Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. 1. Though the relevant recruitment rule clearly prescribes graduation as the minimum qualification for appointment to the posts of Court Officers, Section Officers and Appeal Examiners, which are in Category-3 of Division-II of the Madras High Court Service Rules, the petitioners, who are non-graduates and who are in the feeder category of Assistant Section Officers, claim a right to be promoted to the higher posts on the ground that such promotions were allowed to be made in the past by relaxing the prescribed qualification, and also on the ground that their names had been included in the panel of persons suitable for promotion to the post of Court Officers, which panel had been prepared on 21.08.1998. The fact that the validity period of that panel was one year is not in dispute. It is also the case of the petitioners that though the Government had sanctioned 20 more posts in the category of court officers, such posts had remained vacant when the period of validity of the panel ended and it is their case that they ought to have been appointed to those posts before the validity of the panel expired. 2. Even before the coming into force of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice had, in 1948; in exercise of powers conferred under Article 242 of the Government of India Act, 1935 read with S. 241 Sub-section 2 of diat Act, with the approval of the Governor of Madras so far as the Rules relating to salaries, allowances, leave and pensions, framed the Madras High Court Service Rules. Rule-6 of the Rules deals with the qualifications to be possessed by the persons appointed to the service. Rule 6 (a) deals with the eligibility for appointment to service by direct recruitment Rule 6(c) prescribes the qualification required to be possessed for the appointment to the service in Division II. Rule-6 of the Rules deals with the qualifications to be possessed by the persons appointed to the service. Rule 6 (a) deals with the eligibility for appointment to service by direct recruitment Rule 6(c) prescribes the qualification required to be possessed for the appointment to the service in Division II. That rule states that No person shall be eligible for appointm ent to the service in Division II: — (1) In categories 11 and 12 unless he possesses the minimum general educational qualification that may be prescribed by his Excellency the Governor of Madras from time to time for admission into the Madras subordinate Services or such other qualification as may be considered by the Chief Justice to be equivalent to such said qualification; (2) In the other categories unless he holds the BA., or the B.Sc. Degree of a University in the Indian Union.” The posts of Appeal Examiners, Bench Clerks and Court fee Examiners are mentioned in category 6 (a). The post of Bench Clerks, original side is mentioned in category 6(c). 3. The 1948 Rules were replaced by the Rules framed in the year 1955, after the Constitution came into force. Those Rules have been framed by the Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor of Madras, in exercise of his powers conferred by Article 229(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. The posts of Appeal Examiners and Bench Clerks Appellate Side are mentioned in those Rules in Division II category 7(a). The post of Bench Clerks, Original Side is mentioned in category 7(c). Court fee examiners are also in Category 7(a). Rule 6 of the 1955 Rules deals with the qualifications for persons to be appointed to the High Court Services. Rule 6(a) deals with the appointment by direct recruitment. Rule 6(c) prescribes the eligibility for appointment to the service without making any distinction between direct recruitment and promotion. The prescription made in Rule 6(a) so far as persons to be directly recruited are concerned is in addition to what has been prescribed in Rule 6(c). Rule 6(c)(2) of the 1955 Rules, which are the Rules by which petitioners are governed, prescribes the degree of BA. or B.Sc. or B.Com. of a University in the Indian Union, as the minimum qualification required for appointments to categories 1 to 10 Division II. Rule 6(c)(2) of the 1955 Rules, which are the Rules by which petitioners are governed, prescribes the degree of BA. or B.Sc. or B.Com. of a University in the Indian Union, as the minimum qualification required for appointments to categories 1 to 10 Division II. The proviso thereto relaxes the requirement so far as appointment to category 10 in Division II is concerned, if a person is qualified either in civil judicial test or in Accounts tests for Subordinate Officers. The posts mentioned in category 10 is Upper Division Clerk. 4. By subsequent amendments to the Rules, the category of the posts in Division II as also the nomenclature were changed. Bench clerks are now called as Court officers. Court Fee Examiners are now called as Section Officers. The category in which they were earlier placed, i.e., category 7 is now shifted to category 3. The Rule requiring the possession of a University degree for the post has remained unchanged. 5. It is thus seen that both, prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, and after it came into force, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Court officers, appeal Examiners and Court fee Examiners is graduation from a University of India. 