The validity of the 1:1 ratio for promotion between diploma holders and certificate holders was upheld based on its relevance to the object sought to be achieved.

Jagannadha Rao, CJ.

This Writ Petition of the year 1981, which was referred to a Division Bench on 3-2-1986 was adjourned on 13-1-1988 for being heard after the decision of the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed against another judgment in O.P.No.1851 of 1984. The Supreme Court has since dismissed the Special Leave Petition, SLP (Civil) 4663 of 1990 on 9-4-1990. Thereafter the matter has now come up before us.

2. The writ petitioner was recruited as Junior Mechanic on 9-11-1971. He possesses SSLC qualification and the Industrial Training Course Certificate in the subject of general mechanic. Special Rules for the Kerala Government Presses Subordinate Service were published on 22-9-1976 as per Ext. P1, prescribing the method for promotion to the superior posts. In these rules, it was stipulated that diploma holders would have preference over non-diploma holders for promotion to the superior posts. Subsequently the said Rules were amended by Ext. P4 Rules dated 1-7-1980 with retrospective effect from 30-1-1978 by G.O.(P) No. 100/80. By way of this amendment diploma holders and certificate holders were promoted to the superior posts on the basis of the ratio 1:1. When the writ petition was filed, the petitioner was working as Assistant Mechanic, and he claimed promotion to' the post of Senior Mechanic. Obviously the petitioner relied upon seniority in the category to which he belongs, and claimed that another person belonging to the same category would not be preferred for promotion as Senior Mechanic, merely because that person was a diploma holder. The petitioner, therefore, sought for quashing of the ratio 1:1 prescribed by Ext. P4 amendment by G.O.(P) No. 100/80, which was to have retrospective effect from 30-1-1978. The point made by the petitioner is that once the employees are brought into the same category, or are in the same category, no discrimination should be made for the purpose of higher promotion.

3. 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 land 9 are concerned, and the relevant Note appended to rules in relation to branches 1 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 decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC1, AIR 1974 SC 1631, 1983 KLT 987,1983 KLT 878, ILR 1981 (2) Ker. 527 and 1975 KLT 1, we have no doubt at all that this classification on microscopic distinction could not be allowed. We would therefore strike down the notes to Branch Nos.1 and 9 named in Ext. P2."

So far as the decision in the State of Jammu & Kashmir v. TrilokiNath Khosa, AIR 1974 SC 1 is concerned, we find that that could not have been an authority for the proposition that no classification could be made for further promotion on the basis of the difference in educational qualification. In fact the said decision is an authority for the proposition that difference in educational qualification could be a ground for discrimination in the matter of future promotion. After referring to the several decisions, the Supreme Court concluded in paragraph 55 as follows:

"We are therefore of the opinion that though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could, for purposes of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. The rule providing that graduates shall be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion of diploma holders does not viol