P.G. AGARWAL, J. — Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Standing counsel for the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred as "the Corporation" and Mr. D. Das, learned Advocate for the private respondent No. 4 to 12. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners as well as the private respondent No. 4 to 12, hereinafter referred to as the "private respondents" are all employees of the Corporation and at the relevant time they were all serving with a identical pay scale of Rs.670-1500/-. Thereafter the Corporation considered the question of promotion vide the impugned order dated 28.8.97. The petitioners as well as the private respondents were all promoted and posted to different posts. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that vide Annexure-C, they were posted to post, carrying basic pay of Rs. 1635-3950/-whereas the private respondent No. 4 was given a pay scale of Rs. 1835-4325/- and the other private respondents were given the pay scale of Rs. 1785-4200/-. The case of the petitioners is that they are senior in service to the private respondents and as such they could not have been denied or deprived of the higher pay scale. The petitioners also filed representation in the matter but as no action was taken they have approached this Court in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The case of the respondents is that the Guwahati Municipal Corporation has got no Service Rules governing the service condition of their employees. They have also no gradation List or different grades of service in the Corporation. Hence, while the matter for promotion of the writ petitioners as well as the private respondents came up for consideration, a committee was constituted and the said committee was of the view that for some higher posts, minimum educational qualification is to be fixed. Moreover, considering the fact that usually promotions are made to the next higher scale but in this case certain employees may get promotions by jumping some scales. The Standing Finance Committee (SFC) of the Corporation therefore accepted the proposals for promoting persons having higher educational qualification (in non-technical posts) by promoting persons having educational qualification of having a minimum Bachelor Degree or Graduate. The Standing Finance Committee (SFC) of the Corporation therefore accepted the proposals for promoting persons having higher educational qualification (in non-technical posts) by promoting persons having educational qualification of having a minimum Bachelor Degree or Graduate. Accordingly, the petitioners who are all under-graduates were promoted and posted to posts carrying lower pay scales, whereas the private respondents who are all graduates were given higher pay scales and were posted to different posts. It is submitted by the respondents that the private respondents were promoted on the basis of educational qualification, suitability and merit. 4. In this case, there is no dispute at the Bar that the Corporation has got no service rules governing the matter of appointment and promotion of its employees. They have also no different Grades of service and the pay scale is being provided on the basis of the posts considering its responsibility etc. They have also no Gradation List to place an employee as senior or higher than other. It is also not disputed that the minimum educational qualification for entering to the first Grade of the service is Matriculation only and the petitioners as well as the private respondents joined their service at a first Grade. They were promoted from time to time and at the relevant period of time, all these employees were getting an identical pay scale of Rs.670-1500/-. 5. The question that arises for determination in this case is whether the private respondents can be treated differently and given higher pay scales on the basis of their educational qualification. 6. As stated above, there is service rules in the Corporation. The above policy decision was taken by the Standing Finance Committee of the Corporation and thereafter considering the higher educational qualification and suitability, the private respondents were posted to different posts carrying higher scales of pay. The petitioners have also not disputed the fact that the private respondents are all Graduates. Although considering the date of entry into the service the petitioners' claim that they are senior to the respondents, it is seen that the private respondent No. 4, Muslem Uddin Ahmed is senior to the petitioner No. 3, 6 and 7. Likewise, private respondent No. 4 is senior to petitioner No.l, 3, 6 and 7 and private respondent No. 5 to 9 are senior to petitioner No. 3. Likewise, private respondent No. 4 is senior to petitioner No.l, 3, 6 and 7 and private respondent No. 5 to 9 are senior to petitioner No. 3. The writ petitioner have no objection as a matter of principle regarding the policy of providing higher pay scales on the basis of educational qualification or earmarking particular posts with higher pay scales for more qualified persons. It is however, submitted that if such policy is implemented the employees are entitled to notice and they shall also be informed so that they could take steps for obtaining the necessary qualification. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Naresh Chandra Goswami Vs. Guwahati Municipal Corporation, reported in 1996(1) GLT319: 1996 (2) GLJ 44. This Court relying on the Supreme Court observations regarding legitimate expectation held that when the earlier procedure for selection was changed, the Corporation should have given notice to the parties interested to enable them to make representation. In Naresh Chandra Goswami (Supra), the change in the policy decision was made by the Commissioner and this Court held that the Commissioner had no such authority as the change in policy decision can be made by Corporation only. In the instant case, we find from the records produced by the respondent Corporation that the policy decision was taken by the Standing Finance Committee and it was approved by the General Committee. Thus the decision was taken by the said Corporation only. 7. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in Civil Rule No. 4510/97. The question involved in that case was for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion on the ground that they were holding posts with lower pay scale. This Court on the facts of the case however found that the petitioners were also enjoying the similar pay scale as enjoyed by the respondents and as such directed for considering their case for promotion. The facts in Civil Rule No. 4510/97 are altogether different and are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in this case. 8. In Naresh Chandra Goswami (Supra) this Court further held, "even if we assume that the policy was changed by the competent authority no opportunity was given and therefore it cannot be said that the procedure adopted for promotion by changing the existing policy can be justified". 8. In Naresh Chandra Goswami (Supra) this Court further held, "even if we assume that the policy was changed by the competent authority no opportunity was given and therefore it cannot be said that the procedure adopted for promotion by changing the existing policy can be justified". From the records produced it is seen that the policy decision was taken on 7.6.97 and the promotions were made thereafter on 28.8.97, there is nothing on record to show that wide publicity was given to the above policy decision. However, we are unable to accept the submission that the petitioners who are all working in responsible posts of the Corporation were ignorant of the above change in policy decision of the Corporation. So far the policy decision is concerned, it is based on sound footing, in order to man a post having higher responsibility and providing for higher pay scale, based on educational qualification and suitability can definitely be considered as a relevant criteria. This is not a case where single promotion was denied to the petitioners on account of educational qualification. The petitioners as well as the private respondents were all promoted from their initial appointment to higher posts carrying pay scale of Rs.670-1500/-. Thereafter also vide the impugned order the petitioners were promoted and posted to the posts carrying pay scale of Rs. 1635-3950/-, whereas, the private respondents, except the private respondent No. 4, were given pay-scale of Rs.1785-4200/-. Considering the fact that the private respondents are enjoying higher pay scales since 1997 on the basis of the policy decision of the Corporation, no case for depriving them of above benefits is made out. The writ petitioners were given slightly lower pay scale than the private respondents on the basis of the policy decision of the corporation and considering the fact that the pay scale is attached to the posts only and not to the grade as such, no interference in this case is called for. The writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs.