JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs.: “(i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 3.9.2002 (as contained in Annexures 5 and 6) passed by respondent No. 3. (ii) To issue any other writ or pass such other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper. (iii) To award cost of the writ petition.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioners were Seasonal Parchi Vitarak in Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Saharanpur. They were promoted vide order dated 28.10.1995 on the post of Seasonal Clerk in anticipation of sanction in the meeting of District Cane Service Authority, Saharanpur, on the presumption that the petitioners possess the minimum qualification of high school for the aforesaid post of Seasonal Clerk. Subsequently it came to notice that petitioners were not possessing required minimum qualification of high school for the post of Seasonal Clerk. Consequently, order dated 3.9.2002 (Annexures 5 and 6) were passed cancelling their promotion with immediate effect. These two orders relating to petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were having the educational qualification of “Prathma” which is equivalent to high school and as such the impugned orders cancelling the promotion is fully illegal. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity and thus principles of natural justice has been violated. Referring to the supplementary affidavit filed today, Sri Sharma submits that subsequently in the year 2008, both the petitioners have passed high school examination or equivalent examination. Be that as it may, in the present writ petition this Court is not concerned does not intend to enter into the correctness of the submission whether the petitioners have passed high school in the year 2008 or not. This is for the reason that on the date of consideration of promotion, the petitioners must possess the required qualification. It is undisputed that the petitioners were not possessing the required minimum qualification of high school as on 28.10.1995 when they were mistakenly promoted to the post of Seasonal Clerk. 4. This is for the reason that on the date of consideration of promotion, the petitioners must possess the required qualification. It is undisputed that the petitioners were not possessing the required minimum qualification of high school as on 28.10.1995 when they were mistakenly promoted to the post of Seasonal Clerk. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment dated 20.3.1997 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 135 of 1995 Vishambhar Singh and others v. Cooperative Cane Development Union and others and in the case of Smt. Nirmal Rani v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(1) ESC 187 (All). On the other hand Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Babu Ram and another v. Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 422 , which has been followed in the judgment dated 21.2.2013 passed in Writ A No. 48242 of 2002 Anand Kumar and others v. Cane Development Cooperative Society Ltd. Shri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the case of Vishambhar Singh (supra) relied by the petitioner was considered in the case of Babu Ram (supra) and it was held that for promotion to the post of Seasonal Clerk, it is mandatory that the employee must possess minimum qualification of high school and “Prathma” is not a recognized certificate. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record of the writ petition. It is wholly undisputed that the petitioners were not having the qualification of high school in the year 1995. It is also undisputed that the minimum qualification for promotion of the post of Seasonal Clerk is high school. In view of these undisputed facts, the cancellation of promotion order does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. Thus, the principle of natural justice cannot be said to be violated. 6. The judgment in the case of Smt. Nirmal Rani (supra) relied by the petitioners is wholly distinguishable in as much as it relates to termination of service of an Assistant Teacher. 7. In the case of Babu Ram (supra) this Court considered and distinguished the judgment in the case of Vishambhar Singh (supra) and held as under: “9. 6. The judgment in the case of Smt. Nirmal Rani (supra) relied by the petitioners is wholly distinguishable in as much as it relates to termination of service of an Assistant Teacher. 7. In the case of Babu Ram (supra) this Court considered and distinguished the judgment in the case of Vishambhar Singh (supra) and held as under: “9. Annexure-2 to the writ petition clearly indicates that “Prathama” examination of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is recognised for limited purposes, namely, it is relevant for treating a person holding ‘Prathama Certificate’ as having knowledge of Hindi only up to High School level. The Central Government Notification, filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, in so many words lays down that “Prathama” examination of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan cannot be treated at par or equivalent to High School. 10. Again, before this Court, in the case of Vishambhar Singh (supra). the question whether “Prathama” should be treated equivalent to High School was neither arising out of pleadings nor raised and it was decided Incidentally. The main question for decision in the said case was regarding interpretation of the expression “High School” the expression used in the concerned regulation. 