JUDGMENT HANSARIA, J.—Article 229(2) of the Constitution has provided that the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose. The staff of the High Court of Kerala made certain representations to the Chief Justice of that Court ventilating various grievances. The representatives of the staff were heard by the Chief Justice on 24-3-1984 and after applying due mind to various aspects involved in the matter, which were recorded in the minutes which run into almost 12 pages, it was felt that a need for amendment of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970 existed. A notification was issued accordingly on 14-6-1984, by which the existing provision in sub-rule (d) of Rule 16 was substituted to read as below: "16. (d) Not more than eight posts of Court Officers (Category 6-A in Division II) may be filled by promotion of non-law graduates working in the feeder categories (Categories 1, 1-A, 1-B and 3 to 10 in Division II) subject to the following conditions: (i) They must have completed 50 years of age or 20 years of total service, the service being calculated after taking into account the service from the date of appointment as Assistant Grade-II, Typist Grade-II and Shorthand Writer Grade-II, as the case may be. (ii) They must be willing to be appointed as Court Officers. (iii) Their capacity for Bench work must be certified by a committee consisting of the Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). (iv) All the non-law graduates in the feeder categories will together form a separate class. As between the qualified law graduates and the non-law graduates forming the separate class there shall be a ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the post subject to what is stated in clause (v) below. (v) A law graduate who is senior to a non-law graduate coming within the separate class at the time of filling up of the vacancy will not be superseded by the application of the ratio. The seniority as between the law graduate and the non-law graduate will be determined with reference to the total length of service in the manner indicated in clause (i) above. The seniority as between the law graduate and the non-law graduate will be determined with reference to the total length of service in the manner indicated in clause (i) above. (vi) Promotion from among the non-law graduates shall be on the basis of their total length of service. It shall be calculated in the same manner as total service is calculated under clause (i) above. (vii) Non-law graduates promoted as Court Officers shall not be eligible for any further promotion based only on their promotion following the above provisions." 0 2. The aforesaid shows that by the amendment not more than eight posts of Court Officers (their number was 40 at the relevant time) could be filled by promotion of non-law graduates working in the feeder categories. The law graduates working in the High Court assailed the validity of the amendment and a Division Bench of the High Court struck down the same being violative of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. The non-law graduates for whose benefit the aforesaid amendment had been made have preferred this appeal. 3. The Division Bench relied principally on the decision of this Court in Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India { (1975) 3 SCC 76 } in striking down the aforesaid rule. A Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the ratio of Shujat Ali case {(1975) 3 SCC} along with other important decisions on the question as to when educational qualification can form basis of classification in matters relating to promotion in the case of T.R. Kothandaraman v. T.N. Water Supply and Drainage Board { (1994) 6 SCC 282 }. It has been concluded in this decision that higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification, not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting scope of promotion. Reliance on Shujat Ali case { (1975) 3 SCC 76 } by the Bench of the High Court to hold that the aforesaid amendment having provided ratio 1:1 between two classes was violative of Articles 14 and 16 is, therefore, not sustainable. In Kothandaraman case { (1994) 6 SCC 282 } even ratio of 3:1 was upheld for some service because of historical background etc. 4. Shri Sitaramiah, appearing for the respondents, who were the writ petitioners before the High Court, has strenuously urged that incumbents must be law graduates for promotion to the post of Court Officer. In Kothandaraman case { (1994) 6 SCC 282 } even ratio of 3:1 was upheld for some service because of historical background etc. 4. Shri Sitaramiah, appearing for the respondents, who were the writ petitioners before the High Court, has strenuously urged that incumbents must be law graduates for promotion to the post of Court Officer. There can be no dispute with this proposition; but a perusal of the amended rule shows that the same has taken care to see that only such non-law graduates would be considered for promotion who had capacity for Bench work, which is required to be certified by a Committee consisting of Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). This shows that the rule-making authority had taken full precaution to see that only a person of tested capacity is promoted to the post of Court Officer. It has also been noted by us that out of the 40 posts of Court Officers not more than 8 were made available to the non-law graduates; and that too to those who had completed 20 years of total service. This promotional avenue was opened for those who were at the fag end of their service, as, in the alternative, age of fifty years was required to become eligible. The amendment has shut out further promotion of the non-law graduates promoted as Court Officers. 5. It is contended by Shri Rao that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of this Courts recent decision in Kothandaraman case { (1994) 6 SCC 282 } inasmuch as there is historical background also for what has been provided in the amended rule - the same being that law degree came to be prescribed for qualification for appointment for Court Officer only in 1960, before which this qualification was not essential. It has been brought to our notice that in some other High Courts of the country, law degree is not a prescribed qualification for appointment as Court Officers, who are termed as Bench Clerks in those High Courts. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision and the salient points of the amended rule noted above, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the same and uphold the validity of the aforesaid rule. 7. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. For Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 189