JUDGMENT 1. - In the above numbered writ petitions the main dispute is in between the members of the Rajasthan Education Service belonging to Group-'E' and Group 'F and is in respect of promotions to the posts of Principal, Higher Secondary School/Schools, the posts at No. I of Group 'D' Section II, to be more precise, the dispute is in respect of clubbing together with the members of the aforesaid two groups 'E' and 'F for the purpose of promotion to Group 'D' Section II. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of item (I-a) under the heading Group 'D, Section II, to the First Schedule and more so, Entry in column 5 thereof. The said item may be extracted as under : S. No. Name of posts Method of recruitment with Percentage Minimum Qualification and Experience for direct recruitment Post or posts from which promotion is to be made Mini Qualification and Experience required for promotion Maximum age for Direct recruitment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - - Group-D Section-II Group 'E' and 'F' posts 40 years Qualification as prescribed for headmaster of Higher Secondary Schools 1. (a) Principal 100% by promotion BSTC/RTC Higher Secondary School/(Boys.) Second Class Post Graduate with Second Class Degree or diploma in Education with 5 years' teaching experience and in addition 5 years administrative experience as Principal/Headmaster of Sec./Hr. Sec./BSTC/RTC/Children School or Sr. Dy. Inspector of School/Dy. Inspectress of Girls Schools. or Second Class Post Graduate with Second Class degree of diploma in Education with 10 years experience out of which 5 years should be as Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer Teachers' Training College. or Second Class Bachelors Degree with Master's degree in Education and 10 years experience as Sr. Lecturer/ Lecturer in Teachers' Training College. It will be proper to first have a look at the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (for short, the State Service Rules) which were framed by the Governor of Rajasthan under the provision to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 2(h) defines 'Service' which means the Rajasthan Educational Service. 'Member of the Services' as defined in rule 2 (e) means a person appointed in a substantive capacity to a post in the service under the provisions of the Rules or the Rules or orders superseded by the Rules and includes a person placed on probation. Rule 2(h) defines 'Service' which means the Rajasthan Educational Service. 'Member of the Services' as defined in rule 2 (e) means a person appointed in a substantive capacity to a post in the service under the provisions of the Rules or the Rules or orders superseded by the Rules and includes a person placed on probation. Schedule or 'Schedules' under rule 2 (f) means respectively the schedule or schedules appended to the State Service Rules. Part-II of the State Service Rules deals with Cadre, and under rule 4(1) the service shall consist of the posts as arranged in the various groups specified in the Schedules. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 4 the nature of posts included in each group of the Service shall be specified in column 2 of the schedules. Under sub-rule (3) the strength of posts in each group of the service shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time, and sub-rule (4) of rule 4 provides that there shall be separate cadres in each group of service specified in the Schedules Ito VI such as:- Schedule I for Boys Institutions. Schedule H for Girls Institutions. Schedule III for Science and General Institutions. Schedule IV for Institutions of Language studies. Schedule v. for Institutions of Physical Educations. Schedule VI for Institutions of Art, Music and others. The posts mentioned in the aforesaid each group of service in a particular Schedule shall be inter-changeable within the same Group of any Schedule, provided such posts carry identical time scale of pay. Part III deals with recruitment. Rule-6 provides methods of recruitment. Part-IV deals with procedure for direct recruitment and Part-V deals with procedure for recruitment by promotions. We are presently concern with Schedule I which as said earlier is for Boys' Institution. But whatever may be said on respect of the aforesaid Schedule will apply to and hold good for Schedule II for Girls Institutions because a perusal of Schedule I and Schedule II will show that hierarchy of offices under both the Schedules is same. Lowest post in Schedule I is under Group-'F and under item 1(a) of Group-'F is the post of Head Masters, Secondary School for boys. Lowest post in Schedule I is under Group-'F and under item 1(a) of Group-'F is the post of Head Masters, Secondary School for boys. As provided in column 3 the post is to be filled in 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion in column 4 of the minimum qualifications are Bachelor's degree or diploma in education, experience of teaching High/Jr. HSS/Hr. Sec. Class for five years or experience of administrative charge of Middle Schools for 4 years and of teaching High/Jr. HSS/Hr. Sec. Classes for a years. Column 5 of the aforesaid item provides that the post/posts from which the promotion is to be made are teachers in grade II and teachers grade I in Section C.D.E. and F of the Schedule Appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short, the subordinate service rules). The next higher posts are of Group 'E' and under item 1(a) of that group are the posts of Headmaster Higher Secondary School for boys which are to be filled in 100% by promotion from group 'F' posts. But the minimum qualification and experience required for promotion are Master's degree in addition to qualifications prescribed for Headmasters. Therefore, only such of the Headmasters of Secondary Schools for boys under Group 'F who possess Master's degree in addition to the qualifications prescribed for that post are eligible for promotion as Headmaster, Higher Secondary Schools for boys under Group 'E'. The next Higher post is in Group D of Section II of Schedule I and under entry 1(a) are the posts of Principal, Higher Secondary Schools/BSTC/RTC (Boys). These posts are to be filled in 100% by promotion from Group-'E' posts and the qualifications prescribed are as prescribed for Headmaster for Higher Secondary Schools. Under Group-'D'-I in item 1 is the post of Inspector of Schools which is to be filled in 100% by promotion from group 'D'-lI posts and the next higher post is of Dy. Director under Group 'C' which post is to be filled in 100% by promotion from Group-'D' Section I posts. The highest post is the post of Joint Director of Education Range in Group 'B' of Schedule I and this post is to be filled in 100% by promotion from Group 'C posts. 2. Director under Group 'C' which post is to be filled in 100% by promotion from Group-'D' Section I posts. The highest post is the post of Joint Director of Education Range in Group 'B' of Schedule I and this post is to be filled in 100% by promotion from Group 'C posts. 2. It will be clear from the perusal of the aforesaid groups and items of Schedule I, and as said earlier, the lowest post in the Schedule I is Group 'F post and the highest post is Group 'B' post. In other words, the lowest post is the post of Headmaster, Secondary Schools for boys and the highest post is the post of Joint Director of Education Range. It appears that except the posts of Group 'P' of Schedule I which posts are to be filled in 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion, all other higher posts of Group 'E', Group 'D' Section II, Group `D'- Section-I, Group 'C' and Group 'B' are to be filled in 100% by promotion and the channel of promotion is as said earlier. 3. As said in the beginning of this order the challenge to the items in column 5 against item 1(a) under the Group D-Section-II of Schedule-I in so far as the post of Principal, Higher Secondary Schools all concerned, which posts are to be filled in 100% by promotion, it is provided that the promotion is to be made from Group 'E' and 'F posts. 4. We may now refer to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 4. We may now refer to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner who represent members of State Education Service in Group E of Schedule-I to the State Service Rules are that the members of Group 'E' carry higher pay scale, nature of duties is different, the pay scales are higher than the pay scales of members of Group 'F they belong to distinct and different group or in other words, members of groups 'E' and 'F of Schedule-I to the State Service Rules belong to distinct and dis-similar group and they cannot be clubbed together for the purpose and it will amount to treat unequals as equals and will be against the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the posts in group 'E' are higher than the posts in group 'F of Schedule I to the State Service Rules and clubbing the members of both groups, 'F and 'E' for the purpose of promotion to Group 'D'- Section II and providing common seniority list, is arbitrary, illegal and the promotions are contrary in to the provisions of rule-23-A to 25. In reply, the contention on behalf of the respondent is that as per National Education Policy, all the Higher Secondary Schools were brought under 10 + 2 scheme and they were converted into Senior Higher Secondary Schools. In the aforesaid upgraded Senior Secondary Schools the posts of principals were created which are in the pay scale No. 21 and the officers from the pay scale No. 18 and 19 are eligible for promotion to scale No. 21. It was therefore not necessary that only the members of Group 'E' to the Schedule I should alone be entitled for promotion. A common list has been prepared of the officers of Group 'E' and 7 and in accordance with that seniority list a list of eligible officers for promotion is prepared. The posts of principles have too be filled in 50% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 50% by merit. It is out of the common seniority list and eligibility list that the promotions are given as provided in rule 24 (2) (a). The posts of principles have too be filled in 50% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 50% by merit. It is out of the common seniority list and eligibility list that the promotions are given as provided in rule 24 (2) (a). It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the number of posts of principals under Group-D-Section II to Schedule I is 672 and the number of posts of Vice Principal Group 'E' of Schedule I is 671 and the posts of Headmaster, Secondary Schools are 3119. Therefore, in order to see that the Headmasters of Secondary Schools get opportunity of promotion, it was provided in column 5 of item 1(a) under Group D Section-II of Schedule I to the State Service Rules that the promotions to the posts of Principal of Senior Higher Secondary Schools will be made from the holders of posts in Group 'E' and 'F'. In other words, the contention on behalf of the respondents is that so that justice may be done to the holders of the posts of Headmasters of Secondary School, numbering 3119, it was provided in column 5 item 1(a) under heading D-II of Schedule I that the holders of posts of Group `F shall also be entitled for promotion to the posts of Principal under that heading. Before as a result of National Educational Policy. Before as a result of National Educational Policy referred to earlier a number of Government Higher Secondary Schools were upgraded to Senior Secondary Schools in academic Session 1989-90 and the posts of Headmasters were upgraded to the post of principals, there were three type of schools (i) Secondary Schools headed by Headmasters in Group 'F (ii) Higher Secondary Schools i.e. 10 + 1. where the strength of students was less than 1000 and (iii) Higher Secondary Schools, 10 + 1 where the strength of students was more than 1000. So far as Higher Secondary Schools of strength of more than 1000 students are concerned, the heads of institution were designated as principals, but as a result of National Educational Policy from the academic session 1989-90 all the posts of Headmasters in Higher Secondary Schools were upgraded to the post of Principal and the destination of the basis of the strength of the students was abolished. There was no post of Vice Principal provided under the State Service Rules but now the respondents have created 671 posts of Vice Principals and as per the cadre of the respondents the intention was to re designate the Group 'E' posts as Vice Principal of Higher Secondary Schools. 5. The pay scale of Headmasters in Group 'F in 2000-3500 whereas the pay scale of the holders of the posts in Group 'E' is 2200-4000. Academic qualifications as said earlier for the posts in Group 'F' are Bachelors Degree or Diploma in education and experience of teaching High/Jr.HSS/Hr. Sec. Class for 5 years or experience of administrative charge of Middle Schools for 4 years and of teaching Higher Jr.HSS/Hr.Sec. Classes for three years, where as so far as the holders of posts under Group '$' of Schedule I including the post of Headmasters under entry 1(a) of the State Service Rules, the minimum qualifications and experience required to promotion is Master's Degree in addition to the qualification prescribed for Headmasters. Therefore, only the holders of posts in Group 'F who have Master's Degree in addition to the qualifications prescribed for Headmasters under item 1(a) of Group 'F will be entitled for promotion not only to Group 'E' but also for promotion to the post of Principal Senior Higher Secondary School under .Group-D, Section-II. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the promotions are given from Group 'F directly to Group 'D' Section-II of the 1st Schedule to the State Service Rules and it will be unreasonable because it amounts to give two promotions at a time and it adversely affects the senior members of Group-E. By clubbing together Group 'E' and 'F' equal opportunity for promotion to the members of Group 'E' has been denied, and in this manner Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated. Two distinct groups cannot be clubbed together, moreso when both the groups have different natured of work, different pay scales and moreso when there are two different cadres and there cannot be one interlaced seniority list. Two distinct groups cannot be clubbed together, moreso when both the groups have different natured of work, different pay scales and moreso when there are two different cadres and there cannot be one interlaced seniority list. In our opinion, though, the aforesaid item 1(a) under group-D Sec. II of Schedule-I was added by the D.O.P. Notification No. Fl (a) DOP-91/82 dated July 1, 1982, but challenge was not made because there were likely to be very few posts for promotion and it was as a result of the National Education Policy as aforesaid from the academic session 1989-90 that a large number of Higher Secondary Schools were upgraded in the Senior Higher Sec. Schools and that large number of posts of principals were created. As a result thereof, the promotions were given on the basis of merit and either to officiating members of the Service in Group 'E' or from group 'F to the post of Principals in Group-D-Sec. II. That gave a cause of grievance to the petitioners who might not have come in merit. The posts of principals, as said earlier, were to be filled 50% by promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit and 50% on merit basis and even in the common seniority list of members of State Service belonging to Group T and 'F', the members of Service of Group 'F' would have been shown junior to the members of Group 'E' and therefore, so far as the selection on the basis of seniority cum merit is concerned, they could have no grievance, but as a result of the selection on merit basis for 50% vacancies, some of which might have gone to junior persons who are the members of Group 'F and who are the members of Group 'F and who are within the equability zone and the petitioner who could not be selected, have now challenged item 1(a) of Group-D, Section-11 and moreso, column 5 of the aforesaid item which provides channel of promotion to the post of Principal from the holders of the posts in Group 'E' and 'F both. But the question is as to whether there could be a