JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Sunar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioners are working in the office of the Public Works Department, Government of Meghalaya in the capacity of Junior Engineers Civil (Non-Diploma). Their case in brief is that they are senior in service to the Respondents No. 3 and 4 and, despite that, the Respondent authority by the notification dated 20th September, 2004 promoted the private Respondents ignoring their seniority. In this writ petition, the aforesaid notification issued by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya has been challenged with consequential direction for consideration of their case for promotion with retrospective effect. That apart, the vires of Clause-7 of the Meghalaya Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', has also been challenged. 3. During the course of argument Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Counsel for the Respondent authority submitted that the Petitioners are not diploma holders in Engineering and they do not possess the requisite qualification necessary for promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer as provided in Rule 7 read with Para-6 of Schedule-II of the Rules. Mr. Sunar argued that the provisions of Rule 7 and the Schedule are discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. Sunar further submitted that no reasonable basis is discernible to justify the classification between the same set of employees working for a considerable length of time and therefore, the provisions of the Rules may be struck down being violative of the Constitution. 4. There is no dispute at the Bar that the writ Petitioners are senior to the private Respondents who have been promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers on the recommendation of the departmental Promotion Committee. There is also no dispute that the writ Petitioners are not diploma holders in Engineering, whereas the private Respondents are Graduate Engineers. Keeping this distinction in mind, the relevant provisions of the Rules are may be referred to: Rule-7. Method of Recruitment: (1) .... There is also no dispute that the writ Petitioners are not diploma holders in Engineering, whereas the private Respondents are Graduate Engineers. Keeping this distinction in mind, the relevant provisions of the Rules are may be referred to: Rule-7. Method of Recruitment: (1) .... (7) Appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Engineer (Design)/Sub-Divisional Officers Sub-Divisional officers (Technical Consultant)/Lecturer /Supervisory Officer, Road Research Laboratory/Assistant Research Officers in the Civil Engineering Branch and Assistant Engineer (Mechanical)/Sub-Divisional Officer (Mechanical) in the Mechanical Engineering Branch and Assistant Engineer/Sub-Divisional Officers (Electrical) in the Electrical Engineering Branch shall be made in the following manner, that is- (a) By promotion from amongst the persons belonging to the Meghalaya (PWD) Subordinate Engineering Service and possessing the requisite qualification, experience etc. and holding the post as specified respectively in Columns 7 and 8 against Item 6 in Schedule II and included in the Select List referred to in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10, and (b) .... 5. It is clear from above that the members of the Subordinate Engineering Service are entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer provided they possess the requisite qualification. The qualification required for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer have been prescribed in para-6 of schedule-II of the Rules. In column-8 of Para-6, it is provided that the persons from Subordinate Engineering Service having three years diploma in Civil Engineering from a recognized institution with 10 years of experience in service as Junior Engineer on the first day of the year in which the selection is made are only eligible for promotion. Admittedly, the writ Petitioners are not diploma holders and, therefore, they do not have the requisite qualification as prescribed under the Rules even though they might have completed ten years of service. Therefore, no fault can be found with the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion of the private Respondents. 6. Now the other question relating to the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 7 and Para-6 of Schedule-II of the Rules requires consideration. The Rules provide for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers from amongst Junior Engineers having Diploma in Engineering with ten years of experience in service. The post of Assistant Engineers is undoubtedly a higher post with higher responsibility as well as accountability. The Rules provide for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers from amongst Junior Engineers having Diploma in Engineering with ten years of experience in service. The post of Assistant Engineers is undoubtedly a higher post with higher responsibility as well as accountability. The State Government in its wisdom decided to man 70% of the posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment from amongst the candidates having Degree in Civil Engineering and 30% by Diploma holders in Civil Engineering by promotion This classification has obviously been made with the view to achieve administrative perfection in Engineering Service based on the criteria i.e. higher educational qualification. The classification is presumptive of higher mental equipment. Therefore, going by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assam State Electricity Board v. Gajendra Nath Pathak and Ors., reported in (1997) 11 SCC 3 and State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sri Trilloki Nath Khosa and Ors., reported in (1974) 1 SCC 19 , I am satisfied that the provisions in the Rules are in conformity with the Constitutional mandate as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no question of interference with Rule 7 and Para-6 of Schedule II of the Rules. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed