Judgment :- 1. Same questions arise for decision in these petitions which have been referred to the Division Bench. So we are disposing of them by a common judgment. 2. The Government published Special Rules for the Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Services as per GO (P) 112/74/TD dated 9/9/1974. That rule related to three categories of officers, namely, Excise Inspectors, Excise Preventive Officers and Excise Guards. Excise Guards are the lowest in cadre. The appointment to that cadre is by direct recruitment. The Excuse Preventive Officers' post is second in the hierarchy. That post is to be filled up by direct recruitment or promotion from the category of Excise Guards. One fourth of the total vacancy is to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining by promotion from among Excise Guards. For promotion of Excise Guards a ratio of 1:1 was prescribed between Excise Guards possessing minimum qualification of SSLC and those who do not possess that qualification. This fixation of ratio between the SSLC holders and non-SSLC candidates is under challenge, According to the petitioners, the said prescription of ratio is violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioners pray for striking down the above mentioned ratio prescribed in the Special Rules. 3. Petitioners in OP Nos. 1828 of 1981, 1860 of 1981 and 2529 of 1987 were originally appointed as Police Constables in early 1960s. They were subsequently absorbed in the Excise Department as Excise Guards. They have not passed SSLC or equivalent examination. Petitioners 1 and 2 in OP No. 1837 of 1981 were directly recruited as Excise Preventive Officers in 1972, on the advice of the Public Service Commission. They were promoted as Excise Inspectors in 1978, and 1980 respectively. Petitioners 3 to 5 in that Original Petition were appointed as Excise Guards in 1962,1959 and 1960 respectively. They have not passed SSLC or equivalent examination. All these petitioners who have not passed SSLC or equivalent examination, challenge the constitutional validity of proportion between the SSLC holders and non-SSLC candidates for promotion to the category of Preventive Officers from the category of Excise Guards, prescribed in the Special Rules dated 9-9-1974. 4. For understanding the grievances voiced by the petitioners we refer to the averments made by the petitioners in O.P. No. 2529 of 1987. 4. For understanding the grievances voiced by the petitioners we refer to the averments made by the petitioners in O.P. No. 2529 of 1987. The petitioners were appointed as Police Constables in 1961 on the advice of the Public Service Commission. In 1967 they opted to the Excise Department and were appointed as Excise Guards on 28-7-1967. They were promoted as Preventive Officers on 8-3-1982. They are continuing as Preventive Officers from 1982 onwards. The Special Rules applicable to the Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Services came into force on 9-9-1974. The qualifications for promotion from the cadre of Excise Guards to Excise Preventive Officers provided for a ratio of 1:1 between the SSLC holders and non-SSLC candidates A similar ratio was fixed between the graduates and non-graduates of Preventive Officers for being promoted to the category of Excise Inspectors. That provision was challenged before this court in Writ Appeal No. 166 of 1980. This court declared the said provision to be unconstitutional. Applying the same principle the ratio of 1:1 between the SSLC holders and non-SSLC candidates for promotion to the cadre of Preventive Officers should also be declared invalid. If this ratio had not been followed in effecting promotions, the petitioners would have got promotion to the cadre of Preventive Officers long before their juniors were promoted. In the final seniority list of Excise Guards of Board of Revenue Unit, the petitioners were given date of commencement of their service as 3-10-1961. Respondents 3 and 4 commenced their service only in 1972 and 1967 respectively. On the basis of the seniority in the category of Excise Guards, respondents 3 and 4 and persons similarly situated are not entitled to get promotion earlier than the petitioners. They secured promotion only on the basis of the ratio mentioned earlier. By applying the ratio persons far junior in service to the petitioners by about eleven years secured promotion to the higher cadre. To accommodate such juniors, petitioners are sought to be reverted from the cadre of Excise Preventive Officers. 5. The State filed detailed counter affidavits in OP Nos. 1828 of 1981, 1837 of 1981 and I860 of 1981. By applying the ratio persons far junior in service to the petitioners by about eleven years secured promotion to the higher cadre. To accommodate such juniors, petitioners are sought to be reverted from the cadre of Excise Preventive Officers. 