Judgment :- R.Jayasimha Babu, J. Appellants were employed as Technical Assistants in the respondents factory. Respondent engaged in the manufacture of teleprinters and other things. After the petitioners entered service. they acquired degree in Engineering. At the time of their initial employment they had only Diploma in Engineering. They were promoted as Assistant Engineers with effect from 4. 1986. The scale of pay for that post at the time was Rs.900-50-1450. 2. In a writ petition filed in the year 1989, three years after they were so promoted, they contended that they should have been promoted not as Assistant Engineers. But as Engineers, and, they should have been given a scale of pay of Rs.1100-60-1940. It is their case that several years prior to their promotion, other employees, who had also served as Technical Assistants, and who had acquired degree in Engineering after they had entered service had been promoted as Engineers, and given that scale of pay. They complained of infringement of their right under Art.14 of the Constitution. .3. The respondent-employer, in its counter affidavit stated that the post of Assistant Engineer was a newly created post, and the appointment of the petitioners to that post was made in accordance with the Rules governing the recruitment to that post. It was also stated that the promotions that had been given in the past to the post of Engineers was at a time when the cadre of Assistant Engineer did not exist, and further that such promotions had been given only in most cases only after an open selection where the internal candidates competed with those from outside and by way of internal selection in some other instances. The list of seven persons who had been given such promotions in the past was also annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. 4. Wemust at the outset notice that the petitioners had accepted the promotion offered to them, as also the salary that was attached to that promotional post for a period of three years and the grievances sought to be arrived by them is grossly belated. We also do not find any substance in their complaint that any right of theirs under Art.14 of the Constitution has in any way been infringed. 5. We also do not find any substance in their complaint that any right of theirs under Art.14 of the Constitution has in any way been infringed. 5. The persons employed in an establishment, unless they come under the category of workmen, are not entitled to claim rights in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, or can claim a right to instruct the employer as to the number of cadres that should be created, or to further as fright that a pay scale higher than the one attached to the post should be given. While it is always open to the employer to accede to the request of the employees and the negotiate with them, we cannot accede to the submission that was made that the employer in this instance had no right to create a new intermediate cadre of Assistant Engineer. The fact that such a cadre did not exist earlier will not in any way preclude the employer from creating a new cadre. if in the interests of administration the employer considers it necessary. The creation of such a cadre is a matter for the management, and is not a matter in which the persons like the petitioners can claim a right to decide. 6. The promotions that had been given to some other Technical Assistants in the past. We must notice here that such promotions have been given several years prior to 1986 does not thereby create a right in the petitioners to be promoted as Engineers, solely on the ground that they were also Technical Assistants and they had acquired Engineering degree. The cadre of Assistant Engineers having been created by the management and promotions having been made and the promotions having also been accepted by the petitioners, they cannot now assert any right to a higher post based on what had happened years earlier. In any institution the systems in place at a given point of time cannot remain foreseen. Any institution in order to survive an progress, must have sufficient flexibility and dynamism. The fact that a cadre did not exist at one point of time does not mean that such a cadre cannot be created at all. 7. The immediate provocation for filing the writ petition appears to be the recruitment, which the employer had initiated for the post of Engineers in the year 1988. The fact that a cadre did not exist at one point of time does not mean that such a cadre cannot be created at all. 7. The immediate provocation for filing the writ petition appears to be the recruitment, which the employer had initiated for the post of Engineers in the year 1988. The recruitment was to be made from among the fresh graduates from Engineering College besides others who had also the liberty to apply for the post. We have been informed that one of the petitioners had in fact applied and was also selected as an Engineer. The employer certainly had a right to make recruitment for the post of Engineers from among such category of persons who were considered by the employer as competent to discharge the duties attached to the office. .8. The possession of a degree by itself does not entitle the holder thereof to claim that he should be given a post which had been given to any other person, who also holds a similar degree. The suitability for a past does not depend merely on the possession of an academic degree. Many things, besides the degree, are required to make a person competent and fit for holding a post, and discharging responsibilities attached thereto. If the employer in this instance, considered that person who had worked as Technical Assistants and who, while in service had acquired a degree, should for some time serve as Assistant Engineers before they are promoted further as Engineers, that was a matter which was well within the discretion of the management, as it is the administrators in charge of the management who are the proper persons to decide the needs of the institution and the kind of knowledge, experience and expertise required to be possessed by a person appointed to the post in the organization. The employer had also besides giving such promotions, made it possible for those in service to compete along with others for the higher post, and made open selections for the higher post, That is as it should be. If some of the employees who have the ability to hold the higher post are available, providing an opportunity to them to compete for higher post without their having to wait only for internal promotion, is a policy which is in the interest of the employer, as also the employee. 9. If some of the employees who have the ability to hold the higher post are available, providing an opportunity to them to compete for higher post without their having to wait only for internal promotion, is a policy which is in the interest of the employer, as also the employee. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that chill penury had prevented the petitioners from acquiring a degree before they entered service, and that the fact that they were able to acquire such degree after they entered service had demonstrated, that their not having had a degree earlier, was not on account of any short-coming in them, but due to lack of opportunity, and, therefore, their cases should be considered with great sympathy and the promotions sought by them to the higher post should be given to them. We are unable to accede to the submission of counsel. Though the constitution guarantees equality, and equal treatment to all citizens of India, the shark reality in day to-day life, is the fact that all persons do not have the same opportunity for advancement in life. That does not, however, mean that anyone has had initial handicap must therefore be given a higher post solely on account of the fact that such a handicap had existed in the past. The petitioners here have not been denied equal opportunity after their employment as Technical Assistants. They were enabled to study for a degree, they did acquire degrees. The employer did create a higher post to which they had obtained promotion, and they have every opportunity of rising to still higher posts depending upon their own ability. The creation of the intermediate cadre does not in any way deprive the petitioners of any of their rights. nor does it render the employer unsympathetic to the difficulties, if any, that the petitioners may have faced before they entered the service of the employer. 10. Once a person enters the field of employment, it is the duty of the person to equip himself for the position that he holds, and for the posts for which he aspires whether within that organisation, or outside. 10. Once a person enters the field of employment, it is the duty of the person to equip himself for the position that he holds, and for the posts for which he aspires whether within that organisation, or outside. Merely having back to the disadvantage which had existed prior to entry into employment does not in any way serve the larger interest of the organisation, as the organisation not function effectively, if it is to fulfil the objects for which it has been set up. The petitioners here do not claim to belong to any of the classes of persons for whom special reservations are required to be made under any law. The fact that they had acquired Diploma prior to the acquiring degree does not make them disadvantage in relation to the posts available within the organisation. 11. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and seven others v. J.P.Chaurasia and others State of U.P. and seven others v. J.P.Chaurasia and others State of U.P. and seven others v. J.P.Chaurasia and others , (1989)1 L.L.J. 309 that Art.14 is in no way infringed, and that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” also not infringed where the Bench Secretaries of the Allahabad High Court were bifurcated into two courts, although all of them possessed the same qualifications, and performed work which was more or less similar. It was pointed out by the Apex Court that though the functions of the two posts may appear to be similar, there may still be differences in degree in the performance, and though the quantity of the work may be the same, the quality may be different. In the case of Md. Shujat Ali v. Union of India , (1976)2 L.L.J. 115 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that making a difference between graduates and non-graduates supervisors was perfectly legal. In the case of G.K.Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India and others G.K.Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India and others G.K.Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India and others , (1991)1 L.L.J. 349 the court held that similarly cannot be foudn by mathematical formula such as possession of similar degrees, or having worked in similar post at a prior point of time. The claim made for ‘equal pay’ as that of Engineers is wholly untenable as the cadre of Assistant Engineers to lower and that Engineer higher. 12. Learned single Judge, therefore, in our view, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We affirm the judgment. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.