6. Rule 24 of the Rules as it originally stood, which Rule is now renumbered as Rule 23, reserves the power of the Chief Justice to deal with the case of any member of the service, or any person to be appointed to the service, in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, except that the persons concerned shall not be given a treatment less favourable than that provided by the Rules. 7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that number of persons, who were non-graduates, had been promoted to the post of Court officers, notwithstanding Rule 6 (c), we directed the counsel for the respondent to place before the Court, data concerning the number of graduates and non-graduates promoted to the post of Court Officers. We have been informed by counsel that though 162 posts of Court Officers are sanctioned, only 157 have been filed. As of now 128 of the Court Officers in service are graduates and 29 are non-graduates. We have been informed by counsel that though 162 posts of Court Officers are sanctioned, only 157 have been filed. As of now 128 of the Court Officers in service are graduates and 29 are non-graduates. The number of posts in feeder category of Assistant Section Officers is 257, of which 224 posts are filled, of the 224 Assistant Section Officers, 38 are non-graduates. 8. We have also been informed that on a scrutiny of the panels prepared from the year 1985 on wards, it has been ascertained that in the year 1985 when appointments were made by promotion to the post of Court officers and Appeal Examiners, the rules were not relaxed and no non-graduate was promoted. In the year 1988, a panel was drawn up which included six non-graduates and those six were appointed over a period of three years. In the panel that was drawn up in the year 1992 three non-graduates were included in a panel of 19. In the panel drawn up in the year 1993 no non-graduate was included. Similarly in the panels drawn up in 1995 and 1996, no non-graduate was included. In the year 1997 in the panel of 59 persons drawn up on 08.07.1997, 19 non-graduate were included. Such inclusion was based upon the relaxation, granted by the then Chief Justice on 05-01-1997. When the next panel was drawn up on 21-08-1998, 33 persons were included in the panel of whom 11 were non-graduates. Out of 11 non-graduates so included, appointments were given to six. The remaining five are petitioners before us. 9. The validity of the panel, which was drawn up on 21-08-1998 having expired after a period of 12 months therefrom, a fresh panel was drawn up on 01-09-1999, wherein 54 persons were included. There are no non-graduates in that panel. 10. It is thus evident that the policy regarding promotion of non-graduates by relaxing the qualification prescribed in Rule 6(c) has been inconsistent. The qualification prescribed for the post has at all times been graduation from a University in India. Assuming that only graduates were being promoted till the year 1988, the qualification of graduation was relaxed in the panels that were prepared in the years 1988, 1992, 1997 and 1998. Such relaxation was not granted when panels were prepared in the years 1993, 1995 and 1996 as also when the panel was prepared on 01-09-1999. Assuming that only graduates were being promoted till the year 1988, the qualification of graduation was relaxed in the panels that were prepared in the years 1988, 1992, 1997 and 1998. Such relaxation was not granted when panels were prepared in the years 1993, 1995 and 1996 as also when the panel was prepared on 01-09-1999. Thus, in the period of 14 years from 1985 to 1999 the relaxation was given only on four occasions, in the years 1988, 1992, 1997 and 1998. 11. We find from the records placed before us that the then Chief Justice had, on 05-01-1997 while considering the panel for promotion to 53 posts of court officers/Section officers/Appeal Examiners and the representation that had been made to him by the non-graduate Assistant Section Officers, recorded thus: “The non-graduate Assistant Section Officers have also made a representation stating that they have no further scope for promotion, that they have been working in the category of Assistant Section officer for several years, that if they have got longer service and that if they are not promoted by relaxing the educational qualification, they will have to retire only as Assistant Section Officers. It is also brought to my notice that in the past, the Assistant Section Officers, who did not possess degree qualification, had been promoted, as per seniority in service, by relaxing the educational qualification. Of-course, en bloc promotion of non-graduate Assistant Section Officers, who are seniors to graduate Assistant Section Officers, will also affect the morale of the graduates. Similarly, if non-graduates are not promoted by relaxing the educational qualification, they will also be dejected as they will have to stagnate in the same category for several years until they retire. In order to ensure efficiency and avoid dejection and frustration among the Assistant Section Officers and to ensure that they can work whole-heartedly, I am of the view that, if not en bloc promotion of non-graduate Assistant Section Officers according to seniority, at least they can be promoted on certain ratio. The non-graduate who are seniors, having failed to acquire the necessary educational qualification, if they want to have promotion on relaxation, must have to give up their seniority to certain extent. If that is done, the morale of the graduates also will not be affected, and all of them will work efficiently and whole heatedly and the administration will not suffer. If that is done, the morale of the graduates also will not be affected, and all of them will work efficiently and whole heatedly and the administration will not suffer. Therefore, I am of the view that the ratio of graduates and non-graduate Assistant Section Officers at 2:1, by relaxing the eligibility educational qualification only in so far as the non-graduates are concerned, for promotion to the category of Court Officer/Section Officer/Appeal Examiner be followed, until the non-graduates who are in the category of Assistant Section Officers, as on today, are exhausted. This shall not apply to non-graduates who enter the Assistant Section Officers category from tomorrow onwards. This shall not be the permanent feature for promotion. It is only to avoid the stagnation of the non-graduates as 16 non-graduates are seniors to the graduates and have put in good number of years of service in the Assistant Section Officer category. Therefore, it is ordered that the promotion of non-graduate Assistant Section Officers, as on to-day in the category of Assistant Section Officer, on relaxing the eligibility educational qualification, be considered for promotion at the rate of two graduate s to 1 non-graduate, until the non-graduates in the category of Assistant Section officer, as on to-day, are exhausted, and not for future non-graduate entrants. It is made clear that those non-graduates who become Assistant Section Officers hereafter if they aspire to be promoted as section Officers should acquire graduation, before their cases come up for consideration.” 12. The records placed before us for the period subsequent to 05-01-1997 do not clearly indicate as to whether that the note of the learned Chief Justice had been seen by his successors when they directed that no relaxation be granted when the panel of 01.09.1999 was prepared. All that is mentioned in the notes that had been placed before the successors Chief Justice is that in the past, relaxation had been granted on some occasions. The elaborate reasons given by the then Chief Justice on 05-01-1997 have not been set out in the notes and there is nothing to show that the text of the note of the then Chief Justice dated 05.01.1997 has been perused by his successors. 13. The elaborate reasons given by the then Chief Justice on 05-01-1997 have not been set out in the notes and there is nothing to show that the text of the note of the then Chief Justice dated 05.01.1997 has been perused by his successors. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Rules require graduation, the power of relaxation, which is also available under the Rules, having been exercised in the past on some occasions, and there being a continuing need to grant similar relaxation in respect of other persons similarly placed, the failure to exercise that power to relax would be violative of the guarantee of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. Counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Kamalamma and others v. Honorable Chief Justice of High Court of Kerala and others ( (1995) 3 SCC 189 ). The Court therein considered the challenge to the Kerala High Court Service Rules, which permitted non-law graduates also to be considered for appointment as Court officers. The Court upheld the validity of the Rule, and held that the Rule takes 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, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar (Judicial), and that the rule making authority had taken full precaution that only a person of tested capacity was promoted to the post of Court Officer. The Court also observed, after noting that only eight; posts out of 40 were made available to non-law graduates that promotional avenue was made available to those who were at the fag end of their service. The amendment had shut out further promotions of the non-law graduates promoted as Court officers. The Apex Court also held the prescription of a higher educational qualification if a permissible basis of classification not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion. Hence the Rules do not provide for appointment of non-graduates. The classification on the basis of education, between graduates and non-graduates is perfectly valid. 15. Counsel also referred us to the decision of the Apex Court in P.A. Chandran v. Board of Revenue (Excise) (1995 Supp. (1) SCC 159). Hence the Rules do not provide for appointment of non-graduates. The classification on the basis of education, between graduates and non-graduates is perfectly valid. 15. Counsel also referred us to the decision of the Apex Court in P.A. Chandran v. Board of Revenue (Excise) (1995 Supp. (1) SCC 159). The post with which the Court was concerned there, was the post of Excise Preventive Officer, which was promotional post from Excise Guard. The Court further held that the ratio of 1:1 between SSLC and non-SSLC. Excise Guards was reasonable. The Court further held that fixing a quota of promotion on the basis of the educational qualification was not discriminatory. That case is of no assistance to the petitioner, having regard to the nature of the post with which we are concerned in this petition and the fact that the Rules do not prescribe any ratio. On the other hand, the Rules do not provide for promotion of non-graduates. Their promotion is made possible only if and when relaxation is granted. 