Judgment :- Malimath, CJ. These three writ petitions are by the Assistant Engineers in the Radio branch of the Public Works Department, who have challenged the prescription of the ratio of 1:1 between graduates and non-graduates Assistant Engineers prescribed by the proviso to rule 2 of the Kerala Engineering Service (Radio and Electrical branches ) Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio). Rule 2 of the Rules which prescribes the method of appointment to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio) reads as follows: "2. appointment.--(a) Appointment to the categories specified in column (2) of the Table below shall be by the method specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof. 2. Assistant Executive Engineer (Radio) 1. Recruitment by transfer from category of Assistant Engineer (Radio) of the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (Radio branch) 2. In the absence of suitable candidates for appointment by transfer by direct recruitment. (b) Promotion and appointment by transfer shall be made from select lists of eligible officers prepared on the basis of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. Persons included in a select list shall be ranked in the order of their seniority. Provided that a ratio of 1:1 shall be followed between graduates and non-graduates for appointment to the post by transfer, without stipulation of cadre strength." Qualifications for the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio) are prescribed by rule 3 of the Rules, which read as follows: "2. Assistant Executive 1. For Recruitment by transfer: Engineer (Radio) Must have rendered service as Assistant Engineer in the Radio Branch on duty for a period of not less than, (a) Five years in case he is a Degree- holder. (b) Ten years in case he is a Diploma-holder; and (c) Fifteen years in case he is a Certificate-holder." It is clear from the above Rule that Degree-holders with five years' service, Diploma-holders with ten years' service and Certificate-holders with 15 years 'service in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Radio) are treated as eligible for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio). Appointment by transfer to the said category is required to be made from a select list of eligible officers prepared on the basis of merit and ability. Appointment by transfer to the said category is required to be made from a select list of eligible officers prepared on the basis of merit and ability. The proviso to rule 2 of the Rules was added by Notification dated 2-8-1983 with retrospective effect from 13-5-1981 by which a ratio of 1:1 is prescribed for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio) between Graduates on the one hand and the non-graduates on the other. It is this prescription of the ratio of 1:1 between Graduates and non-graduates that is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Though in one writ petition the prescription of different number of years of service for Degree-holders, Diploma-holders and Certificate-holders is also challenged, no arguments in that behalf were advanced during the course of hearing of these cases, obviously for the reason that the contention in that behalf stands concluded by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Roop Chand v. Delhi Development Authority (AI.R.1989 S.C.307 ). 2. The principal contention of the petitioners is that Graduates and non-graduates having come to the common cadre of Assistant Engineers (Radio) and thus having merged into a single category, it is not constitutionally permissible to treat them differently in the matter of promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio) by prescribing a ratio of 1:1, between Graduates and non-graduates. In other words, the Rules regard Graduates with five years' experience on the one hand and Diploma-holders with ten years 'experience and Certificate-holders with fifteen years' experience as equally eligible for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio). When appointment by transfer is required to be made by appointment of officers of the basis of merit and ability, the prescription of the ratio of 1:1 between Graduates on the one hand and the non-graduates on the other it is urged results in hostile discrimination against non-graduates rendering the proviso prescribing such ratio void as offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, it is well-settled law that once the graduates and non-graduates have come into a common cadre and thus merged into one entity, any differentiation whatsoever to be made on the basis of their educational qualifications in the matter of promotion to the next higher category is bad. According to the petitioners, it is well-settled law that once the graduates and non-graduates have come into a common cadre and thus merged into one entity, any differentiation whatsoever to be made on the basis of their educational qualifications in the matter of promotion to the next higher category is bad. We find it difficult to accede to this tall claim made on behalf of the petitioners. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution clearly permit classification being made. A classification can certainly be made on the basis of the qualifications and experience for promotion to the next higher cadre, provided the classification made is rational and has a just relation or nexus to the object to be achieved. If, having regard to the requirement of service persons possessing higher technical skill are required for discharging the duties and responsibilities of the higher post, the rule making authority would be well within its right in prescribing that persons possessing such higher technical skill or experience alone from the common category that would be eligible for promotion" to the next higher category. This question is no more res Integra as it stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1974 S.C.1(AIR) between State of J. & Kv.T.N. Khosa. That was a case where persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers. For the purpose of promotion to the next higher category of Asst.Executive Engineers, the rule provided that it is only graduates that will be eligible, to the exclusion of diploma-holders. The Supreme Court after examining the scheme of the Rules and the requirement of service, came to the conclusion that for proper discharge of the functions of the Asst.Executive Engineers' posts, it is necessary to have persons with higher technical qualifications, that is, Graduates. This decision is therefore a clear authority for the proposition that both graduates and non-graduates though merged into a common category, Graduates alone can be preferred in the matter of promotion to the next higher post provided the possession of higher qualification of graduation is necessary for a proper and satisfactory discharge of the functions of the higher post. This decision is therefore a clear authority for the proposition that both graduates and non-graduates though merged into a common category, Graduates alone can be preferred in the matter of promotion to the next higher post provided the possession of higher qualification of graduation is necessary for a proper and satisfactory discharge of the functions of the higher post. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1989 (2) KLT 3 = AIR 1989 S.C.1624 between N. Abdul Basheer v. K.K. Karunakaran, the Supreme Court was required to examine the validity of the rule prescribing the ration of 1:3 between Graduates and non-graduates, for promotion to the post of II Grade Excise Inspector from the post of Excise Preventive Officer. Though the Supreme Court declared the prescription of the said ratio as void as violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the constitution, it did so on the ground that the considerations that weighed in the prescription of such a ratio has no relevance to the object of the measures framed by the Government. The relevant discussion in this behalf can be extracted with advantage, as contained in paragraph 15 of the judgment which reads: "The other contention raised before the High Court, namely, that the ratio 1:3 between graduates and non-graduates is supportable on the ground that the recognition of graduation is recognition of merit, and that more merit in the post of Excise Inspectors would be conducive to better administrative efficiency, is shortly disposed of. Ordinarily, it is for the Government to decide upon the considerations which, in its judgment, should underline a policy to be formulated by it. But if the considerations are such as prove to be of no relevance to the object of the measure framed by the Government it is always open to the Court to strike down the differentiation as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present case, we have already commented on the circumstance that the conditions of employment and the incidents of service recognise no distinction between graduate and non-graduate officers and that for all material purposes they are effectively treated as equivalent. In the present case, we have already commented on the circumstance that the conditions of employment and the incidents of service recognise no distinction between graduate and non-graduate officers and that for all material purposes they are effectively treated as equivalent. Accordingly, the contention must also be rejected " It is clear from this pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the ratio prescribed by the rule between Graduates and non-graduates offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the reasons put forward by the State in support of the prescription of such ratio were found to be not relevant to the object sought to be achieved by such prescription. The prescription of a ratio between Graduates and non-graduates, it is clear, can therefore pass the test of Articles 14 and 16 if the same is based on relevant considerations which have a just relation to the object sought to be achieved. The question as to whether such differentiation between Graduates and non-graduates has just relation with the object sought to be achieved depends upon the scheme of the rules, the requirements of the service and the relevant facts and circumstances. Hence, whenever a rule prescribing a ratio between Graduates and non-graduates is challenged on the ground that the prescription of the ratio is violative of Articles 14 and 16, if the State is not in a position to establish that the prescription of such a ratio is justified by relevant considerations, the same has to be declared void as offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That is precisely what has been elucidated in another recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R.1989 S.C. 307 between Roop Chand v. Delhi Development Authority. That was a case in which the rules regulating promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers to the cadre of Assistant Engineers and from the cadre of Assistant Engineers to the cadre of Executive Engineers were challenged, on the ground that prescribing different conditions for Graduates and Diploma-holders is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Rules examined by the Supreme Court in the said case prescribe that Junior Engineers who are Degree-holders with 3 years 'service and Junior Engineers, who are Diploma-holders with 8 years' service, are eligible for promotion in respect of 50% of the posts available for promotion in the proportion of 25%: 25%. The Rules examined by the Supreme Court in the said case prescribe that Junior Engineers who are Degree-holders with 3 years 'service and Junior Engineers, who are Diploma-holders with 8 years' service, are eligible for promotion in respect of 50% of the posts available for promotion in the proportion of 25%: 25%. The said Rules further provide that the Assistant Engineers who are Degree-holders with 8 years experience and Assistant Engineers who are Diploma-holders with 10 years' experience are both eligible for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers. The High Court of Delhi had struck down these rules. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Delhi High Court and upheld the validity of the Rules. The Supreme Court held that the rule prescribing longer period of service for Diploma-holders as compared to Degree-holders is not discriminatory. The Supreme Court upheld the rule prescribing a ratio between Degree-holders and Diploma-holders for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineers, reversing the decision of the Delhi High Court which had struck down the rule as violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The reasons for the said decision are to be found in paragraph 9 of the judgment, which may be extracted as follows: "In Triloki Nath's case diploma-holders were not considered eligible for promotion to the higher post. Here, in the present case, the possession of a diploma, by itself and without more, does not confer eligibility. Diploma, for purposes of promotion, is not considered equivalent to the degree. This is the point of distinction in the situations in the two cases. If Diploma-holders of course on the justification of the job-requirements and in the interest of maintaining a certain quality of technical expertise in the cadre - could validly be excluded from the eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre, it does not necessarily follow as an inevitable corollary that the choice of the recruitment policy is limited only two choices, namely, either to consider them 'eligible' or 'not eligible'. State, consistent with the requirements of the promotional posts and in the interest of the efficiency of the service, is not precluded from conferring eligibility on Diploma-holders conditioning it by other requirements which may, as here, include certain quantum of service-experience. In the present case, eligibility-determination was made by a cumulative-criterion of a certain educational qualification plus a particular quantum of service experience. In the present case, eligibility-determination was made by a cumulative-criterion of a certain educational qualification plus a particular quantum of service experience. It cannot, incur opinion, be said as postulated by the High Court, that the choice of the State was either to recognise Diploma-holders as 'eligible' for promotion or wholly exclude them as 'not eligible'. If the educational qualification by itself was recognised as conferring eligibility for promotion, then, the superimposition of further conditions such as a particular period of service, selectively, on the Diploma-Holders alone to their disadvantage might become discriminatory. This does not prevent the State from formulating a policy which prescribes as an essential part of the conditions for the very eligibility that the candidate must have a particular qualification plus a stipulated quantum of service-experience. It is stated that on the basis of the'Vaish-Committee' Report, the authorities considered the infusion of higher academic and technical quality in the personnel requirements n the relevant cadres of Engineering Services necessary. These are essentially matters of policy. unless the provision is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or to bring about grossly unfair results, judicial policy should be one of judicial-restraint. The prescriptions maybe somewhat cumbersome produce some hardship in their application in some individual cases; but they cannot be struck own as unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary. The High Court, in our opinion, was not justified in ricing down the Rules as violative of Articles 14 and 16." It is clear from this decision that the State is not prevented from formulating a proper policy which prescribes as an essential part of the conditions for the very eligibility that the candidate must have a particular educational qualification plus a stipulated quantum 'service-experience. The Supreme Court pointed out that the policy of the rule- making authority was based on the Vaish Committee' Report, which recommended infusion of higher academic qualification and technical quality in the personnel requirements in the relevant cadres of Engineering Services necessary. It is clear that ; Supreme Court was satisfied that the prescription of the ratio for promotion between the degree holders and diploma holders is justified, having regard to the requirements of service. The justification was based on the'Vaish-Committee' Report which said that it is very necessary to infuse in the Engineering Service men with higher academic and technical qualifications. It is clear that ; Supreme Court was satisfied that the prescription of the ratio for promotion between the degree holders and diploma holders is justified, having regard to the requirements of service. The justification was based on the'Vaish-Committee' Report which said that it is very necessary to infuse in the Engineering Service men with higher academic and technical qualifications. In other words, the Supreme Court has held that if the requirements of the service justify a preferential treatment being accorded to degree holders, the statutory provision conferring such a preferential treatment can not be regarded as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That depends upon whether such differentia has a rational nexus with the requirements of the promotional post. 4. In view of the clear pronouncements of the Supreme Court, what we have to examine in this case is as to whether the requirements of service, that is of the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Radio) justify prescription of the ratio of 1:1 between graduates and non-graduates for promotion. The petitioners have no doubt pleaded that the graduates and non-graduates Assistant Engineers discharge the same duties and responsibilities and that non-graduates also possess the requisite technical qualification, skill and expertise for discharging the duties and responsibilities of the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Radio). It is further asserted that when non-graduate Assistant Engineers (Radio) are under the Rules rendered eligible for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio), the prescription of ratio 1 :1 between Graduates and non-graduates is likely to defeat the object of the rule, which is to ensure that most competent among the Assistant Engineers are promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio). The State on the other hand had pleaded special facts and circumstances that justify the amendment of the Rule and the incorporation of the proviso, by which the ratio of 1:1 is prescribed between the Graduates. For the sake of convenience we shall extract paragraphs 10 to 13 of the counter-affidavit filed in ).P.No.4706 of 1983 by the first respondent, as follows: "10. At the time when the Radio branch was organised in the Public Works department, electronics was not a highly developed subject as it is present. For the sake of convenience we shall extract paragraphs 10 to 13 of the counter-affidavit filed in ).P.No.4706 of 1983 by the first respondent, as follows: "10. At the time when the Radio branch was organised in the Public Works department, electronics was not a highly developed subject as it is present. It was being taught long with other connected subjects as it had not received much attention at that time. The tremendous advancement in the field of electronics has resulted in the subject becoming a very specialised one which is taught as a separate course from the Degree levels in Colleges. Therefore, obviously, it is not a subject in which proficiency is possible without special education. The proper functioning of the Radio wing depends on the availability of qualified hands and in view of the advancement in the subject specially trained persons are necessary. Such specialists become available only recently and it was under these circumstances that a ratio was introduced by amending le Special Rules for promotion to the category of Assistant Executive Engineer. There is nothing just or illegal in this action of the Government. 11. Giving recognition to a qualification is not denial of opportunity. It cannot be claimed at the graduates who have been specially trained are on an equal footing with the non-graduates, especially in view of recent developments in the subject. The petitioner has not been denied promotion as avenue for promotion is still open to non-graduates. The petitioners chances of emotion cannot be made a ground for blocking the government's attempt to get better qualified !is0.ns, and thus ensure efficiency in the Department. 12. There are only 8 posts of Asst.Executive Engineers (Radio) in the Department. 2 posts are at present lying vacant and five posts are held by non-graduates. Since the presence of 5 specialists in the higher posts cannot be achieved without fixing a ratio so as to give the socialists some weightage, the amendments introducing the ratio cannot be held to be illegal. 13. It is submitted that it is open to the Government to fix the qualifications for any post public interest. The Government have after due consideration decided that a ratio of 1:1 has to adopted for promotion to the category of Assistant Executive Engineer, between Graduates and Graduates. 13. It is submitted that it is open to the Government to fix the qualifications for any post public interest. The Government have after due consideration decided that a ratio of 1:1 has to adopted for promotion to the category of Assistant Executive Engineer, between Graduates and Graduates. While it is desirable to fix graduation as minimum qualification for the post of assistant Executive Engineer, this could not be done earlier due to dearth of sufficient number of graduates. Length of service will not alone qualify a person for promotion in a speciality such as electronics as there has been tremendous and rapid progress in this field. It is not possible for the Department to keep pace with the advancement in this field without bringing the Graduates to the top giving them the due recognition. Therefore it may be seen that there has been no violation of any provisions of the Constitution." The case of the State is that for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers, it is desirable to fix graduation as the minimum qualification. Though this is the requirement, having regard to the nature of duties and responsibilities that are required to be discharged by the Assistant Executive Engineers, the State was not in a position to prescribe Graduation as the minimum qualification for the said post, as there was dearth of sufficient number of graduates. It is said that when the Department was started, graduates were not available. Hence non-graduates who do not have adequate technical knowledge were treated as eligible for promotion to these posts. As Graduates are now becoming available it is stated that the State felt it necessary to amend the Rules to ensure that adequate number of graduates come to the position of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio). The State has specifically stated that there has been considerable advancement in the field of Electronics and therefore the requirements of the Department cannot be met by personnel not having the required technical skill. With a view to have adequate number of persons with the required technical skill, the State has made a provision to ensure that 50% of the post of Assistant Executive Engineers are filled up from among the graduate Assistant Engineers. With a view to have adequate number of persons with the required technical skill, the State has made a provision to ensure that 50% of the post of Assistant Executive Engineers are filled up from among the graduate Assistant Engineers. Without the service of highly qualified persons, namely the graduates, it is stated, the Department will not be able to keep pace with the advancement in the field. The clear effect of the stand taken by the State is that it is by way of concession