combined seniority list, whether groups 'F and 'E', which undoubted belongs to different cadres carry different pay scales, are superior and inferior posts, the posts of group 'E' being superior to the post of group 'F', whether both groups can be combined together for promotion or not ? As said earlier, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not permissible under law because unequals are being treated equally which is not permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Two distinct groups have been clubbed together for the purpose of promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the case of S.B. Mathur and others v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and others AIR 1988 SC 2073 , where the Apex Court was dealing with the case of posts of Superintendents, Court Masters, and Private Secretaries to Judges of the Delhi High Court. The pay scale of all the posts were the same. The court considered and Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971, Rule 3 of which provided that inter seniority of confirmed employees in any category of the High Court Staff shall be determined on the basis of the date of confirmation and rule 5 of that Rules provide-that,joint inter seniority if confirmed employees in categories of equal status posts shall be determined according to their dates of confirmation in any of those categories: Rule 9 with which the Apex Court was not directly concerned, provided that certain credit for purposes of seniority shall be given to an employee who before his appointment as Asstt. in the High Court was working on are of the posts mentioned in clause IV of Schedule U. Rule 2 contained definition including the definition of 'equated post' and 'equal Status posts'. The question was for appointment to the post of Asstt. Registrars from the aforesaid Three categories of posts. The court said that "In appreciating this submission, it must be borne in mind that it is an accepted principle that where there is an employee who has a large number 1. The question was for appointment to the post of Asstt. Registrars from the aforesaid Three categories of posts. The court said that "In appreciating this submission, it must be borne in mind that it is an accepted principle that where there is an employee who has a large number 1. AIR 1968 SC 2073 of employees in his service performing diverse duties, he must enjoy a certain measure of discretion in treating different categories of his employees as holding equal posts of equated posts, as questions of promotion or transfer of employees inter will necessarily arise for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of the organisation. There is, therefore, nothing inherently wrong in an employer treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts provided that in doing so, he exercises his discretion reasonable and does not violate the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There is, therefore, nothing inherently wrong in an employer treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts provided that in doing so, he exercises his discretion reasonable and does not violate the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is also clear that for treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts, it is not necessary that the holders of these posts must perform completely the same functions or that the sources of recruitment to the posts must be the same nor is it essential that qualifications for appointments to the posts must be identical." Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid down emphasis to the following observations of the Supreme Court in supper of his contention that in this case members of Groups 'E' and 'F belong to different and separate and distinct groups and unequals cannot be treated equally : "All that is reasonably required is that there must not be such difference in the pay scales, or qualifications of the incumbents of the posts concerned or in their duties or responsibilities or regarding any other relevant factor that it would be unjust to treat the posts a like or in other words, that post having substantially higher pay-scale or status in service or carrying substantially heavier responsibilities and duties or otherwise distinctly superior are not equated with posts carrying much lower pay scales or substantially lower responsibilities and duties or enjoying much lower status in services." It was contended on the strength of the aforesaid extracted portion of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court that the posts of Group 'E' are the posts of higher pay scales or status in service and carry substantial higher responsibilities and duties and even otherwise are distinctly superior and they could not be clubbed together for promotion to the post of Group D Section II with the posts of Group 'F'. It will appear from the aforesaid case of S.B. Mathur (supra) that all the three posts carried identical pay scales. The source of recruitment was not the same. The court said that it was permissible to prepare a joint seniority list for the purpose of promotions to the post of Asstt. Registrar. 6. It will appear from the aforesaid case of S.B. Mathur (supra) that all the three posts carried identical pay scales. The source of recruitment was not the same. The court said that it was permissible to prepare a joint seniority list for the purpose of promotions to the post of Asstt. Registrar. 