JUDGMENT By the Court.—This intra Court appeal against the judgment dated 30.7.2012 by a learned Single Judge, questions the correctness of the view taken in the impugned judgment on the ground that Group ‘D’ employees possessing higher qualifications are ineligible for consideration and promotion to Grade ‘C’ posts as reserved under the Government Orders dated 31.3.1982 and 3.9.1995. 2. Having heard Sri Agarwal for the appellants, we are unable to perceive any logic in his arguments to discover an illegality so as to reverse the impugned judgment. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Gupta v. Himanchal Pradesh State Electricity Board, AIR 2001 SC 308 , by Sri Agarwal to urge that the reservation as provided for in the Government Orders referred to here-in-above, restricts the eligibility zone to candidates who are High School and Inter pass only. He contends that those possessing higher qualifications are bound to eliminate candidates having High School and Intermediate qualification, and therefore the reservation should be read as restricting the eligibility in favour of those who are only possess High School or Intermediate qualifications. It is then only can reservation be effectively implemented in terms of the Government Orders applicable to the controversy. 3. There can be no dispute with the proposition that reservation in promotion for lesser qualified candidates can be provided for as a reasonable classification as per the decision in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Gupta (Supra). However the said decision nowhere holds that a person more qualified cannot be considered for promotion against a post with a requirement of lesser qualification. 4. In the instant case the Government Orders compartmentalize promotions from amongst Group ‘D’ employees to the extent of 15% who possess High School qualification and 5% for those who possess the next higher qualification of Intermediate. They do not disqualify any candidate having still higher qualifications. The decision in Kuldeep Kumar Gupta’s case (supra) therefore does not help the appellants any further nor is the impugned judgment contrary to the ratio of the said decision. There being no conflict, the argument on behalf of the appellants has to be rejected. 5. To the contrary the ratio of the decision in the case of Mohd. The decision in Kuldeep Kumar Gupta’s case (supra) therefore does not help the appellants any further nor is the impugned judgment contrary to the ratio of the said decision. There being no conflict, the argument on behalf of the appellants has to be rejected. 5. To the contrary the ratio of the decision in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur, AIR 2000 SC 919 , as relied on by Sri Vipin Sinha learned counsel for the respondent comes closer to support the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in paras 21 and 22 thereof. Apart from this a Group ‘C’ post carries a higher responsibility and a better educated person would be an asset and not a liability so as to make him ineligible for the post. We find substance in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in describing this ground of attack as preposterous. The promotion of a better qualified person would add to the efficiency of the functioning of the establishment. Apart from this the learned Single Judge has also vividly described the merits of the respective candidates and found that those higher in merit have been eliminated on the irrational reasoning of higher qualification. This additionally impels us to decline any relief to the appellants. The appeal for the reasons here-in-above lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order stands discharged. No costs. ——————