Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By instant petition, petitioner has prayed for his promotion on the post of Compositor-I from the date his juniors, Suresh Chandra and S.L. Bairathi were promoted from 08.02.1968. 2. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner initially joined as Binder-II on 01.09.1995 and was promoted as Compositor-II on 23.01.1961. While in service, he qualified Hindi-Uttama examination, which is equivalent to Hindi standard of secondary examination on 15.05.1967 as is evident from certificate (Annexure-4). 3. Service conditions of petitioner were regulated in accordance with Rajasthan Government Press Subordinate Service Rules, 1959 ("Rules, 1959") and for recruitment to the post of Compositor-I, Matriculation with 5 years service as Compositor-II and non-Matriculation with 8 years service as Compositor-II, is requisite qualification for one to become eligible to hold the post. Those who were juniors to petitioner in the cadre of Compositor-II, but were holding qualification of Matriculation with 5 years service as Compositor-II were promoted as Compositor-I on 08.02.1968, but petitioner since not Matriculate, was considered for promotion to the post of Compositor-I vide order dated 17.08.1972 (Annexure-14) in the category of non-matriculate Compositor-II. 4. After tentative seniority was published and when juniors were promoted prior to him he made representation to the authority which was finally rejected vide order dated 14.02.1992 (Annexure-23). Hence, this petition. 5. Counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner possessing qualification which is equivalent to matriculation as such he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Compositor-I in the category of Matriculation with 5 years service and denial of promotion to him from the date of his juniors, ibid, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Respondents in their reply inter alia averred that qualification of Hindi Uttma being equivalent to matriculation examination only for Hindi standard, which cannot be considered to be matriculation as such he could not have been considered in the category of Matriculation with 5 years service and no error was committed by respondents in making promotion of his juniors on 08.02.1968 despite the fact that those were juniors in the cadre of Compositor-II. 7. 7. At the time when submissions were made, it was pointed out that under the Scheme of Rules, 1959, Matriculation with 5 years service or non-Matriculation with 8 years service as Compositor-II, is a requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Compositor-I and there is no such requirement prescribed under Rules, 1959 that qualification equivalent to Matriculation can also be considered as eligible. Sufficient time was afforded to Counsel for petitioner and he has tried to satisfy that Matriculation with 5 years service includes such who possessed other equivalent qualification as well and in such circumstances, petitioner too is entitled for promotion. 8. I have considered contentions of the parties and examined material on record. 9. Indisputably petitioner holds qualification of Hindi Uttma which he acquired in 1967 as is evident from certificate (Annexure-4) and has never acquired qualification of Matriculation at any point of time while in service and as per qualification for promotion to the post of Compositor-I under Rules, 1959, it holds only such candidates eligible who have qualification of matriculation with 5 years service and non-matriculation with 8 years service as Compositor-II. 10. There is no such requirement under Scheme of Rules, 1959 holding such candidate eligible who is having qualification equivalent to matriculation as eligible to participate in selection process for promotion to post of Compositor-I. In my considered opinion, in the absence of such requirement, such applicants who possess qualification equivalent to matriculation cannot be considered to be eligible by legal fiction only and such applicants cannot seek indulgence of participation in selection for promotion to the post in question because rule making authority only made those applicants eligible who possessed qualification of matriculation with five years and others who are non-matriculate with 8 years service as Compositor-II as eligible to be considered for promotion. I find no error in the decision of the respondents in treating petitioner in the category of non-matriculation with 8 years service as Compositor-II for consideration of his candidature for promotion to the post of Compositor-I. 11. Consequently the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.