P.G. AGARWAL, J. — Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mushahary Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. K. Etc, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. The petitioners before us are the Engineers having Degree in Engineering and serving in different departments under the State of Arunachal Pradesh. They have challenged the following decisions of the Cabinet conveyed by the Chief Secretary to the various Govt. Departments of Arunachal Pradesh. “In the cabinet meeting held on 6th November 2000 under agenda item No. 2 the cabinet had decided that in all the works departments for promotion from JE to AE, the qualifying years of service for both diploma and degree holders shall be 8 years. 2. Similarly, for promotion from AE to EE, the cabinet had decided that the qualifying years of service or diploma holder shall be 10 years and for degree holder it shall be 8 years. 3. For promotion from EE to SE, the qualifying years of service shall be 6 years and SE to Addl. CE/CE shall be 6 years. 4. Accordingly, the existing RR may be suitably amended by all works departments. 5. The Cabinet had also decided that the promotional avenue for diploma holders shall be limited only to the rank of Executive Engineer.” 2. The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of Item No. 1 only. It is stated that as per the existing Recruitment Rules, in order to promote a Junior Engineer to the post of Asstt. Engineer, the qualifying service is 8 years in respect of a diploma holder and 5 years in respect of the degree holder. However, by the impugned cabinet decision the Govt. wants to do away with the classification and has provided a uniform qualifying service of 8 years, both for diploma holders and degree holders. The petitioner has therefore approached this court for quashing of the said decision of the Cabinet. 3. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the various decisions of the Apex Court, wherein classification on the basis of educational qualification was held to be valid. It is by now settled by the various decisions of the Apex Court that educational qualification is a proper basis for classification for promotion. 3. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the various decisions of the Apex Court, wherein classification on the basis of educational qualification was held to be valid. It is by now settled by the various decisions of the Apex Court that educational qualification is a proper basis for classification for promotion. Learned counsel has also referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Ghanashyam Lal Sarma -vs- North Eastern Hill University, 1995(2) GLT464. There is no dispute at the Bar on that score. The question however is that in this case we are not concerned with the reasonableness of the classification brought out in the Rules. On the contrary, the petitioners have challenged the Govt. policy decision whereby the State proposes to do away with the above classification in the matter of promotion to the post of Asstt, Engineer between the diploma holders and degree holders. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that this Writ Petition is pre-matured in the sense that the Rules have not been amended and this is a decision of the Cabinet only which is still to be executed. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the classification on the ground of educational qualification is permissible but that does not mean that the State is bound to provide for such classification in each and every case. Considering the nature of service and in order to give succour to the diploma holders, if the State decides to do away with any such classification, there is no Bar and the said policy decision of the State cannot be challenged. It is submitted that the duties and responsibilities of Junior Engineers whether recruited from the diploma holders or degree holders is same and they do identical jobs and identical pay scales and other service benefits are provided to them. There is no distinction at all in their functions and responsibilities. Moreover, the post in the rank of Asstt. Engineer is to be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment and so far the direct recruitment is concerned only the degree holders are eligible to apply for the same. The diploma holders thus can be considered for appointment to the post of Asstt. Moreover, the post in the rank of Asstt. Engineer is to be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment and so far the direct recruitment is concerned only the degree holders are eligible to apply for the same. The diploma holders thus can be considered for appointment to the post of Asstt. Engineers by way of promotions only i.e. after serving minimum 8 years as Junior Engineers, whereas for the degree-holders the avenue for direct appointment is available because of their educational qualification only. Further as per the proposed amendment to the Rules the promotional avenues of the diploma holders has been restricted upto the rank of Executive Engineer only. Whereas there is no such limit for the degree holders who can reach the highest post available under the Rules. 5. Mr. Pertin has further submitted that the classification on the basis of educational qualification has been provided in the case of promotion from the post of Asstt. Engineers to the posts of Executive Engineers wherein it is stated that qualifying service in case of diploma holders is 10 years and for the degree holders it shall be 8 years. The said provision is not under challenge before us and in view of the decision of the, Apex Court f in the: case of State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs Trilok Nath reported in 1974(1) SCC19 and reiterated in the case reported in (1998) 7 SCC 676 (food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., there is no scope for any such challenge and the classification is permissible. 6. The question that arises for determination is whether the State is bound to provide classification on the basis of educational qualification and whether the State is precluded from making change in the Rules to do away with this classification. In this connection the following observation of the Apex Court in the case of State of J& K Vs. Shivram Sarma, 1999 (3) SCC 653 are pertinent: “The law is well settled that it is permissible for the Government to prescribe appropriate qualification in the matter of appointment or promotion to different posts. The case put forth on behalf of the respondents is that when they joined the service, the requirement of passing matriculation was not needed and while they are in service, such prescription has been made to their detriment. The case put forth on behalf of the respondents is that when they joined the service, the requirement of passing matriculation was not needed and while they are in service, such prescription has been made to their detriment. But it is clear that there is no idefeasible right in the respondents to claim for promotion to a higher grade to which qualification could be prescribed and there is no guarantee that those rules framed by the Government in that behalf would always be favourable to them. In Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India it was held by this court that once appointed, an employee has no vested right in regard to the terms of service but acquires a status and, therefore, the rights and obligations thereto are no longer determined by the consent of the parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. The High Court has also noticed that there was, an avenue provided for promotion but the prescription of the qualification was not favourable to the respondents. The principle of avoiding stagnation in a particular post will not be with reference to a particular individual employee but with reference to the conditions of service as such. As long as the rules provide for conditions of service making an avenue for promotion to higher grades, the observations made in T.R. Kothandaraman case stand fulfilled. In that view of the matter, we do not think the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents.” 7. Now coming to the facts of the present case we find that considering the plight of the diploma holders and considering their limited scope of promotion, if the State has taken a policy decision that their case for promotion to the Asstt. Engineer shall be considered at per with the degree holders also, the above decision cannot be considered to be discriminating in any manner. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that the nature of duties of the diploma holder, Junior Engineer is different from those of degree holders and both are recognised differently at the level of the Junior Engineers. Hence for not providing any distinction to degree holders for their promotion to the rank of Junior Engineers to the Asstt. Engineers, the Cabinet decision cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 8. Hence for not providing any distinction to degree holders for their promotion to the rank of Junior Engineers to the Asstt. Engineers, the Cabinet decision cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 8. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order of stay stands vacated.