A. Raghuvir, C. J.— This writ petition is filed by three officers of the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) who seek to declare certain Service Regulations promulgated by the Assam Electricity Board on June 4, 1973 amended on May 27, 1983 are ultra vires of the Constitution. The Regulations sought to be struck down are Regulations 9, 12 and 14 and the ground for doing so is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution. The first petitioner Mazibor Rahman passed the Matriculation Exami­nation in 1950. He studied diploma course in the H.R.H. Prince of Wales Institute of Engineering and Technology at Jorhat for three years and obtained a diploma in 1957. He was appointed as Foreman in the services of Board which is equivalent to Sub-Engineer, Grade I, on August 11, 1958. Later in 1973 he was appointed as Assistant Engineer. Dilip Kumar Gohain, passed his Matriculation Examination in 1957. He obtained diploma in 1960 and was appointed as Sub-Engineer, Grade I in 1961 and promoted later as Assistant Engineer in. 1975. He secured further promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in 1981. The third petitioner Narendra Nath Doley passed Matriculatio" Examination in 1957. He obtained the diploma in 1960. He was appointed as Sub-Engineer,Grade I in 1963 and promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1979. Among the three- petitioners, the date on which writ petition has been filed (November 16, 1984) barring Goliain who was an Assistant Executive Engineer on November 30, 1981, the two are Assistant Engineers. There are two sets of Associations among the Engineer Officers of the ASEB. One is "Junior Engineers' Association". The constituent members of this Association are diploma holders. The other Association is called Engineers Association consisting of degree holders. In all States the Public Works Department in the Electricity Departments in Municipalities and in Corpora­tions the diploma holders and the degree holders have not seen eye to eye with each other. The diploma holders or the degree holders assailed the statutory Rules, Regulations or enactments on the ground of discrimination. Numerous decisions were rendered by High Courts and Supreme Court of India yet the disputes have not abated. The disputes among the constituents of Junior Engineers' Association and Engineers' Association were settled on August 29, 1978" by the authorities of AS EB. There were agreements reached between the two sets of officers. Numerous decisions were rendered by High Courts and Supreme Court of India yet the disputes have not abated. The disputes among the constituents of Junior Engineers' Association and Engineers' Association were settled on August 29, 1978" by the authorities of AS EB. There were agreements reached between the two sets of officers. Unfortunately the terms of the agreement could not be incorporated in the statutory Rules. Touching the disputes of the two Associations the ASEB on December 28, 1988 passed a resolution which was also not incorporated as a Rule. In the instant case reference is made to the above agreements and resolution of the ASEB. Since these treaties were not incorporated as statutory rules no relief can be meted out by this Court to the petitioners. The two sets of Associations have referred to seniority lists in the instant case. One prepared on July 18, 1977, another on October 5, 1978 yet another list on February 10, 1984. The petitioners make a grievance against the entries in the above lists but no relief is claimed with respect to seniority in the instant petition therefore we will not be adjudicating the issues relating to the seniority in this case of the three writ petitioners. We see in the amended Regulation of 1973 seven types of Engineers are appointed - Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engi­neer (after the amendment of 1983 this cadre was incorporated); Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Additional Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer. In this case we are not considering the last of the three officers as issues raised are restr icted to first four of the Engineers among them are the Assistant Executive Engineers and the Executive Engineers. The Board with a view to settle some disputes created the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in 1983 and amended the rules for many Junior Engineers for long were not having any promotinal opportunities. The three petitioners complain they have no chance of promotion having regard to required number of years prescribed under the Regulations.lt is impossible for any Assistant Executive Engineer (so it is asserted by the peti­tioners) who is a diploma holder to be promoted as Executive Engineer. This is the issue raised by the petitioners. The three petitioners complain they have no chance of promotion having regard to required number of years prescribed under the Regulations.lt is impossible for any Assistant Executive Engineer (so it is asserted by the peti­tioners) who is a diploma holder to be promoted as Executive Engineer. This is the issue raised by the petitioners. In elaboration of the issue it is shown after an officer is promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer, on completion of five years' service a degree holder is eligible to be appointed as Executive Engineer whereas a diploma holder has to complete eight years to be eligible under the Regulations. The diploma holders cannot think of promotion to the post of Superintending Engineers, Additional Chief Engineers and the Chief Engineer. Further it is pointed out an Assistant Engineer with a degree has to serve four years for becoming an Assistant Executive Engineer while a diploma holder has to serve six years to reach the post of an Assistant Executive Engineer. The ASEB in 1983 accepted that uniformity in service should be maintained treating diploma group on par with Graduate Engineer at the level of Assistant Engineers. A common seniority list also is maintained for Assistant Engineers. These aspects are high lighted to show the diploma holders are discriminated and that the above features emerge out of the Regulations 9,12 and 14 therefore the petitioners pray the three Regula­tions be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Delhi High Court in 1988 Lab LJ (2) 254,Kimti La! rs. Delhi Develop­ment Authority) dealt a like dispute as in the instant case and allowed a writ petition. That was a case where posts for consideration were-Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers as in the instant case. For the post of Junior Engineers,Graduates in Engineering and diploma holders with certain years of experience were eligible. In the case of Assistant Engineers, degree holders with three years service are eligible whereas the diploma