5. The State filed detailed counter affidavits in OP Nos. 1828 of 1981, 1837 of 1981 and I860 of 1981. The stand taken by the State in the counter affidavits is that the petitioners who were police constables were absorbed in the Excise Department as Excise Guards in 1967, that their seniority were fixed among the Guards with reference to the dates of their first appointment as police constables, that petitioners have not passed the SSLC Examination, that promotion from Excise Guards possessing the minimum qualification of SSLC and those who do not possess the said qualification is made on a ratio of 1:1, that the Special Rules fixing the ratio is perfectly valid, that the ratio is necessary to safeguard the interest of both the categories of personnel and that the rule is not violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. By the Special Rules the Government introduced a ratio of 1:3 between graduates and non-graduates for promotion to the category of Excise Inspector. This court by judgment dated 20-3-1981 in Writ Appeal No. 166 of 1980 quashed the above fixation of ratio. An Excise Guard who had passed the SSLC examination challenged the ratio of 1:1 fixed for SSLC holders and non-SSLC candidates in the matter of promotion to the post of Preventive Officers in O.P. No. 10068 of 1984. K. T. Thomas, J. allowed that Original Petition by judgment dated 8-4-1987 and declared the said provision to be illegal and void. 7. Excise Guards, irrespective of their educational qualifications, ie. SSLC holders and non-SSLC candidates, formed and constituted one common cadre and they were in the same scale of pay. The seniority list of all these guards is common and joint. In the counter affidavit filed in OP No. 1828 of 1981, the Government have admitted that the seniority of these petitioners have been fixed among the Excise Guards with reference to the dates of their first appointment as police constables. The seniority list of all these guards is common and joint. In the counter affidavit filed in OP No. 1828 of 1981, the Government have admitted that the seniority of these petitioners have been fixed among the Excise Guards with reference to the dates of their first appointment as police constables. On the basis of that entry in service an Integrated Gradation List of Excise Guards as on 1-8-1967 was also published We are of the view that when such an integrated gradation list of Excise Guards was published, there should not have been any ratio between the two sets of officers, namely, the SSLC holders and non-SSLC candidates for promotion to the higher cadre. This is all the more so when it is the common ground that all the excise guards irrespective of their qualification were and are performing the same kind of work and duties. It is. as stated earlier, also not disputed that they belong to the same cadre having a common seniority list. In such a situation, the prescription of ratio of 1:1 among the above mentioned two groups for promotion is discriminatory and is against the principles contained in Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. In a situation similar to the present one before us, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Shujat Ali v. Union of India (AIR 1974 SC 1631) observed: "But where graduates and non-graduates are both regarded as fit and, therefore, eligible for promotion, it is difficult to see bow. consistently with the claim for equal opportunity, any differentiation can be made between them by laying down a quota of promotion for each and giving preferential treatment to graduates over non-graduates in the matter of fixation of such quota. The result of fixation of quota of promotion for each of the two categories of supervisors would be that when a vacancy arises in the post of Assistant Engineer, which, according to the quota is reserved for graduate Supervisors, a non-graduate Supervisor cannot be promoted to that vacancy, even if he is senior to all other graduate Supervisors and more suitable than they. His opportunity for promotion would be limited only to vacancies available for non-graduate Supervisors. That would clearly amount to denial of equal opportunity to him". In Punjab State Electricity Board. His opportunity for promotion would be limited only to vacancies available for non-graduate Supervisors. That would clearly amount to denial of equal opportunity to him". In Punjab State Electricity Board. Patiala and Another v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Others (1986 (4) SCC, 617), Their Lordships, reiterated the same principle and struck down the quota between the diploma holders and non-diploma holders Linemen for promotion to the cadre of Line Superintendent. 8. In view of what has been stated above, we strike down the provision prescribing the ratio of 1:1 between the SSLC holders and non-SSLC candidates for promotion from Excise Guards to Excise Preventive Officers, fixed in the Special Rules, which came into force on 9-9-1974. We direct respondents 1 and 2 to give the petitioners their legitimate promotion to the cadre of Excise Preventive Officers on the basis of their rank in the seniority list of Excise Guards, taking into consideration their entire length of service in that cadre. The petitioners who had already got promotion to the cadre of Excise Preventive Officers, if reverted to accommodate their juniors while implementing the ratio of 1:1 between the SSLC holders and non-SSLC candidates, should be re-posted as Excise Preventive Officers forthwith. In the result, the Original Petitions are allowed in the above terms. However, we make no order as to costs.