that non-graduates were made eligible for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers, though they are inadequate for these posts. This was done because adequate number of trained graduates were not available at the relevant point of time. Having regard to the dearth of persons with adequate technical skills, namely graduates at the relevant opoing of time, the State thought of managing the Department with the less qualified non-graduates. What is sought to be done by the amendment is to reduce the extent of concession shown to the non-graduates by making a provision to the effect that 50% of the posts shall be filled up from among the graduate Assistant Engineers. As non-graduates are found to be inadequate for the purpose of discharging the duties and responsibilities of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio), an attempt is made to ensure that at least 50% of the holders of these posts are graduates. About 50% of the posts become available to diploma-holders not because they are adequate for the post but by way of concession and with a view to avoid frustration in the service. The prescription of the ratio of 1:1 between graduates and non-graduates, far from discriminating against Diploma-holders, metes out a favourable treatment. If at all it is the Graduates who are really affected by continuing the concession shown to the less-qualified non-graduates who are inadequate for the job. This is precisely the stand taken in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.8 in O.P.No.3694 of 1981, which are extracted as follows: "4. The radio Branch in the Engineering Service was constituted long ago. At that time the only work to be undertaken was to repair the radio sets. But due to the development in communication system this Branch has developed a great extent. The radio Branch in the Engineering Service was constituted long ago. At that time the only work to be undertaken was to repair the radio sets. But due to the development in communication system this Branch has developed a great extent. The personnel in the Department have now to undertake the work relating to TVs., Telephone Exchanges, Tape Recorders, VCRs, Public Address and Conference Systems etc. Admittedly, the petitioner is qualified only in Radio repairing. The above works can be efficiently carried out only by Graduates in Telecommunication Engineering or other similar specialities. As all the senior persons are only certificate-holders like the petitioner to make available qualified hands a ratio was prescribed for graduates in the category of Assistant Engineer and Asst.Executive Engineer. This is necessary in the interest of exigencies of service. On the other hand, if all the persons holding the responsible positions as Asst.Executive Engineers are only Certificate holders in Radio repairing like the petitioner, the public interest will suffer a lot. At the same time chances for bettering their position have to be provided for senior persons as well. That is why separate ratio for graduates is prescribed in Ext.R8(a). X X X X X 7. Appointment as Asst. Executive Engineer is not based on ratio alone; at the same time separate experience qualification is also prescribed. Merely because a person is a senior non-graduate he cannot claim the post of Asst.Executive Engineer following the ratio. He should have at least 10 years' service as Asst. Engineer in case of Diploma holders and 15 years in the case of Certificate-holders. On the other hand, a graduate need only have five years' experience. This is also a mandatory provision with regard to qualification and an inseparable part of the rule to work out along with ratio. Therefore it is not a case where non-graduates are discriminated prescribing separate ratio, but a case of valid prescription of a particular experience qualification to get well equipped persons to man responsible posts which require specialised skill to cope with technological advancement and consequent development in communication systems. So Ext.P S or Ext.R8(a) cannot be termed as illegal, void or unconstitutional as contended by the petitioner." 5. What has been stated in the counter-affidavit of the 8th respondent stands unrebutted as no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition. So Ext.P S or Ext.R8(a) cannot be termed as illegal, void or unconstitutional as contended by the petitioner." 5. What has been stated in the counter-affidavit of the 8th respondent stands unrebutted as no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition. It is clear from the statement of the 8th respondent that non-graduates did not have the technical equipment to undertake any work relating to TVs., Telephone Exchanges, Tape Recorders, Public Address and Conference Systems as their knowledge and technical skill is limited to radio repairing. Thus it becomes very clear that the technical skill possessed by the non-graduates is inadequate to meet the requirements of the service of the Radio Engineering service. It is there fore clear that without the requisite number of graduates being there to man the posts of Asst.Executive Engineers the Department cannot carry on its functions satisfactorily as the non-graduates are not at all equipped to deal with the advanced technology in respect of T. Vs., V.C. Rs., Tape Recorders, Telephone Exchanges, Public Address and conference systems etc. On a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the rules far from discriminating against the non-graduates have shown favour to the non-graduates. A concession has been shown to them by rendering them eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio) even though they do not possess the technical skill required for the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Radio). The non-graduates cannot therefore complain about discrimination. The challenge to the proviso to the rule prescribing the ratio of 1:1 between Graduates and non-Graduates is not liable to be declared void as violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.