ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - The petitioner No. 1. A.K. Banerji. is working as a Senior Welfare Inspector in the Office of the Chief Personnel Officer which is in class III grade in the personnel department. Petitioner No. 2 B.P. Pandey is also working as Office Superintendent in the Chief Personnel Officer's Office, a post borne in grade III of the Personnel Branch. Both the officers were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer in grade II, a gazetted Post. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the Indian Railways Personnel Officer (Class II). Recruitment Rules. 1965, as amended in 1967, 1973 and 1974. 2. The Indian Railways Personnel Officers (Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1965 as amended in 1967, 1973 and 1974 lay down field of eligibility for promotion from grade III to grade II posts in the Personnel Branch. The manner of selection is also laid down in the said rules. The petitioners contend that the field of eligibility as laid down for promotion to class II posts in the Personnel Branch is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution as it practises discrimination against the petitioners in the matter of promotion. Rule 2 of the said rules lays down that recruitment to class II post in the Personnel Branch shall be made by promotion through selection which includes viva voce and written test. Permanent employees of class III grade of the Personnel Branch and the ministerial staff of the Civil Engineering, Transportation (Traffic) and Commercial. Transportation (Power) and Mechanical Engineering, Signal and telecommunication, Electrical Engineering, Medical Departments and Railway Protection Force and General Administration are eligible to appear at the selection. All the permanent and ministerial staff of the aforesaid departments who fulfil the field of eligibility with regard to the period of service and scale of Pay etc. as laid down in the rules are eligible for promotion to the most of Assistant Personnel Officer, class II post in the Personnel Branch. All the permanent and ministerial staff of the aforesaid departments who fulfil the field of eligibility with regard to the period of service and scale of Pay etc. as laid down in the rules are eligible for promotion to the most of Assistant Personnel Officer, class II post in the Personnel Branch. The petitioners' grievance is that even though the ministerial staff of grade III of the aforesaid departments is eligible for promotion in the Personnel Branch, the petitioners and other similarly situated persons belonging to class III grade of personnel Branch are not eligible for promotion to class II posts borne on the cadre of the aforesaid departments as a result of which discrimination is being practised against the petitioners in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution in matters relating to promotion. 3. Article 16 is wide enough to include the matter of Promotion and if there is discrimination in the matter of promotion between the persons holding position in the same grade. Article 16 would be attracted. But for purposes of promotion to a selection most a reasonable classification is permissible having regard to the nature of duties and functions of the most for which promotion may be made. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36. Applying the said principle in Kishori Mohan Lal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 , the Supreme Court laid down that if some of the Income-tax Officers of the same grade, are eligible for promotion to a superior grade and others are not, the question of contravention of Article 16 may well arise. But no such question can arise at all when the rules make Income-tax Officer of Class I eligible for appointment as Assistant Commissioner, but make Income-tax Officers class II eligible for promotion as Income Tax Officers of class I but not for promotion to the most of Assistant Commissioners. There is no denial in such a case of equality of opportunity as among citizens holding posts of the same grade. As between persons holding posts in different grades in Government service there can be no question of equality of opportunity. Art. 16 does not forbid the creation of different grades in the Government service. 4. There is no denial in such a case of equality of opportunity as among citizens holding posts of the same grade. As between persons holding posts in different grades in Government service there can be no question of equality of opportunity. Art. 16 does not forbid the creation of different grades in the Government service. 4. The above observations of the Supreme Court make it clear that the question of discrimination can be raised in the same class of posts and in the same grade, if no equal treatment is meted out in matters of promotion but if different grades and different class of posts exist, there can be no question of discrimination in the matter of promotion and it is permissible to make provision for reasonable classification. In S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427 , the Supreme Court emphasised : - "There can be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointment or promotion. The concept of equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only when the promotees are drawn from the same source. If the preferential treatment of one source in relation to the other is based on the differences between the said two sources, and the said differences have a reasonable relation to the nature of the office or offices to which recruitment is made, the said recruitment can legitimately be sustained on the basis of a valid classification." The Supreme Court thus again emphasised that there can be reasonable classification in making provision for promotion. 5. Rule 106 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I makes provision for different departments in the Railway service including Indian Railway Service of Engineers. Indian Railway Accounts Service and Superior Revenue Establishment, Indian Railways. These services indicate that department of Engineering, Transportation (Traffic) and Commercial, Transportation (Power) and Mechanical Engineering, Transportation (Traction) and Electrical Engineering. Signal Tele-communication, Medical service form separate cadres. The posts borne on these cadres reauire special knowledge and only those who are possessed of the specialised training and knowledge are entitled to be recruited to these services. In addition to the said posts the Railways department has created other departments like Personnel Branch, Managing Branch and Railway Security Branch. The petitioner's grievance in substance is that each branch constitutes a separate cadre and as such the ministerial staff belonging to other branches viz., Engineering Traffic. In addition to the said posts the Railways department has created other departments like Personnel Branch, Managing Branch and Railway Security Branch. The petitioner's grievance in substance is that each branch constitutes a separate cadre and as such the ministerial staff belonging to other branches viz., Engineering Traffic. Power and Traction etc. are not legally entitled to promotion to class II Post in the Personnel Branch because those who hold class III posts in the Personnel Branch are not eligible for promotion to class II posts in the aforesaid branches. Thus they are not given equal treatment in matters of promotion. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the ministerial staff of other branches who are eligible for promotion to class II posts in the Personnel Branch generally consists of clerks who perform the same kind of work and duties as those carried on by the petitioners viz., preparation of T- A. Bills, calculation of D. A. allowances and looking after the welfare activities of Railway employees. For the purposes of promotion the Railway Board has treated all the ministerial staff belonging to other departments forming one class on the basis of nature of their duties and functions. The respondents further assert that the ministerial staff belonging to the other departments as well as of the Personnel branch is not specialised. Those who hold the most are not required to have any special knowledge of a particular subject, instead the posts are clerical in nature. The nature of duties of class II posts borne in the Personnel Branch is also of the same nature although it carries higher responsibility of supervision and administration but nonetheless the nature of the duties and functions are of the same kind whereas nature and functions of class II posts in other departments to which the petitioners are not entitled to promotion are different, as incumbents of those posts require specialised knowledge. For illustration it would be ridiculous to expect that a clerk working in grade III in Personnel Branch is eligible to a class II post in the Medical Branch or Engineering Branch or in Signal Branch where specialised knowledge is necessary. 7. For illustration it would be ridiculous to expect that a clerk working in grade III in Personnel Branch is eligible to a class II post in the Medical Branch or Engineering Branch or in Signal Branch where specialised knowledge is necessary. 7. It is thus clear that the impugned rules have made a classification on reasonable basis having regard to the nature of duties performed by the ministerial staff of various departments including the Personnel Branch. In that situation it is difficult to accept the contention of discrimination. Moreover, the ministerial staff of the Personnel Branch is eligible for promotion to class II most in Managing Branch which consists of the posts of Assistant Deputy General Manager. Class II. Assistant Public Relations Officer. Class II and Assistant Secretary to the General Manager. Class II. Thus the petitioners have sot further opportunity of promotion to the aforesaid posts which are borne in the cadre of other department viz. the Managing Branch. In view of these facts Article 16 is not infringed and the impugned Rules do not practise discrimination against the petitioners. 8. In the result the petition fails and accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. Stay order is vacated.