JUDGMENT 1. - By the order dated 20.02.1992, the appellant was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) against the vacant post in the pay scale of As. 950-1680 on ad hoc basis for winter session of the Assembly. By the 1 subsequent order dated 04.05.1992 he was reverted from the post of L.D.C. to a substantive post of Class IV. Aggrieved by the order of reversion, the present appellant preferred writ petition wherein principally he sought for two reliefs; namely: (i) that the provision in the Schedule to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992 providing for the academic qualification of graduate for the promotional post of L.D.C. be declared ultra-vires Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and (ii) that the order of reversion dated 04.05.1992 be quashed and set aside. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, there was interim order in favour of the appellant (original petitioner) but ultimately by the judgment and order dated 28.02.2006, the writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. It is this order which is under challenge in the appeal. 3. That the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment 1 and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992 (for short, the legislative Assembly Service Rules, 1992') were notified on 04.02.1992 and came into force from that date is not in dispute. The Schedule appended thereto provides for various posts in the Legislative Assembly, mode and method of recruitment, minimum academic qualifications, experience, criterion for promotion etc. The post of L.D.C. falls in the category of Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha Ministerial Secretariat. Its method of recruitment is 85% by direct recruitment and 15% by promotion. The academic qualification for the post of L.D.C. as set out in Column 4 of the Schedule is 'Graduate'. The 15% promotional posts are required to be filled in from Class IV employees of Vidhan Sabha Secretariat and criterion for promotion is seniority cum merit. The column of remarks provides that the post shall be filled-in by inviting applications from eligible candidates and selection shall be made on the basis of examination (syllabus to be provided by the Speaker) by a committee consisting of Secretary, Special Secretary and one more officer to be nominated by the Speaker. Sub-para thereof provides therein that it is to be on the basis of interview. 4. Sub-para thereof provides therein that it is to be on the basis of interview. 4. Although in column 4, the academic qualification prescribed for the post of L.D.C. is 'Graduate', the contention on behalf of the appellant is that the said academic qualification is prescribed only for the purpose of direct recruitment and it does not apply to the 15% of the posts to be filled in by promotion. Alternatively, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the academic qualification, 'Graduate' for the post of L.D.Cs. is unconstitutional as in none of the recruitment and service rules in the State service provides for such academic qualification; the qualification provided in the recruitment and service rules of the State being matriculate/higher secondary. Thus, it is submitted that there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by providing the academic qualification 'Graduate' for the post of L.D.C. 5. The contentions on behalf of the appellant do not appeal us. The column 4 has the title, 'minimum academic qualifications, experience for direct recruitment and qualifying service in next higher post of departmental promotion'. The academic qualification, 'Graduate' prescribed therein is not confined to direct recruitment as contended but is applicable to both categories namely; (i) for direct recruitment, and (ii) for promotion. The rule makers have not drawn any distinction in so far as academic qualification for the post of L.D.C. is concerned whether it is by way of direct recruitment or promotion. Though not decisive, but use of comma (,) by the rule makers after the expression, 'minimum academic qualification' suggests that the academic qualification so provided in the column is referable to both the categories of direct recruitment and for promotion. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the academic qualification provided in column 4 is not confined to the category of L.D.C. by direct recruitment only; but it applies to both modes. 6. In so far as constitutionality of prescribing minimum academic qualification, 'Graduation' for the post of L.D.C. is concerned, we hardly find any merit in the contention of the appellant that it is violative of Article 16. The academic qualification of a particular post prescribed in some other service rules cannot be basis for declaring a provision unconstitutional. 6. In so far as constitutionality of prescribing minimum academic qualification, 'Graduation' for the post of L.D.C. is concerned, we hardly find any merit in the contention of the appellant that it is violative of Article 16. The academic qualification of a particular post prescribed in some other service rules cannot be basis for declaring a provision unconstitutional. A close look at six categories of posts that are covered by the category of Ministerial service under the Legislative Assembly Service Rules, 1992 would show that for all these posts, the minimum educational qualification is 'Graduate'. If for legislative Assembly Ministerial Service, the rules provide for academic qualification 'Graduate' for the post of L.D.C., it cannot be said that such qualification is violative of Article 16. Our attention was invited to the remarks column against the post of U.D.C. which provides, 'in case of non-graduate, on passing a proficiency test, the syllabus to be prescribed by the Speaker'. That the post of U.D.C. is 100% by promotion from the post of L.D.C./Proof Reader/Telephone Operator is not in dispute. There is merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the remarks column that provides for promotion of non-graduate L.D.C. to the post of U.D.C. is to provide channel of promotion to L.D.Cs. who were appointed prior to coming into force of 1992 Rules. It is common ground of the parties that prior to the coming into force of Rules of 1992, for recruitment and service in the Legislative Assembly, the Rajasthan Ministerial and Subordinate Staff Rules, 1957 were applicable for recruitment to the post of L.D.C. and the minimum academic qualification provided therein for the post of L.D.C. is Secondary/matriculate. Obviously, the remarks in the column against the post of U.D.C. takes care of that category of L.D.Cs. 7. We, therefore, hold that the academic qualification 'Graduate' prescribed in the schedule for the post of L.D.C. is for both the modes of recruitment viz.; by way of direct recruitment and promotion and that it does not suffer from any vice of unconstitutionality. 8. In view of the fact that the minimum academic qualification for the post of L.D.C. to be filled in by promotion is 'Graduate', the petitioner is not eligible. 9. 8. In view of the fact that the minimum academic qualification for the post of L.D.C. to be filled in by promotion is 'Graduate', the petitioner is not eligible. 9. Even otherwise, the order dated 20.02.1992 is clear and categorical that the promotion was purely on ad hoc basis only for the purpose of winter session. Obviously, such promotion could not create any right of post in appellant's favour. 10. The dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge, in the circumstances, cannot be faulted. The special appeal is dismissed in Iimine. 11. Upon dismissal of the writ petition, needless to say, the ad-interim stay order stands discharged.Appeal Dismissed. *******