6. In the case of Jesguim I.M. Dias v. R.S. Ravonkar and ors., 1990 (4) SLR 421 , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where promotion to the post of Asstt. Account Officer (Cash) was made from Chief Cashier/Cashier/Additional Cashier and an argument was advanced that unequals cannot be clubbed together for purposes of promotions from one post to another as it will be contrary to the Principle of equality as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judges quashed the recruitment rules providing as aforesaid on the ground that they were arbitrary and being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid case, the court referred to the case of Govind Dattatray Kelkar and others v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and others, AIR 1967 SC 839 wherein the Apex Court said that Article 16 of the Constitution is only an incident of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 thereof. It gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. The court said that : "It follows that there can be a reasonable clarification of the employees for the purpose of appointment and promotion. The concept of equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only when the promotees are drawn from the same source. " The court also referred to the case of Mohd. Usman and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 1801 , wherein the Apex Court said : "The proposition of law that the doctrine of equality is attracted not only when equals are treated as unequals but also when unequals are treated as equals and that Article 14 is offended both by finding difference when there is one is unexceptionable. But the rule of equality is intended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination." In the case C.C. Padmanabhan v. Director of Public Instruction, AIR 1981 SC 64 , the Apex Court was dealing with a case of revision of the appellant from the post of Assistant Educational Officer to the post of High School Assistants in Kerala State. The Court held that the post of Asstt. Educational Officer lies in a category and carries a grade higher than those of the post of High School Assistants and is therefore a post of promotion vis-a-vis the other so that the two cannot be considered as interchangeable especially because there is no rule direction or instruction laying down expressly or by necessary implication that they are equivalent to each other. In the case of Bireshwar Chatterjee and others v. State of West Bengal and others, 1984 LIC 979 , the Calcutta High Court was dealing with a case of promotions to the post of Sub officers, in West Bengal Fire Services. Rule 5 of the West Bengal Fire Service Rules treating equally firemen and leaders whose nature of work are different for promotion to the post of Sub officer was held unfair and contrary to the tenets of the Constitution. 7. A reference to the Full Bench of this Court at this stage is necessary, as reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the aforesaid case. In Amar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1978 SLJ 407 a five judges bench of this court was dealing with the State Services Rules and moreso the posts of Headmasters of Secondary Schools (Boys) under Group F and moreso 50% of the posts were to be filled by promotion. As provided in column 5 of item 1(a) of that group the promotion in column to the 50% posts was to be made from Teachers Grade II and Teachers Grade I in Section C, D, E and F of the Schedule appended to the subordinate service rules. In the aforesaid case of Amar Chand the challenge was to column 5 of item 1(a) where by the teachers Grade II were placed at par with the senior teachers for the purposes of promotion to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of Secondary Schools. Learned Single Judge had partly allowed the writ petition. In the aforesaid case of Amar Chand the challenge was to column 5 of item 1(a) where by the teachers Grade II were placed at par with the senior teachers for the purposes of promotion to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of Secondary Schools. Learned Single Judge had partly allowed the writ petition. While he rejected the plea regarding discrimination in selection of Headmasters from two sources, namely Senior teachers and teachers Grade II he directed the respondents to prepare a common seniority list before proceeding to make promotions to the State Education Service from the Rajasthan Subordinate Education Service, and the challenge was on the ground that unequals are treated as equals and it offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench of this Court in para 10 of its judgment said : "We feel that by clubbing the Grade II Teachers with the Senior Teachers for the purpose of promotion of the post of a Head Master, the State has avoided in justice to a large number II teachers and therefore, on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the Advocate General we are convinced that the Rule does not in any manner offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The clubbing of the two categories of teachers as one class for the purpose of promotion to the post of a Headmaster is, therefore, justified." It will appear from the aforesaid case that the Full Bench of this Court placed reliance on the case of Mohd. Usman and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 1801 . In that case the recruitment to the post of State-wise Grade II