Judgment :- 1. Petitioner holds a certificate for having passed the Trade Test (Electrician), after completing S.S.L.C. He commenced service in 1952 as a Telephone Operator. He was promoted as a First Grade Overseer in 1974 and was further promoted as Assistant Engineer under Ext.P1 dated 11-6-1984. Ext.P2 is the Special Rules for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.330/65/PW dated 29-11-1965. Notes 1 to 3 were added to the method of appointment by promulgation of G.O.(P) 80/74/PW dated 25-5-1974. The effect of that Note in so far as it concerned the petitioner was to prescribe a ratio of 3:2 between diploma-holders and certificate holders for promotion as Junior Engineers (since redesignated as Assistant Engineers (Ele.)). A final seniority list of First Grade Draftsmen/ Overseers, to which category the petitioner belonged, was published in Ext.P3 proceedings dated 9-12-1983. The seniority list attached thereto is Ext.P3(a). Petitioner was Sl. No.39 and the fourth respondent was S1.No.42 in that list. In Ext.P4 G.O.Ms.10/80/PI & E dated 18-1-1980, Government ordered regularisation of provisional employees under R.18(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and such regularisation would not affect the seniority of the petitioner. Government, however, issued Ext.P5 order, G.O.Rt.41/85/PW & PD dated 2-5-1985, whereby 60 provisional employees in the Electrical Wing were given retrospective regularisation with effect from 17-1-1974. A list of provisional employees, whose services were regularised, accompanied that order. Still later, the Chief Engineer published Ext.P6 inducting the provisional employees, whose services were regularised in Exts.P4 and P5, into regular establishment. In that list, the name of the petitioner was included as S1.No.41 with 12-8-1974 as the assigned date of promotion. He had, in the meantime, been promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1984. The Chief Engineer published Ext.P7 final seniority list of Assistant Engineers as on 1-6-1986. The name of the petitioner was not included in that list, because the date of his promotion was assigned to another employee. Petitioner filed Ext.P8 representation, requesting for a further scrutiny of Ext.P7 list and not to revert him while allowing his juniors in the category of First Grade Overseers to continue as Assistant Executive Engineers. The fourth respondent, petitioner and another filed O.P.No.5057 of 1987, assailing Ext.P7 and the possible reversion. That Original Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, since there was likely to be conflict of interest between the petitioners. The fourth respondent, petitioner and another filed O.P.No.5057 of 1987, assailing Ext.P7 and the possible reversion. That Original Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, since there was likely to be conflict of interest between the petitioners. It was thereafter that the petitioner filed the present Original Petition. In the meantime, the Chief Engineer issued Ext.P10 order dated 26-6-1987, reverting the petitioner as First Grade Overseer (Electrical) while retaining the fourth respondent, who was his junior, in the higher post, because he was a diplomat. Petitioner submits that the provisional employees could not have been regularised in service in contravention of the provisions of R.18(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. He therefore assails Ext.P5 order and Ext.P7 final list. He also submits that in spite of his seniority and the completion of the requisite period of experience, he was reverted only because he was a certificate-holder and to provide for, his junior, the fourth respondent, who was a diploma-holder. This was because of the provisions contained in the note, which was added to R.2 of Ext.P2 rules by G.O.(P) 80/74/PW dated 25-5-1974. He therefore assails Note to R.2 of Ext.P2 rules as violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He naturally challenges Exts.P6 and P6 (a) seniority lists, which upset his right under Ext.P3 and P3(a) and the consequential reversion order, Ext.P10. 2. Petitioner relies on a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and this court in support of his submission, that the classification of eligible employees entirely or the basis of educational qualifications and denial of promotion to seniors possessing at the prescribed qualifications is unconstitutional. Reference was made to a few of then - Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631, Velappan v. Chandran,197: KLT 801, Abdul Basheer v. Karunakaran, ILR 1981 (2) Ker. 527, Rajan v. State a Kerala, 1983 KLT 878, Pushpadharan v. Food Corporation, 1983 KLT 987, Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala, 1986 KLT 345, Punjab S.E.B. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma (1986)4 SCC 617 and Abdul Basheer v. Karunakaran 1989(2) KLT (SC) 3. He also relied on a recent decision of a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.490 of 1983, which affirmed the decision in Rajan v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 878. He also relied on a recent decision of a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.490 of 1983, which affirmed the decision in Rajan v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 878. He submits that the State has not made out, not even attempted to make out, that the job requirements of Assistant Engineers justified the Note which permitted supersession of seniors with all the prescribed qualifications for the only reason that they were certificate holders. He also relies heavily on the decision of another Division Bench reported in Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 1990(1) KLT 66, where this court held, that only if circumstances justifying a classification are made out and such justification has reasonable nexus with the object of enhancing excellence in public employment can the classification be upheld as a reasonable classification. 3. The case of the State is that the distinction between persons in the feeder category on the basis of educational qualifications is fully justified and therefore the challenge against the Note to R.2 of Ext.P2 has to be repelled. Respondents rely on the observations contained in Rajan v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 878 and George v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 746. Reference is also made to P.S.E.B., Patiala v. Ravinder Kumar, AIR 1987 SC 367, Roop Chand v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1989 SC 307, and Abdul Basheer v. K.K. Karunakaran, AIR 1989 SC 1624. The Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits, that the classification was justified by job requirements. 4. To resolve the controversy involved in this Original Petition, it is necessary for me to refer to a few apparently conflicting precedents from the Supreme Court and this Court. In the two decisions reported in State of J & K v. T.N. Khosa, AIR 1974 SC 1 and Shujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631 respectively, the Supreme Court adopted apparently conflicting positions in relation to classification based on educational qualifications. The distinction in the former was that the question which fell for consideration was whether elimination of some in the feeder category for the higher post on the basis of educational attainments was justified or not. The Supreme Court upheld the Classification on the ground of job requirement, and the facts and circumstances fully justified the prescription of graduation as essential qualification for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The Supreme Court upheld the Classification on the ground of job requirement, and the facts and circumstances fully justified the prescription of graduation as essential qualification for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. In Shujat Ali (supra), a different question came up for consideration, whether a non-graduate with longer service and who fulfilled the requirements of the rule, with a lesser educational qualification and longer experience, was entitled to challenge the preference given to the junior graduates with lesser experience for the only reason of higher educational attainments. The Supreme Court frowned upon this classification, but did not strike it down because of historical reasons. In Ravinder Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court adopted a contrary position. In Roop Chand (supra), the point which fell for consideration was whether persons with lesser educational qualifications but in the same feeder category could complain against the prescription of longer period of experience in their cases than persons possessing higher educational qualifications. The Supreme Court held, that the State had power to prescribe the educational qualifications as also experience in the exigencies of the situation and to specify the job requirements. However, in Abdul Basheer (supra), a Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of three judges upheld the decision of this Court in Abdul Basheer v. Karunakaran, ILR 1981(2) Ker 527, holding that the prescription of ratio in favour of graduates as against non-graduates was discriminatory and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In Rajan (supra), 1983 KLT 878, I had held, that the note to R.2 of the Special Rules, Ext.P2, relating to appointment of Assistant Engineers in the Electrical Wing of The Public Works Department containing the same provision as violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. That decision was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.490 of 1983. Just a day thereafter, the same Bench in Balakrishnan (supra), 1990(1) KLT 66, upheld the proviso to the rule prescribing the ratio 1:1 between graduates and non-graduates in Radio and Electrical Branches of the Public Works Department. In the latter decision, the court relied largely on the affidavits of the State and one of the contesting respondents, which provided sufficient justification for the preferential treatment of graduates. In the latter decision, the court relied largely on the affidavits of the State and one of the contesting respondents, which provided sufficient justification for the preferential treatment of graduates. The court found that enough reasons justifying the classification rendered it reasonable due to intimate connections with those reasons that the requirements of the service rules were made out in the pleadings and therefore the classification was reasonable and non-discriminatory. In W.A.No.490 of 1983, on the other hand, the court held, that the State had no case that for the proper discharge of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical), it was necessary that the person holding the post should possess the higher technical skill which degree-holders possessed and diploma-holders did not. 5. Government Pleader submitted that I should follow the decision in Balakrishnan (supra) in preference to that in W.A. No.490 of 1983 and dismiss this Original Petition, holding that there is no discrimination involved in the classification of employees in the feeder category as diploma-holders and certificate-holders. If the pleadings were in the same shape as the Division Bench found in Balakrishnan (supra), I would have followed that decision. But the pleadings seem to be more akin to those in W.A. No.490 of 1983. The only justification for the ratio fixed by the Note is found in para 8 of the counter affidavit of the first respondent, to the following effect: "The ratio fixed between the direct recruits, diploma holders and certificate holders in the Special Rules is taking into account the nature of work to be attended to by the Department and the Degree of efficiency required to handle work." In W.A. No.490 of 1983, a similar plea was rejected by this court as not sufficient to justify the classification. 6. Apart from this, there is yet another reason to grant the relief which the petitioner seeks and that is the latest decision of a bench of three judges of the Supreme Court affirming the decision of this court in Basheer (supra), A.I.R. 1989 SC 1624:1990(1) KLT 32. That division bench affirmed the decision of this court in Abdul Basheer (supra), ILR 1981 (2) Ker. 527. That division bench affirmed the decision of this court in Abdul Basheer (supra), ILR 1981 (2) Ker. 527. Whereas P. S. E. B. Patiala v. Ravinder Kumar, AIR 1987 SC 367 and Roop Chand v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1989 SC 307, assuming those decisions are applicable, were rendered by Benches of two Judges. The latest in the series of decisions by a bench consisting of a larger number of judges of the Supreme Court has greater value as precedent in the light of decisions of this court and the supreme on the effect of Art.141 of the Constitution of India. Judicial propriety also requires acceptance of the latest decision rendered by a larger number of judges. I allow this Original petition and declare that Note to R.2 of Ext.P2, Special Rules relating to the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service, Electrical Bench-Qualifications and Method of Appointment to be discriminatory and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequent reversion of the petitioner under Ext. P10 is set aside. The Chief Engineer shall pass consequential orders restoring the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer forthwith. Parties will suffer their respective costs. Allowed.