A.K. Goel, CJ.;- This order will dispose of WP (C) Nos. 71 of 2012, 73 of 2012, 765 of 2011 and 5566 of 2011 as it is stated by learned coun­sel for the parties that all the petitions involve common question of law. 2. WP (C) No. 765 of 2011 has been filed by the Association of Teachers in Secondary Schools and High Schools in the State of Assam raising a grievance about the require­ment of possession of BT/B.Ed degree for promotion to the post of Headmaster, under Rule 14 (4)(i) of the Assam Secondary Edu­cation (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 (2003 Rules). 3. By the advertisement dated 02.11.2010 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) applications were invited from eligible candidates for posts of Principals, Vice Principals, Headmasters/Superintendents and Assistant Headmasters/Assistant Superintendents as per qualifica­tions laid down therein and the 2003 Rules. Issue raised in the writ petitions is limited only to the promotion to the post of Headmasters governed by Rule 14. 4. The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1977, regulates con­ditions for recruitment for appointment of teachers in High and Higher Secondary Schools read with 2003 Rules. Rule 14 (2) deals with promotion to the post of Head­master is based on school-wise seniority list. Eligibility is laid down in sub-Rule (4) as fol­lows: "Rule 14(4) Eligibility of the post of Head­master/Headmistress/Superintendent/Assist­ant Headmaster/Assistant' Superintendent of High/High Madrassa Schools as the case may -be: (i) The minimum qualification for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress/Superin­tendent/Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Superintendent shall be Graduate in Arts, Science or Commerce with BT or B.Ed degree. (ii) He/she must possess at least 10 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher, (iii) He/she must posses at least 7 years of teaching experience as Graduate Techers to be an Assistant Headmaster/Headmis­tress/Assistant Superintendent." Grievance of the petitioners is that BT/B. Ed degree could not be made essential quali­fication for the post of Headmaster for the following reasons: (i) The feeder cadre for the post of Headmaster is the graduate teacher and their qualification as per Schedule-I to the 2003 Rules is graduation with weightage for having B.Ed./M.Ed. degree. Thus, even without B.Ed/M.Ed degree a per­son can be appointed graduate teacher. (ii) Rule 12 (d) prescribes qualification for appointment to the post of Principal of Higher Secondary Schools which is a higher post and under the said Rule there is ho requirement to have BT/B.Ed de­gree. degree. Thus, even without B.Ed/M.Ed degree a per­son can be appointed graduate teacher. (ii) Rule 12 (d) prescribes qualification for appointment to the post of Principal of Higher Secondary Schools which is a higher post and under the said Rule there is ho requirement to have BT/B.Ed de­gree. (iii) There are schools where there is no B.Ed/BT degree holders, still the re­quirement is made applicable, making it impossible to fill up the post of Headmas­ter. 5. No reply has been filed on merits even though the writ petition was admitted on 11.02.2011 and time was again granted for filing reply on26.08.2011. However, an affi­davit has been filed by the Director of Sec­ondary Education of the State of Assam stat­ing that State Selection Board was constituted on 25.10.2010 and thereafter the impugned advertisement was issued. Thereafter select lists were submitted and on that basis the ap­pointing authority published the list of 792 Headmasters/Superintendent on 02.08.2011 and appointment letters dated 05.08.2011 were issued. Thereafter, on 27.09.2011 ap­pointment letters were issued to 88 more can­didates. 6. An application has been filed for inter­vention by 52 applicants (MC 3559/2011) who are B.Ed/BT degree holders stating that they could not be appointed on account of stay order granted in different proceedings and thus they were entilted to be heard. The ap­plication was ordered to be heard with the main case. No stay was granted though ap­pointments were made subject to the deci­sion of the writ petitions. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 765/2011, submitted that though educational qualification may be a basis for classification but the same must be rational having nexus with the object for which the qualification was laid down. If the qualification laid down was arbitrary, the same will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) (1975) 3 SCC 76 , Md. Sujat Ali & Ors. Vs. Union 'of India' & Ors. (2) (1998) 7 SCC 676 , Food Corpora­tion of India Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. [paras 4,19,32 and 33] (3) (1995) 1 SCC 519 , State of T.N. Vs. Ananthi Ammal & Ors. [paras 7, 17 and 20]. Sujat Ali & Ors. Vs. Union 'of India' & Ors. (2) (1998) 7 SCC 676 , Food Corpora­tion of India Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. [paras 4,19,32 and 33] (3) (1995) 1 SCC 519 , State of T.N. Vs. Ananthi Ammal & Ors. [paras 7, 17 and 20]. He submitted that B.Ed/BT qualification had no rational as the said qualification was not laid down for the post of teachers which was the feeder cadre and the said qualifica­tion was also not required for the post of Prin­cipal which was a higher post. He submitted that for want of the said qualification, in cer­tain schools no Headmaster may be appointed and in certain schools juniormost teachers have become Headmaster which may not be a desirable situation. 9. Mr. Giash Uddin, learned counsel, ap­pearing in WP (C) No. 5566 of 2011, adopted the submissions of Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel, and further submitted that when at the time of appointment as teacher, the qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster did not include B.Ed/BT degree, the said qualification could not be introduced later as it will amount to withdrawing the ben­efit already acquired by the candidate in vio­lation of principle laid down in the following judgments: (1) (1986) Suppl SCC 584, T.R. Kapur & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2) (1990) 1SCC 411, P. Mahendran & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (3) (1984) 3 SCC 281 , Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (4) (1997) 3 SCC 641 , R.S. Ajara & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors. 10. Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing in WP (C) Nos. 71/2012 and 737 2012, also adopted the above submissions and further submitted that laying down of qualification of BT/B.Ed for teachers under the National Council for Teachers Educa­tion (Determination of Minimum Qualifica­tions for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) (Amendment) Regulations, 2003, was ultra vires the National Council for Teacher Edu­cation Act, 1993 (NCTE Act), as the said Act dealt with the teacher education only and not with the school education. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble. Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 432 , Basic Educa­tion Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai & Ors. [para 19]. 11. Opposing the above submissions learned counsel for the Education Department, Mr. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble. Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 432 , Basic Educa­tion Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai & Ors. [para 19]. 11. Opposing the above submissions learned counsel for the Education Department, Mr. A. Deka, submitted that the petitioners did not participate in the selection process as they did not have the requisite qualification and thus they could not maintain the writ pe­titions. He also submitted that qualifications for the post of Principal were separately laid down and the post was to be filled up by di­rect recruitment and not by promotion. Though B.Ed/BT degree was not prescribed for the post of Principal, post graduation was required which was not the qualification for the post of Headmaster. Thus, both the posts are different and different qualifications are laid down for the said posts. There was no parity in the said two posts. 12. Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned counsel ap­pearing for the interveners, who were hold­ing B.Ed/BT degree but could not be ap­pointed on account of stay orders in various other proceedings, submitted that the Rule was a condition of service and promotion was governed by applicable condition of service which could be changed from time to time. Higher qualification could be laid down for promotion and the same could not be held to be irrational, hi schools where there was no B.Ed/BT degree holder available, the State could be directed to relax the qualification or prescribe some other mechanism. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) AIR 1967 SC 1889 , Roshal lal Tandon Vs. Union of India (2) (1999) 3 SCC 653 , State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Shiv Ram Sharma & Ors. (3) AIR 1974 SC 1 , State of J&K Vs. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. (4) (1997) 3 SCC 103 , Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Association Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. (5) (1993) 2 SCC 340 , P.Murugesan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (6) (1995) Supp (1) SCC 349, D. K. Jain Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 13. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. (4) (1997) 3 SCC 103 , Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Association Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. (5) (1993) 2 SCC 340 , P.Murugesan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (6) (1995) Supp (1) SCC 349, D. K. Jain Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 13. Question for determination is whether the Rule prescribing qualification of B.Ed/BT degree for promotion to the post of Head­master was irrational as said qualification was not laid down for the post of teacher which was a feeder cadre or for the Principal which was higher post and was liable to be struck down on that ground? 14. In our view, the answer has to be in the negative. 15. It is well settled that qualification for the promotion can be laid down by the ap­pointing authority and higher qualification can be the basis for classification. There is no conflict in various judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties on the issue. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to make detailed references thereto. 16. Requirement of BT/B.Ed degree in the context of school education cannot be held to be irrational. No doubt, absence of such requirement for the post in the feeder cadre may create a situation in which no eligible candidate may be found or eligible candidate found may be at the bottom of senority, but there is nothing to show that such a situation is arising in number of cases. Such a case may be an isolated one, which can be taken care of by a separate mechanism. Absence of the said qualification for the post of Principal is also no ground for declaring the Rule to be irrational.Qualifications and method of recruit­ment for the posts is different. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the lay­ing down of qualification for BT/B.Ed degree for promotion to the post of Headmaster. Question of validity of qualifications for the posts of teachers laid down under the NCTE Act and Rules does not arise for considera­tion as appointments in question are not to the posts of teachers. The said question need not be gone into. 17. Question of validity of qualifications for the posts of teachers laid down under the NCTE Act and Rules does not arise for considera­tion as appointments in question are not to the posts of teachers. The said question need not be gone into. 17. However, it is advisable that the De­partment works out appropriate mechanism to deal with situations where there is no can­didate with the qualification of B.Ed/BT or candidate available is junior so that the schools do not suffer. Such a mechanism may be worked out and notified within three months from today. We will also suggest that the Education Department may constitute a committee of experts to review the existing qualification within one month from today which may give its report in next two months. The State may take such further action there­after as may be found appropriate. It is made clear that such an exercise will be no bar to appointments being made earlier, if consid­ered necessary. 18. The writ petitions will stand disposed of accordingly.