Sub-registrar from the Ministerial Officials of Registration having been made open to the Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks, who undoubtedly constituted a different class by themselves, the Upper Division Clerk being definitely superior to the Lower Division Clerks, it was argued before the Supreme Court that this type of recruitment was violative of Article 85 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that : "On the facts before us, we are unable to agree that for the purpose of recruitment with which we are concerned here in the State should have classified the UDCs and LDCs separately. The Supreme Court said that : "On the facts before us, we are unable to agree that for the purpose of recruitment with which we are concerned here in the State should have classified the UDCs and LDCs separately. If the States had treated the UDCs as being superior to the LDCs for the purpose of that recruitment it would have resulted in a great deal of injustice to a large of, section of the clerks. The fortuitous circumstances of and officer in a particular' district be coming an UDCs would given him an undue advantage over his seniors who might have been as efficient or even more efficient than himself merely because they chanced to serve in some other district. For there as one mentioned above, we do not think that in the present case the State can be aid to have try to unequals as equals. The rule of equality is intended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination. In our opinion the High Court by over looking there as on being Rule came to thereoneous conclusion that the said rule violated Article 14 of the Constitution." In appears to us that the Full Bench of this Court was influenced by the last para of the judgment of the Apex Court. In the aforesaid case it will appear that the background was that under the relevant Ministerial Service Rules, the UDC had to be selected from LDC after the LDC had put in certain number of years of service and after having passed the test. It appears that the promotion from the post of LDC to the post of UDC was district wise and the Supreme Court in the background of the facts of that case that more posting is a fortuitous circumstances that an officer in a particular district becomes an UDC, it would have given an 1. AIR 1971 SC 1801 undue advantage over his senior who might have been as efficient or even more efficient than him, merely because they chanced to serve in another district, made the above observations. Thus, it is clear that in the case of Mohd. AIR 1971 SC 1801 undue advantage over his senior who might have been as efficient or even more efficient than him, merely because they chanced to serve in another district, made the above observations. Thus, it is clear that in the case of Mohd. Usman (supra) the Apex Court was considering a case where the channel of promotion to the post of Grade-II Sub-Registrar from them ministerial officers was made open from LDCs and UDCs where, as said earlier the promotion from LDC to UDC was district wise and dependly on fortuitous circumstances. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the case of Amar Chand (supra) was decided on its own facts and as said earlier in the case of S.B. Mathur (supra), the Apex Court has said that the posts having substantially higher pay scales or status in service or carrying substantially heavier responsibilities and duties or otherwise distinctly superior are not equated with posts carrying much lower pay scales or substantially lower responsibilities and duties or enjoying much lower status in service. It has further been said by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case at page 2081 column 2 by referring to the case of V.T. Khunzode v. Reserve Bank of India, (1982) 3 SCR 411 - AIR 1982 SC 917 that : "Whether there should be a combined seniority in different cadres of groups is a matter of policy which does not attract the applicability of the equality clause. The court pointed out that the past events showed that various departments of Reserve Bank of India were grouped and regrouped from time to time. Arbitrariness, irrationality perversity and mala fides will of course render any scheme unconstitutional but the fact that the scheme does not satisfy the expectations of every employee is not evidence of these. This grouping and regrouping of different categories of employees is inevitable in a large organisation with a view of meeting "illegible." situations and needs of a live organisation. Merely because the chances of promotion of some employees are adversely affected by such grouping or regrouping, that does not lead to a conclusion that it is against the law. We may point out that in the case before us, there is no contention urged before us that the educating of posts or the combined seniority list was promoted by any malafides." 8. We may point out that in the case before us, there is no contention urged before us that the educating of posts or the combined seniority list was promoted by any malafides." 