11. The observation of the learned single Judge regarding “Prathama” to be treated as equivalent to High School is only ‘per incuriam’ and observations in this respect are ‘sub sllentio’. It is not a precedent and cannot be treated as having binding force. 12. I called for the record of the case of Vishambhar Singh (supra) and gone through it. Perusal of the petition supports the above observation : namely the main question arising in the said case was whether an equivalent examination conducted by other recognized educational body was Included in the expression High School or not. The observation of the learned single Judge regarding “Prathama” examination being equivalent to High School appears to have been made on the basis of certain correspondence of the University [filed as (Annexure-RA-2 to the rejoinder-affidavit in that case) which was not the whole of the story. There is no reference to syllabus or statutes or Ordinance of the Allahabad University. 13. Petitioners have not filed syllabus or the certificate of “Prathama” to show that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan claims its said examination as equivalent to ‘High School’. This Court takes judicial notice of the Educational Code of U. P., 1958 Edn. There is no reference to syllabus or statutes or Ordinance of the Allahabad University. 13. Petitioners have not filed syllabus or the certificate of “Prathama” to show that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan claims its said examination as equivalent to ‘High School’. This Court takes judicial notice of the Educational Code of U. P., 1958 Edn. (Corrected up to 31.12.1962) published by Secretary to Government, Education Department, U. P. which does not recognise “Prathama” or any other examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Again Manual of Government Orders (Revised Edition). 1981 Chapter 136 at particular page 482-reproduces-OM No. 8825/11-297-39 dated June 3, 1940, Vol. II, does not support the petitioner’s case. No Statute/Ordinance or Regulation or any other Government Order was either filed in the case of Vishambhar Singh Uupra) or any of it is filed in the present case. There is no material to show that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan claims its “Prathama” examination equivalent to High School.” In the case of Anand Kumar and others (supra) while considering the similar controversy on similar set of facts, this Court held as under: “Vide impugned order dated 3.9.2002 passed by respondent No. 4, the petitioners have been reverted back from the post of Seasonal Clerks to the post of Parchi Distributors on the ground that they did not possess requisite qualification for the said post of Seasonal Clerk required under the relevant Regulations and by mistake on the basis that they have obtained Prathama Certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad they were promoted on the aforesaid post but when the mistake has been detected, they have been reverted back from the post of Seasonal Clerks to the post of Parchi Distributors in the establishment of respondents. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has submitted that under the relevant service Rules, the Prathama Certificate has not been recognised as equvalent qualification to the High School examination conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, therefore, the same cannot be treated to be requisite qualification for the said posts. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has submitted that under the relevant service Rules, the Prathama Certificate has not been recognised as equvalent qualification to the High School examination conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, therefore, the same cannot be treated to be requisite qualification for the said posts. In support of his submission he has also placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in Babu Ram and another v. Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 422 , wherein this Court has held that in absence of any statutory provision or direction by the Government, promotion granted to the petitioners by treating Prathama Certificate as equvalent to the High School. Subsequently, on knowledge of mistake, if the aforesaid promotion is cancelled, no fault can be found in this regard. The aforesaid decision is binding upon this Court and I am in full agreement with the view taken by this Court in aforesaid decision. I am also of considered opinion, that in case the relevant Rule or Regulation does not provide Prathana Certificate equvalent to the High School examination, the holding of aforesaid certificate will not make eligible to the petitioners for the aforesaid post, if they in fact lack requisite qualification of High School. Thus, their reversion from the post of Junior Clerks to the post of Parchi Distributors cannot be faulted with. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. “ In my view, the controversy raised in the present writ petition is concluded by the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Babu Ram (supra) and Anand Kumar (supra). Respectively following the aforesaid two decisions in the case of Anand Kumar (supra) and Babu Ram (supra), I hold that the impugned orders are wholly valid and do not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.