For Petitioners.— Sri Saigi Jacob palatty, Sri C.P Sudhakara Prasad and Sri N. Reghuraj.

For Respondents.— Sri Elvin Peter, P.J Government Pleader (M.K Abubacker).

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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 O.P No. 16867 of 1995 is a diploma holder in Printing Technology. Petitioners in O.P Nos. 12952 and 17419 of 1995 are certificate holders. All petitioners 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 September, 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 January, 1978 as per G.O (P) No. 100/80.H. Edn., dated 1 July, 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 underitem 2(a). If no person qualified underitem (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Provided that no senior diploma holder shall be superseded by a junior certificate holder: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 that 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 higherposts between diplomaholders and certificate holders is constitutionally valid or not. In Daniel v. State of Kerala [1986 (1) L.L.N 275], and in the unreported decision in W.A No. 149 of 1990, dated 14 January, 1992 (Exhibit P4 in O.P No. 12952 of 1995) held that the ratio of 1:1 between diploma holders and certificate holders in the Government Press Subordinate Service forpromotion is unconstitutional. In Daniels case (vide 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) K.L.T 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 Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court considered the decision in Daniel case (vide supra). But, it was not followed. Sri M. Jagannadha Rao, Chief Justice (as he then was) considered Daniel 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 [1986 (1) L.L.N 275] (vide supra). 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 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 (1974) 1 SCC 19 : A.I.R 1974 S.C 1, (1975) 3 SCC 76 : A.I.R 1974 S.C 1631, 1983 K.L.T 987, 1983 K.L.T 878, D.L.R 1981 Ker. 527 and 1975 K.L.T 1, we have no doubt at a II 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 Exhibit P2.”

So far as the decision in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa [(1974) 1 SCC 19 : A.I.R 1974 S.C 1], is concerned relied on in Daniel case, 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 classification in the matter of future promotion. After referring to 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 violate Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be upheld.”

In the unreported decision in Writ Appeal No. 149 of 1990, the Court only followed Daniel case [1986 (1) L.L.N 275] (vide supra).

3. In Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala [1990 (1) K.L.T 66] a Division Bench of this Court considered various cases of the Supreme Court and held in a case relating to Engineering Service (Radio and Electrical Branches) Rules, 1967 that the ratio of 1:1 was provided between graduates and non-graduates assistant engineers for further promotion after they had come into a common cadre. The Division Bench upheld the said ratio as the question is no more res Integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. T.N Khosa [(1974) 1 SCC 19 : A.I.R 1974 S.C 1] (vide supra). The matter was considered by the Apex Court in subsequent decisions also. After reviewing all the case law, the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Association, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board [1997 (2) L.L.N 43], held that educational qualification can be made for the basis of classification of employees. The Court also referred to the decisions in State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao [A.I.R 1968 S.C 349] and in V. Markendeya v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Para. 9, at page 48, of Rajasthan case (vide supra), the Supreme Court held as follows:

“As per the decisions of this Court the position is well-settled that educational qualifications can be made the basis for classification of employees in State service in the matter of pay-scales, promotion, etc., Provisions for giving higher pay-scale to employees possessing higher qualifications have been upheld as valid by this Court. (See State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao [A.I.R 1968 S.C 349] (vide supra) and V. Markendeya v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1989 (1) L.L.N 815] (vide supra). Similarly in the matter of promotion classification on the basis of educational qualifications so as to deny eligibility for promotion to a higher post to an employee possessing lesser qualification or requiring longer experience for those possessing lesser qualifications has been upheld as valid by this Court.”

4. In K.R Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board [2001 (1) L.L.N 871], it was held that classification of employees for the purpose of promotion depending upon classification and experience is valid and bifurcation of the promotees' quota in the post of junior engineer in the ratio of 1:1 was held valid. The Supreme Court also held that the concept of equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. All that Art. 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The guarantee of equal protection of law and equality before the law does not prohibit reasonable classification and the classification based on technical qualification cannot be held to be discriminatory.

5. Latest decision reported on this point is Chandravathi, P.K v. C.K Saji [2004 (2) L.L.N 52]. There, the Supreme Court considered an identical provision in the Kerala Engineering Service (General Branch) Rules and the Apex Court held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to fix separate quota for promotion for degree holders, diploma holders and certificate holders in exercise of its rule making power under Art. 309 of the Constitution. A three-member Bench of the Apex Court considered all the previous decisions on the point and held that it is well-settled law that classification on the basis of educational qualification is a reasonable one and satisfies the doctrine of equality, adumbrated in Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The decision reported in 1986 (1) L.L.N 275 and the unreported decision in W.A No. 149 of 1990 are contrary to the various authoritative decisions of the Apex Courts Therefore, we overrule the same. The decision reported in 1992 (1) K.L.T 524 is affirmed. We hold that the impugned amendment made in the Special. Rules' for the Government Presses Subordinate Service providing ratio of 1:1 for promotion to higher posts between diploma holders and certificate holders is not discriminatory and it is not violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Government is bound to effect promotions on the basis of the amended Special Rules.

In the result, O.P Nos. 17419 of 1995 and 12952 of 1995 are dismissed and O.P No. 16867 of 1995 is allowed and we direct the second respondent to dispose of Exhibit P3 representation and grant promotion, if he is otherwise entitled, in accordance with the amended Special Rules from the respective dates. The judgment should be implemented within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.