8. We have already said earlier that group 'F post is interior post to group 'E' post. In other words group E posts are superior to group F posts. It will further appear that the holders of posts of group F item 1(a) are entitled to promotion to the post at item 1(a) are Group E. Thus, the grades of posts in Group F being less i.e. 2000-3500 than the pay scale of holders of the posts in Group 'E' i.e. 2200-4000, the post Group 'F' being superior to group F post, we are of the opinion that by providing in column 5 item 1(a) of Group-D-Section II that promotion shall be made from the holders of posts in Group 'E' and 'F' amounts to treating unequals as equals and therefore it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. There is yet another ground to arrive at the same conclusion. We have already said that the posts under Group F are the lowest posts under the State Service Rules and the first promotion from the group F post is to Group E post and the promotion has to be on the seniority cum merit basis as providing in sub-rule (5) of rule 25 of the State Service Rules which provides that promotion 1. (1982)3 SCR 411 - AIR 1982 SC 917 shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Sub-rule (6) or rule 25 provides that selection for promotion to all other higher posts or higher categories of posts in the State Service shall be made on the basis of merit and on the basis of seniority cum merit in the proportion of 50 : 50. Under the provision to Sub-rule (6) of rule 25 if the Committee is satisfied that suitable persons are not available for selection by promotion strictly on the basis of merit in a particular year, selection by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit may be made in the same manner as specified in the State Service Rules. Under Sub-rule (7) of rule 25, selection for promotion to the highest post/posts in the State Service shall always be made on the basis of merit alone. Under Sub-rule (7) of rule 25, selection for promotion to the highest post/posts in the State Service shall always be made on the basis of merit alone. We have already said earlier that the highest post is of Joint Director and therefore so far as the case of posts in Group-D-Section II is concerned, they will be filled in 50% on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 50% by merit. Rule 23-A of the State Service Rules reads as under "No officer shall be considered for promotion unless he is substantively appointed and confirmed on the next post. It no officer substantive in the next lower post is eligible for promotion, officers who have been appointed on such post on officiating basis after selection in accordance with one of the methods of recruitment or under any Service Rules promulgated under provision to Article 309 of the Constitution of India may be considered for promotion on officiating basis only in the order of seniority in which they would have been had they been substantive on the said lower post." A perusal of the aforesaid extracted rule 23-A will show that before one can be considered for promotion he must be substantial appointed and confirmed on the next lower post and so far as the promotion to the post of Principal at item 1(a) of Group D Sec. II is concerned, the next lower post will be the post in Group 'E' and not Group 7. It will further appear from rule 23-A that is no officer substantive in the next lower post is eligible for promotion, officers who have been appointed on such post on officiating basis after selection in accordance with one of the methods of recruitment or under any service rules promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution may be considered for promotion and that too an officiating basis only in the order of seniority in which they would have been substantive on the said lower post. It will therefore, appear that even if an officer is appointed to Group 'E' post from Group 'F post on officiating basis after selection in accordance with any method of recruitment or under any service rule, promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, he can only be considered for promotion on officiating basis in order of seniority and not on the basis of merit. In other words, the persons from group F of Schedule I to the State Service Rules, even if promoted on officiating basis to a post in Group 'E', if no substantive post in Group 'E' would have been available, he could have been promoted to Group D-Sec. II on officiating basis in order of seniority and not on merit. The scheme of the Rules therefore is that only a person holding the next lower post in substantive capacity is entitled for promotion on the basis of merit in case some proportion of posts are filled on the basis of merit and therefore, so far as holders of posts of group 'F are concerned because the post of Group 'F' not being the next lower post to the post under Group 'D' Sec. II in our opinion, they could not be considered for selection on the basis of merit. 10. Consequently, we allow all these writ petitions and hold that entry in column 5 of item 1(a) under heading Group D Sec. II of Schedule I to the Raj. Educational Service Rules, 1970 and even item No. 1 under Schedule II under Group D-II column 5 as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution being arbitrary and we strike down the same. We are of the opinion that the Group 'E' and 'F' posts being dis-similar could not be clubbed together for promotion to the posts under item 1(a) of Group D Sec. II of Schedule I and Schedule II of the State Service Rules. We direct the respondents to cancel/withdraw any order of promotion of persons from Group 'F to the post under Group 'D', if any, which is against the view which we have taken above and this should be done as soon as possible but in no case later than three months. Costs made easy.Writ petition allowed. *******