holders with eight years service are eligible. To the post of Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers - degree holders with 8 years of service can be promoted, whereas diploma holders with 10 (ten) years service as Assistant Engineers are promoted. TheSe Rules were successfully assailed on grounds urged in the instant case. To the post of Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers - degree holders with 8 years of service can be promoted, whereas diploma holders with 10 (ten) years service as Assistant Engineers are promoted. TheSe Rules were successfully assailed on grounds urged in the instant case. On appeal the decision however was reversed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 307 (Roop Chand vs. Delhi Development Authority). For the de;ermination of the issues raised we may refer to the case in AIR 1968 SC 349 , State of Mysore vs. Narasinga Rao in that edtiational qualifica­tions were highlighted in service jurisprudence. In another case AIR 1973 SC 811 , Union of India vs. Mrs. S.B. Kohli, a post Graduate Specialisation was held not irrelevant for classification of employees. In the case of AIR 1983 SC 881 , H.C. Sharma vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and in the case of AIR 1987 SC 367 , Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, graduates and diploma holders were merged to from a homogeneous cadre with equal eligibility for promotion to higher posts under statutory Rules for degree holders and diploma holders. In the above two cases issue as to eligibility was determined. In the case of AIR 1974 SC 1 , State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Njth Khosa, Graduate Engineers and diploma holders were in a common cadre of Assistant Engineers. For promotion to the post of Executive Engineers only the Graduates were held eligible.Diploma holders wer barred for promotion. The Supreme Court held there was no discrimination and observed - "The classification of Assistant into degree holders and diploma holders could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services. The Supreme Court held there was no discrimination and observed - "The classification of Assistant into degree holders and diploma holders could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services. If this be the object, the classification is clearly correlated to it for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evidence of a higher mental equipment." It was pointed out -"Classification on the basis of educational qualification made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency cannot be said to rest on any fortuitous circumstances and one has always to bear in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in order to judge the validity of a classification." In the case of AIll 1974 SC 1631, Mohammad Shujat AH vs. Union of India, paragraph 27 reads as follows : "It is in the light of these principles that we must proceed to examine the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Rules. The complaint of the petitioners under head of contention E is that the Andhra Pradesh Rules make unjust discrimination between graduates and non-graduates in the matter of promotion of Supervisors as Assistant Engineers Now, whether we look at the unamended or the amended Andhra Pradesh Rules, it is clear that graduate Supervisors are given a preferential treatment over non-graduate Supervisors, in that two out of every three vacancies initially, and after the amendment, three out of every four vacancies in the posts of Assistant Engineers are reserved for promotion of graduate Supervisors and only the remaining one vacancy is left to be filled by promotion of non-graduate Supervisors. The question is whether this preferential treatment can be justified on the basis of any reasonable classification or it is arbitrary and irrational. The law as it stands today is clear that the burden is always on him who attacks the constitutionality of a legislation to show that the classification made by it is unreasonable violative of Articles 14 and 16. Has this burden been discharged by the petitioners/appellants ; have they shown that the classification of Supervisors into graduates and non-graduates for the purpose of promotion as Assistant Engineers is unrelated to the object of the Andhra Pradesh Rules or in other words, it is arbitrary and unreasonable ?" In the case of AIR 1964 SC 179 , 1. Has this burden been discharged by the petitioners/appellants ; have they shown that the classification of Supervisors into graduates and non-graduates for the purpose of promotion as Assistant Engineers is unrelated to the object of the Andhra Pradesh Rules or in other words, it is arbitrary and unreasonable ?" In the case of AIR 1964 SC 179 , 1. Devadasan vs. Union of India the Supreme Court held equality means equality amongst equals. Article 14 does not provide absolute equality irrespective of age, sex, education. While the aim of Article 14 is to ensure that invidious distinction or arbitrary discrimination shall not be made by the State between a citizen and a citizen who answer the same description. In AIR 1974 SC 1 755, General Manager, South Central Railway vs.A.V.R. Sidhanti,it was held a"wooden equality"as between all classes of employees regardless of qualifications, kind of jobs, nature of responsibilty and performance of the employees is not intended by Article 14 of the Cons­titution. Finally in the last of the above cases it was held-"Broad classification based on reason, executive pragmatism and experience having a direct relation with the achievement of efficiency in administration, is permissible." Now m the decision of AIR 1989 SC 307 , the Supreme Court while rev­ersing the decision of the Delhi High Court held diploma, for purposes of promotion, is not equivalent to a degree. If diploma holders for maintaining technical expertise are required to have a longer period for promotion that by itself does not spell out discrimination. The employer for the improvem­ent of performance can prescribe various periods of experience and educati­onal qualification. "The State is not precluded from formulating a policy for eligibility that the candidate must have a particular qualification plus a stipu­lated quantum of service experience/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 may be somewhat cumbersome or produce some hardship in their application in some individual cases; but they cannot be struck down as unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary." The Court pointed out if educational qualification and length of experience is prescribed to improve the administration such an aim does not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. For all the aforesaid reasons the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.