Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By instant petition, petitioner has challenged validity of Rules, 1992 particularly qualification provided for the post of LDC, and has also questioned order of his reversion dated 04.05.1992 (Exhibit 5) from LDC to substantive post of Class IV. .2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner passed Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1983 and was initially appointed as Class IV vide order dated 21.04.1986 (Exhibit 1) and confirmed vide order dated 29.01.1992 (Exhibit 2). He was promoted against 15% quota in the cadre of LDC on ad hoc basis against clear vacancy vide order dated 20.02.1992 (Exhibit 3). But after working for three months he was reverted to the post of Class IV vide order dated 04.05.1992 (Exhibit 5). Hence, this petition. .3. This Court vide order dated 25.05.1993 while admitting this petition, directed-"in case of further promotions, only on the ground that any Class IV servant is High School, shall not be denied consideration for promotion against 152 reserved posts of LDC." .4. Earlier, service conditions of employees of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were regulated by Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1952 (" Rules, 1952") and its Rule 9 deals with matters not specifically provided- ."Any matters relating to appointments in the Assembly Secretariat and the conditions of service of persons so appointed for which no specific provision is made in these rules, shall be governed by the rules and orders for the time being applicable to corresponding appointments or, as the case may be to persons holding corresponding appointments, in the Government Secretariat." 5. However, respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Article 187 (3) of Constitution of India framed the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1992 ("Rules, 1992") which came into force from 04.02.1992, and post of LDC is included in Schedule appended to Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1992 and has to be filled 85% by direct recruitment and 15% by promotion from Class IV cadre, and educational qualification is Graduation. 6. Undeniably, petitioner is not a graduate and was promoted as LDC after Rules, 1992 came into force vide order dated 20.02.1992 (Ex.3). 7. 6. Undeniably, petitioner is not a graduate and was promoted as LDC after Rules, 1992 came into force vide order dated 20.02.1992 (Ex.3). 7. Counsel for petitioner contends that promotions are made of members under the Service Rules applicable to Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Employees or its Subordinate Officers of State Government, wherein so far as quota of Class IV cadre is concerned, matriculate/ higher secondary is a minimum qualification. But respondent in instant case has notified minimum qualification of graduate, which in fact has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and the LDCs who are appointed either in subordinate or secretariat services, are almost discharge same duties carrying similar pay scales; as such prescription of graduate as minimum qualification under Rules, 1992 by respondent is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. 8. Counsel further contends that even prior to enforcement of Rules, 1992, 15% quota was available for promotion from among Class IV employees and at that point of time, Matriculate was the academic qualification for the post of LDC, and at that time, 46 appointments were made by direct recruitment; as such respondents were under obligation to fill corresponding 15% quota available for members of Class IV cadre as per the Rules prevalent at that time before enforcement of Rules, 1992 (04.02.1992), but the respondents have failed to do so and their inaction has deprived the petitioner of his right of fair consideration has accrued to him under Rules, 1952 and, therefore, very order of his reversion is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 9. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. It has been inter alia averred that petitioner was promoted after Rules, 1992 came into force and in fact it was an apparent error committed while promoting him as LDC on 20.02.1992 because indisputably, he was not graduate and has no right to continue under Scheme of Existing Rules, 1992. 10. 9. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. It has been inter alia averred that petitioner was promoted after Rules, 1992 came into force and in fact it was an apparent error committed while promoting him as LDC on 20.02.1992 because indisputably, he was not graduate and has no right to continue under Scheme of Existing Rules, 1992. 10. Counsel for respondent urged that an LDC who was appointed under Secretariat or Subordinate Service Rules, discharges different nature of duties and it is for the employer to decide and to prescribe qualification required for incumbent to hold post in his Organization and two different organizations cannot be compared with, in case of prescription of requisite eligibility to hold the post and therefore, provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution, as contended by Counsel for petitioner, has no application to facts situation of instant case. 11. Counselfor respondent further submitted that after Rules, 1992 came into force, earlier Rules, 1952 have been repealed as is evident from Rules 22 of Rule 1992, whereby any order made or action taken under the Rules so repealed have been saved under Rules, 1992; as such no appointment can now be made under Rules of 1952 which stood repealed, ibid. 12. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. This fact remains undisputed that petitioner is not qualified to hold post of LDC under existing Rules, 1992 as he is not graduate, which is a minimum qualification for an incumbent to hold the post of LDC. Submissions made by Counsel for petitioner of adopting different qualification for the post of LDC in different organization of the State, in my opinion, is of no substance. It is always for employer to take independent decision about qualification or conditions of eligibility to be laid down in view of nature of duties to be discharged by incumbent of post in question. In my opinion, merely because nomenclature is common, there cannot be any comparison of employees appointed in different organization of the State. Nothing has been placed on record which may satisfy about duties which are discharged by LDC in Secretariat or Subordinate Officers of the State Government. Since, incumbents are not similarly situated who were appointed as LDC either in subordinate or Secretariat or Assembly Secretariat Services, no comparison can at all be made amongst them. 13. Nothing has been placed on record which may satisfy about duties which are discharged by LDC in Secretariat or Subordinate Officers of the State Government. Since, incumbents are not similarly situated who were appointed as LDC either in subordinate or Secretariat or Assembly Secretariat Services, no comparison can at all be made amongst them. 13. So far as submission made by Counsel for petitioner that since 45 appointments were made corresponding to 15% quota, requisite qualification was required to be followed under Rules, 1952 (Old) which was applicable at relevant point of time and were still required to be followed under repealed rules, in my opinion, has no merit for the reason that after Rules, 1992 came into force, earlier Rules, 1952 have been repealed and under Rule 22 of Rules, 1992, whereby action and orders passed under old Rules have been saved-as a consequence whereof , no appointment in my opinion can now be made under repealed Rules. 14. In either of the submissions made, there is no merit, but before parting with Judgment , I may observe that petitioner and other similarly situated Class IV having qualification of High School, were allowed to continue in terms of interim order of this Court (Supra) and they are serving as LDCs for almost 13-14 years; as such while taking sympathetic view of matter, respondent may consider for their retention and regularization of service on the post of LDC by exercise of powers under Rule 10 of Rules, 1992. 15. However, the writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations. No costs.