The petitioner has moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the up gradation of some of the respondents and praying that his seniority be maintained according to the seniority list. The petitioner, at present is the Assistant Engineer Grade I. He was appointed as Assistant Engineer, Campus Development Department of NEHU, respondent No. l by a letter dated 25.6.84 in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 now revised to Rs.2000-3500. According to the petitioner, the post of Assistant Engineer has now been redesignated as the Engineer Grade I and accordingly all the Assistant Engineer in NEHU are holding the post of Engineer Grade I. According to the final seniority list of Engineer Grade I, the name of the petitioner appears as serial No. 1. Subsequently, by a notification dated 20.12.90, the respondent Nos.8,9 and 10 were upgraded in the scale of pay of Rs.700-1600 now revised to Rs.2200-4000 with retrospective effect, where the petitioner and others continue to draw the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. Again, on 31.8.91, the respondent Nos. l 1,12 and 13 were upgraded in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-4000. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is, that though the respondent Nos.8 to 13 were juniors in service, they have been upgraded, whereas the petitioner who is senior, his scale of pay is lower to that of the said respondents. 3. In answer to the said petition, the respondent No. 1 has filed affidavits and has stated that those who have been upgraded are all Degree holders in Engineering, whereas the petitioner and some others are only Diploma holders. According to the respondent No. l, the Assistant Engineers Grade I were divided into two categories, i.e. Assistant Engineers holding Degree in Engineering and those holding only Diploma. According to the respondent No. 1, suitable qualifications to rise in the apex of the cadre/promotion ladder is determined to be minimum of Graduation in Engineering. According to the respondent No. l two categories of the Assistant Engineers were created following the order of University Grants Commission dated September, 1985 within Group A post based on the required qualification as per the report of the Joint Cadre Review Committee which went into the matter and removed the existing anomalies and disparities in the pay and other matters with regard to the employees of the different Central Universities. However, the University Grants Commission, in order to remove stagnation gave a one time upward movement to all the employees who have done their eight years' of satisfactory service on pay scale or have been stagnating in the same scale by their letter dated 19th February, 1994 and the petitioners were also covered by this order and they were also offered the same benefit of pay. 4. The real bone of contention between the parties is whether persons holding the same post in the same group and doing same or similar duties, could be classified differently on the basis of educational qualification. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and other respondents have joined service as Assistant Engineers and were doing the same or similar work and the petitioner was senior in seniority list to that of other respondents. And, now classifying the Engineers on the basis of those who hold Diploma and those who hold Degree is unreasonable and there is no rational nexus with its purported object. In (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 19, the Supreme Court in a five member Bench has held in paragraph 29 of the said judgment as follows: “ The concept of equal opportunity undoubtedly permeates the whole spectrum of an individual's employment. But the concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Equality is for equals.” 5. In paragraph 34 and 33, Supreme Court lays down as follows: “ Educational qualification is a safe criterion for determining validity of a classification. If the object of the classification is to achieve administrative efficiency in Engineering services, the classification is clearly co-related to it for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evidence of a higher mental equipment. Efficiency which comes in the trial of a higher mental equipment can reasonably be attempted to be achieved by restricting promotional opportunities to those possessing higher educational qualifications. This is not to suggest that administrative efficiency can be achieved only through the medium of those possessing comparatively higher educational qualifications but that is beside the point. Efficiency which comes in the trial of a higher mental equipment can reasonably be attempted to be achieved by restricting promotional opportunities to those possessing higher educational qualifications. This is not to suggest that administrative efficiency can be achieved only through the medium of those possessing comparatively higher educational qualifications but that is beside the point. One has always to bear in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in order to judge the validity of a classification.” (paragraph 34) “It is relevant that the object to be achieved is not a mere pretence for an indiscriminate imposition of inequalities and the classification cannot be characterised as arbitrary or absurd. This is the farthest that judicial scrutiny can extend. The Court is concerned with reasonableness of the classification, not with the precise accuracy of the decision to classify nor with the question whether the classification is scientific.” (paragraph 33) 6. Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 521 has held : “ The nature of work may be more or less the same but scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies the classification. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and as analysis of the work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of equal pay for equal work' to them.” 7. However, in support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner relies on a Supreme Court judgment reported in 1987 (1) AH India Services Law Journal 128, where the Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that: “Men either Diploma holders or non-diploma holders are performing the same kind of work and duties and they belong to the same cadre having a common/joint seniority list for promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent, no distinction should be made on the basis of quota.” 8. The counsel for the petitioner has further urged that no service rules have been framed by the respondent No. 1 though they should frame such rules under section 24 of the NEHU Act. The counsel for the petitioner has further urged that no service rules have been framed by the respondent No. 1 though they should frame such rules under section 24 of the NEHU Act. Instead of framing rules, they are relying on certain directions and authority of the University Grants Commission and the report of the Joint Review Committee framed of the purposes of removing the so-called anomalies. According to the counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.Lamare, the same is not legal and proper. Mr. SR Sen, the learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. l draws my attrention to the advertisement published for the purposes of employing Assistant Engineers. The said advertisement prescribed the essential qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer as BE or ME in Civil Engineering from a recognised Engineering College. Mr. Sen submitted that since no Degree holder were available in pursuant to such advertisement, Diploma holders were appointed in the same post. However, in answer to the subsequent advertisements, Degree holders were available and were appointed as the Engineers in the same grade. As such, respondent No. l did not act arbitrarily or unfairly in making distinction between Degree holders and Diploma holders belonging to the same grade. The same was done on a rational basis and for the purpose of administrative efficiency so that more qualified Engineers on promotion could be appointed to the post of Executive Engineer or Chief Engineer. 9. Considering the entire spectrum of submissions made and the decisions cited, that though both Diploma holders and Degree holders were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could, for purposes of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers/Chief Engineers were subsequently classified on the basis of educational qualifications. As such, the rule or order providing that Graduates shall be treated differently to the exclusion of Diploma holders does not violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the same must be upheld. The difference between two classes - graduates and diploma holders - furnish a reasonable basis for separate treatment and there is rational nexus to the object sought. 10. In the present case, though no rules have been framed under section 24 of the NEHU Act, by the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 has proceeded on the basis of the directions of the University Grants Commission, no wrong has been done. 10. In the present case, though no rules have been framed under section 24 of the NEHU Act, by the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 has proceeded on the basis of the directions of the University Grants Commission, no wrong has been done. The University Grants Commission which is the supervisory body of all the Universities and distributes funds to the said Universities has also acted on the basis of a Joint Review Committee relating to conditions of service of various personnel of Universities all over India and issued directions accordingly. The said directions are uniform and in keeping with the principles of equality. However, in some cases, where retrospective effect is given to the pay scale of some officers with effect from dates when such officers have not joined service should be looked into and corrected. 11. Same as aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.