Koshy, J.

The main challenge in the Writ Petitions is the requirement of a University degree for the promotion to the post of Section Officer prescribed by the Syndicate in its resolution dated 112.2000. The post of Selection Grade Assistant is the feeder category for promotion to the post of Section Officer. Formerly, no particular educational qualification was prescribed for the post of Section Officer. By Ext.P5 resolution dated 27.2000 in W.P.(C).No.36498 of 2000 passed in the joint meeting of the Standing Committee, it was recommended as follows:

“6. The minimum general qualification required for promotion from the feeder category of Selection Grade Assistants to section Officers is fixed as a University Degree.

Provided that in the case of Selection Grade Assistants who do not possess University degree as on the date of the Syndicate decision be exempted from acquiring the minimum prescribed educational qualification. Steps are taken to incorporate the above provision in the ordinance.”

It was accepted by the Syndicate in its resolution dated 112.2000, but it was decided that those Assistant in Service without degree would be exempted till 312.2002 (Ext.P7 resolution). The above resolution of the Syndicate was also placed before the Senate and the Senate at its meeting held on 30.3.2001 considered and approved the amendment to Ordinance 2(3) relating to the nonteaching posts. The Chancellor gave assent for the amendment to the Ordinance on 12.2004. As per amended Schedule even for direct recruitment to the feeder category, University degree is compulsory. For the post of Assistant Grade II also, University degree is compulsory. The contentions of the petitioners which were accepted by the single Judge was that prescription of University degree has no nexus considering the duties carried out by the petitioners. It is also noticed by the learned single Judge that some unions made representation and on the basis of the representation such a representation was passed without any necessity. It was argued before us that the petitioners who were in service before the amendment of the Schedule to the Ordinance should be promoted without considering the conditions in the Ordinance. It is also argued that since the Chancellor gave assent only in 2004, even if the amendment to the Ordinance is correct and the Syndicate decision is valid, it is valid only when the Chancellor gave assent. It is also submitted that this is a vanishing category as at present, for being appointed in the feeder category also graduation is necessary and most of the petitioners have reached the age of superannuation and therefore their rights shall not be affected.

2. First we shall consider the argument that there is no nexus for the requirement of higher qualification. It is the admitted fact that the post of Section Officer is a supervisory post. The University is not only dealing with the under graduate students but also students who are studying for post-graduate and Doctorate Courses. A large number of employees are working in the University. As per the new amendment even Assistant Grade II post required degree. Therefore almost all the Assistants have degree. It is true that in the feeder category the appointments also are made from direct recruits and the promotion is at the ratio of 2:1. But once they are merged into one service, they became single category and therefore for their further promotion, only the required qualification in the promotion post need be looked into. Those who have not the required qualification is not entitled to be promoted. The employees who are in service also bound by valid amendments as there is no fundamental right or vested right for promotion. Of course, those who got promotion as per the existing rules cannot be reverted because of the subsequent change in the service rules. These matters were settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu &

Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa – A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1 and