etc. Thereafter, there were several representations in order to minimise the hardships of the non-diploma holders who were in service. Government, subsequently, amended the Special Rules with effect from 30-1-1978 as per G.O.(P). No.100/80/H.Edn. dated 1-7-1980 by substituting the following Note:

"Promotion of persons qualified under item 2 (a) and 2 (b) above shall be made in the ratio 1:1 starting with promotion of persons qualified under item 2 (a). If no person qualified under item 2 (a) is available for promotion, the turn of promotion will be given to the person qualified under item 2 (b) and vice versa:

Provided that no senior diploma holder shall be superseded by a junior certificate holder:

Provided further that the benefit of ratio of 1:1 forfeited by the certificate holder by virtue of the promotion of the senior diploma holder shall be restored to the certificate holder in the next arising vacancy."

According to the certificate holders, since they were working in the same feeder category and discharging the same functions, they should be treated alike with diploma holders. Contention of the petitioner in O.P.No.16867 of 1995, who is a diploma holder, is dig appointment should be made strictly according to the Special Rules as amended.

2. The sole question to be considered is whether fixation of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to higher posts between diploma holders and certificate holders is constitutionally valid or not. In Daniel v. State of Kerala 1985 K.L.T. 1057 and in the unreported decision in W.A.No.149 of 1990 dated 14-1-1992 (Ext.P-4 in O.P.No.12952 of 1995) held dig the ratio of 1:1 between diploma holders and certificate holders in the Government Press Subordinate Service for promotion is unconstitutional. In Daniels's case (supra) the Division Bench held that classification cannot be made on microscopic distinction and, therefore, the very same provisions alleged in this case was said to be unconstitutional. In Ravindran v. State of Kerala 1992 (1) KLT 524 a Division Bench of this court held that the Note made by the amendment in 1980 providing a ratio of 1:1 for promotion between diploma holders and certificate holders is not discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court considered the decision in Daniel's case (supra). But, it was not followed. M. Jagannadha Rao, Chief Justice (as he then was) considered Daniel's case and observed as follows:

"Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Daniel v. State of Kerala (1985 KLT 1057). That was also a case relating to the Government Presses Subordinate Service Rules, 1976 (Kerala) and that related to Note to Branch Nos.1 and 9, whereas in the case before us we are concerned with Branch No.10. In that case, the prescription of ratio 1:1 was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in so far as Branches 1 and 9 are concerned, and the relevant Note appended to rules in relation to Branches I and 9 was struck down. We do not find much of discussion in the short Judgment of the Division Bench in the above case, and we find only the following reasoning:

In the light of the