R. P. SETHI, C. J. ( 1 ) DIPLOMA holders, Junior Engineers of the appellant-Corporation filed various writ petitions in this Court praying for the issuance of directions to the appellant to prepare the seniority list of junior Engineers of the Corporation of City of Bangalore in accordance with law assigning them proper rankings. They also prayed for review of the promotions ordered to the cadre of Junior engineers and Assistant Engineers after the coming into force of the Bangalore Municipal corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter called the 'regulations, 1971' ). It was prayed that action of the appellant in considering the case of the degree holders, Junior Engineers for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer to be quashed. Vide his judgment impugned in these appeals, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petitioners and the respondents therein had been promoted to the same cadre and that the appellant-Corporation was not justified of making two gradation lists,. e. , one in respect of those possessing the graduate qualification and other in respect of those who did not possess such qualification. He directed the preparation of a common seniority list with the observation that such arrangement would not lead to the conclusion that the writ petitioners were held entitled for promotion automatically nor they could challenge the promotion which had been effected in favour of the respondents in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge held "whatever other consequential benefits that may flow from the same may be given effect to by the concerned authority after effecting such changes in the gradation list of the respondents". ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the appellants, the Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971 were promulgated with the approval of the Government of karnataka which came into force on 4-3-1971. The Regulations envisaged three categories of posts, that is, Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers and Supervisors. On 18th September, 1975, the regulations were amended vide An-nexure-B by re-designating Junior Engineers as 'junior engineers - Division I' and the cadre of Supervisors was redesignated as 'junior Engineers Division ii'. Junior Engineers - Division I were to consist of holders of degrees in Engineering and Junior Engineers - Division II were to be comprised of diploma holders. On 18th September, 1975, the regulations were amended vide An-nexure-B by re-designating Junior Engineers as 'junior engineers - Division I' and the cadre of Supervisors was redesignated as 'junior Engineers Division ii'. Junior Engineers - Division I were to consist of holders of degrees in Engineering and Junior Engineers - Division II were to be comprised of diploma holders. As per the regulations of 1971, the posts of Junior Engineers - Division I were required to be filled 75% by deputation from the Government and 25% by direct appointments. On 14-8-1977, the regulations were decided to be amended vide resolution bearing No. 276 of the Standing Committee (Taxation and Finance) of the Corporation which was sent for approval of the Government vide Annexure-D. It is submitted that at the time of the approval by the government vide Notification No. HMA/270/mnu/77, Bangalore dated 19-12-1977, the post of assistant Engineers which were required to be filled 75% by deputation was amended providing that 25% may be filled by deputation from the Public Works Department, 75% by promotion from the cadres of Junior Engineers - Division I and Junior Engineers - Division II in the ratio of 2:1. It is further submitted that the provision was made for filling up the cadre of Junior engineers -Division I at 50% by deputation and 50% by direct recruitment or by promotion from the cadre of Works Inspectors and Mastries who are graduates. Posts of Junior Engineers Division ii at 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from the cadre of Inspectors and Mastries, the qualification for promotion being diploma in Engineering or a certificate in Civil Engineering. It is contended that on 24-12-1977, the Government of Karnataka in Public Works Department re-designated several posts, one of such posts being the post of Assistant Engineer. The cadre of Assistant Engineer was re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineers. It is contended that on 24-12-1977, the Government of Karnataka in Public Works Department re-designated several posts, one of such posts being the post of Assistant Engineer. The cadre of Assistant Engineer was re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineers. On the same lines, the Standing Committee for Taxation and Finance of the Corporation passed resolution No. 561 dated 12-2-1978 redesignating the post of 'assistant Engineer' as 'assistant Executive Engineer' and the post of 'junior Engineers - Division I' as 'assistant Engineers' and the post of 'junior Engineers Division ii' as 'junior Engineers' vide Annexure-E. It is submitted that from the several amendments made from time to time till 12-2-1978, in respect of posts of Assistant Engineers, junior Engineers and Supervisors, the position that emerged was summarised as follows: the designation as The amended Pay scales (in Rs.) The qualifications indicated in the 1971 designationprescribed to the candr Regulationsholders of the post assistant Engineers Assistant Executive 2,375 to 4,450 Degree in engineerengineering junior Engineers Assistant Engineers 2,050 to 3,950 Degree in engineering supervisors Junior Engineers 1,720 to 3,300 Diploma in engineering or a certificate Course with 2 years experience ( 3 ) IT is contended that there were two categories of posts to which promotions were permitted namely, from the common cadre of Work Inspectors, namely, Assistant Engineers and Junior engineers. The Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, were made applicable to the employees of the appellant-Corporation for the purpose of preparing the seniority list in respect of each category of posts. Without considering the various amendments made and the background under which the posts were redesignated, the learned Single Judge is stated to have passed the order impugned in these appeals. ( 4 ) IT is common