16. Counsel strenuously contended that non-graduates come from poorer background; that they had no opportunities to acquire a good education and they should not be penalized on account of their not possessing the degree which they could not afford to acquire before joining the service. It was also submitted that the experience gained by them, after joining the service considered along with their ability to pass the other tests should be regarded as sufficient for their further advancement within the service. 17. While we appreciate the submission that every one should have equal opportunity, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it is the duty of those who aspire to advance in their career, to make use of the opportunities available for educating themselves and acquiring higher qualifications. There are, and there have been for some years open universities, wherein persons in employment can, without in any way prejudicing themselves in the performance of their work, also study and acquire not only degrees, but even post graduate degrees. The failure on the part of those in service, who are non-graduates in not utilising such opportunities after they entered service, cannot be excused. Whatever disadvantage they may have had before entering into service, those disadvantages did not constitute a continuing handicap after they entered the service. The qualification prescribed for court officers is not a high qualification. The failure on the part of those in service, who are non-graduates in not utilising such opportunities after they entered service, cannot be excused. Whatever disadvantage they may have had before entering into service, those disadvantages did not constitute a continuing handicap after they entered the service. The qualification prescribed for court officers is not a high qualification. It is merely a degree and that is not hard to acquire, provided one has the will and desire. 18. The validity of the Rule 6(c), which prescribes graduation as the qualification has not been challenged, and rightly so. The need for education of good standard in performing the tasks required to be performed by Court Officers, which position is a responsible position, cannot be disputed. 19. Strict implementation of the Rules by the Chief Justice cannot be found fault with. It is open to the Chief Justice to relax the qualification when the efficient performance of the work of the Court is not impaired in any way by such relaxation, even while by such relaxation, the ability and efficiency of the person in whose favour, such relaxation, is granted, is recognised. Relaxation is not to be granted as a matter of routine, irrespective of the merits of each individual case. Relaxation granted in one or in some years does not result in an obligation to grant relaxation in all succeeding years. Article 14 is not in any way violated by the refusal to relax the qualification in subsequent years. 20. It is also the case of the petitioners that their names had been entered in the panel at a time when the posts were available and therefore, they ought to have been appointed to those posts. The empanelment of a person does not result in indefeasable right in such person to be appointed to the post. As to whether an appointment should or should not be made, and the time at which it should be made, is for the appointing authority to decide as he has to take into account the exigencies of the administration and the need for filling up of the posts, having regard to the overall interest of the institution. The petitioners therefore, cannot contend that they have indefeasible right of appointment by virtue of their names having found place in the panel, the period of validity of which expired on 31-08-1999. 21. The petitioners therefore, cannot contend that they have indefeasible right of appointment by virtue of their names having found place in the panel, the period of validity of which expired on 31-08-1999. 21. The petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for. While dismissing the petition, we must observe that the detailed note which the then Chief Justice had made on 05-01-1997 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of his successors. Before reversing the policy which had been, for reasons given, adopted by the then Chief Justice in office, such reasons should at least receive the attention of the successors, who may or may not agree with the reasons given by the predecessor. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the note that had been made by the then Chief Justice on 05-01-1997 before the Honorable Chief Justice for his consideration. 22. We make it clear that any decision that the learned Chief Justice may take in this regard will bind the petitioners as under the Rules, the Chief Justice alone is competent to grant or decline to grant relaxation of the qualifications prescribed in the Rules. The writ petition is dismissed.