knowledge that seniority is a relative term which has reference to the class, category or grade regarding which the dispute is generally raised. In isolation and without reference to the class, category or grade, the question of seniority can neither be determined nor adjudicated. In the instant case, the dispute was with respect to the seniority of the Junior engineers for which the writ petitioners sought a direction against the appellant-Corporation with prayer to prepare a common seniority list of all the Junior Engineers. The preparation of different seniority lists was justified on the ground of those being with respect to different cadres of junior engineers. The preparation of different seniority lists was justified on the ground of those being with respect to different cadres of junior engineers. The gradation was tried to be justified on the basis of the academic qualifications. The relevant rules shown to us clearly show that for the post of Junior Engineers Division i the minimum qualification prescribed is B. E. Degree and for the post of Junior engineers - Division II, diploma holders were entitled for promotion. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge appears to have issued general directions to the appellant for preparation of common seniority list of all the junior engineers notwithstanding the question of qualifications possessed and acquired by them. The Supreme Court in State of jammu and Kashmir v Triloki Nath Khosa and Others, dealt with the question "if persons drawn from different sources are integrated into one class, can they be classified for purposes of promotion on the basis of their educational qualifications?" and replied the same as under: "since the constitutional code of equality and equal opportunity is a charter for equals, equality of opportunity in matters of promotion means an equal promotional opportunity for persons who fall, substantially, within the same class. A classification of employees can therefore be made for first identifying and then distinguishing members of one class from those of another. Classification, however, is fraught with the danger that it may produce artificial inequalities and therefore, the right to classify is hedged in with salient restraints; or else, the guarantee of equality will be submerged in class legislation masquerading as laws meant to govern well marked classes characterized by different and distinct attainments. Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. It cannot extend to embarking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification, for were such an inquiry permissible it would be open to the Courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the legisla- ture or the rule-making authority on the need to classify or the desirability of achieving a particular object. Judged from this point of view, it seems to us impossible to accept the respondents' submission that the classification of Assistant Engineers into degree holders and diploma holders rests on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification, according to the appellant, 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. 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. What is relevant is that the object to be achieved here is not a mere pretence for an indiscriminate imposition of inequalities and the classification cannot be characterized as arbitrary or absurd. That is the farthest that judicial scrutiny can extend" . It was further held that educational qualifications were a safe criterion for determination of validity of classification. It was justified for the purposes of securing the best service substituted from other servants on the basis of their higher qualification. ( 5 ) THE reliance of the learned Counsel for the appellant on Siri Pal v Haryana State Electricity board and Another, is misplaced inasmuch as in that case, the Court held that merely on the ground of acquiring higher qualifications, an employee could not claim consideration for promotion out of turn. ( 5 ) THE reliance of the learned Counsel for the appellant on Siri Pal v Haryana State Electricity board and Another, is misplaced inasmuch as in that case, the Court held that merely on the ground of acquiring higher qualifications, an employee could not claim consideration for promotion out of turn. In Roop Chand Adlakha and Others v Delhi Development Authority and others, the Apex Court referred to its various earlier judgments including Triloki Nath Kkosa's case, supra, and held: "that the rules prescribing different conditions of eligibility for diploma holders and graduates for promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers to that of Assistant Engineers and from the cadre of Assistant Engineers to that of Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution". In K. Narayanan and Others v State of Karnataka and Others, this position was reiterated holding: "demarcation of cadres or gradation in the same cadre on higher and lower qualification is a common phenomenon for fixing hierarchy in services. It is a valid basis of classification as held by this Court in State of Mysore v P. Narasinga Rao, (1968)1 SCR 407 . Engineering services throughout the country, normally, maintain distinction between Junior and Assistant Engineer on diploma and degree. It existed in the State ot Karnataka right from the day the rules were framed" . ( 6 ) IN view of the settled position of law, as noted hereinabove, it is not possible to uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge who has issued the directions without reference to the rules applicable in the case and the settled position of law as settled by various High Courts and the supreme Court of India. The claim of the appellants that they being the degree holders were entitled to be treated in a different grade and cadre is well founded and is required to be protected. The respondent-writ petitioner had not challenged the vires of the rules applicable in the case which provided the classification on the basis of educational qualifications. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ appeals are allowed by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single judge. Writ petitions filed by the respondents shall be dismissed but without any order as to costs.