Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 524 (KAR)

B. R. Chandra Prasad v. Prakash Akki

2016-07-08

B.S.PATIL

body2016
ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. All the petitioners have entered service of the Bangalore University as Junior Assistants. They possessed the requisite qualification of pass in SSLC and were qualified to be appointed as Junior Assistants. Petitioners 1 to 10, 43 and 44 are working as Superintendents having been promoted first as Assistants, thereafter as Senior Assistants and subsequently, as Superintendents. Petitioners 11 to 15 are serving in the cadre of Senior Assistants. They initially joined service as Junior Assistants and were promoted as Assistants and subsequently as Senior Assistants. Whereas, petitioners 16 to 42 are in the cadre of Assistants. They initially joined as junior Assistants and were promoted as Assistants. 2. Question that falls for consideration in this case is : "Whether the minimum qualification of degree prescribed in the Schedule appended to Statute 25.2 for the post of Assistant was applicable only for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant or it applied to promotion from Junior Assistant to the cadre of Assistant also ?" 3. According to the petitioners, though a bare examination of the rule may give an impression that qualification of degree prescribed would apply to both for direct recruitment and promotion to the post of Assistants, on close examination of the same in the context of the provision contained in the New Act i.e., Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (Act No. 29 of 2001) (for short, 'the Act') particularly, Sections 40(3), 83 and 86 and in the light of the understanding and implementation of the same by the University, it was clear that qualification of degree prescribed in the schedule appended applied only to direct recruitment and not for promotion to the higher cadres. 4. Prior to the enactment of Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 was in force. In exercise of power conferred under Section 36 of the 1976 Act, Bangalore University had framed the statutes known as Bangalore University Statutes. They held the field until the new Act came into force on 13-9-2001. Even as per the provisions of the new Act particularly under Section 83, the statutes as framed by the University earlier have been continued to operate to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. 5. They held the field until the new Act came into force on 13-9-2001. Even as per the provisions of the new Act particularly under Section 83, the statutes as framed by the University earlier have been continued to operate to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. 5. Section 83 makes it clear that until the statutes, ordinances, regulations and rules are made under the appropriate provisions of this Act (Act 29 of 2001), the statutes, ordinances, regulations and rules which were made under the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 and in force immediately before the commencement of the said Act, shall continue subject to such adaptations or modifications as may be made therein by the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of Chancellor obtained through the State Government and insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. 6. It is not in dispute that so far new statutes have not been framed in exercise of power conferred under the provisions of the new Act No. 29 of 2001, therefore, earlier statutes continue to operate with to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. By virtue of Section 83, the old statutes are deemed to be statutes framed under the appropriate provisions of the new Act to the extent they are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the new Act. 7. In this case, we are concerned with Statute 25.2 which deals with method of recruitment governing the Cadre and Recruitment of the Employees (Non-teaching) of the University which is dealt with in Chapter 25 of the Bangalore University Statutes. The relevant statutes which deal with method of recruitment are 25.2 and 25.4. They are usefully extracted as under : "25.2 Method of Recruitment : In respect of each category of posts specified in column (1) of the Schedule, the minimum qualifications, the period of probation, if any, and the method of recruitment, shall be as specified in the corresponding entries in columns (3), (4) and (5) of the said Schedule. Proviso : (a) In the event of non-availability of candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications, candidates with lesser qualification may be appointed on a purely temporary basis. Proviso : (a) In the event of non-availability of candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications, candidates with lesser qualification may be appointed on a purely temporary basis. (b) In very special cases, the prescribed qualifications or period of probation, if any, may be, relaxed by the Appointing Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing. 25.3..... 25.4 In the case of any appointment to be made on promotion, no one shall, unless otherwise specified under these Statutes, be considered eligible for such appointment until he acquires the qualification prescribed for the post in question." 8. As Statute 25.2 refers to the schedule appended, for the purpose of understanding the method of recruitment it is necessary to refer to entries made in columns (3), (4) and (5) of the Schedule which pertains to method of recruitment to the post of Junior Assistants, Assistants, Senior Assistants, Superintendents and Assistant Registrars. The qualification prescribed for these posts and mode of recruitment by way of promotion is the subject-matter of grievance in these writ petitions. 9. The method and mode of recruitment for various posts mentioned above is as under :- Category of Post Pay scale Minimum qualifications prescribed Probation period Method of recruitment Junior Assistants - A pass in SSLC or equivalent examination with a certificate in Junior Typewriting - 1.75% by direct recruitment 2. 25% by promotion of Class IV officials including Attendees who have passed SSLC and who have put in a minimum of 5 years' service and have passed a test prescribed by a Committee appointed by : Syndicate. 25% by promotion of Class IV officials including Attendees who have passed SSLC and who have put in a minimum of 5 years' service and have passed a test prescribed by a Committee appointed by : Syndicate. Assistants - A degree of a recognised University - 50% by promotion from the cadre of Junior Assistants who have passed the prescribed departmental exam and who have put in at least 5 years service, 50% by direct recruitment Senior Assistants - For Promotion.-An Assistant must have passed the prescribed Departmental exam and must have put in at least 5 years' service as Assistant - By promotion from the cadre of Assistants and Stenographers Superintendent Administration - For Promotion.-A Assistant must ha' e passed the prescribed Departmental exam and must have put in at least 2 years service as Senior Assistant or 10 years as Assistant - Note.-The selected stenographers should put in one year of service as Assistants before they are promoted as Superintendent Assistant Registrars - a. Graduate with good academic record b. Administrative experience of not lest than 5 years' in a Government Institution or in a University - Either by direct recruitment or by promotion by selection from the cadre of Superintendents. 10. Sri B.M. Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistants requiring a degree from a recognised University has to be understood as prescription made only for the purpose of direct recruitment and not for promotion. It is his contention that, for the post of Junior Assistant, a pass in SSLC or equivalent examination is the minimum qualification; if he puts in at least 5 years of service as Junior Assistant, he would get qualified for being considered for the next higher cadre of Assistants provided he has passed the prescribed departmental examinations. It is urged by him that an ambiguity has set in while mentioning the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistants in the Schedule, hence this Court has to clarify this position so that precious right that has otherwise accrued to petitioners which has been indeed recognised by the University by promoting the experienced Junior Assistants to the post of assistants though they did not possess degree as qualification would be defeated. On the same process of reasoning, it is contended by him that a promoter assistant would be entitled to be considered for further promotion to the next higher cadres of Senior Assistant and Superintendent and thereafter as Assistant Registrar based on experience regardless of whether he possessed degree as a qualification. In support of this contention, Sri B.M. Arun has invited the attention of this Court to the policy of the State Government in providing promotional avenues with regard to ministerial posts from Second Division Assistant to First Division Assistant as per the provisions contained in Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment to the Ministerial Posts) Rules, 1978 where under as per Rule 4, qualification prescribed for the post of a Junior Assistant is SSLC and based on experience such Junior Assistant is entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant. Attention of the Court is invited to Section 40, sub-section (3) of the new Act wherein it is stated that statutes framed by the University governing conditions of service of employees including the emoluments shall be in conformity with the policy of the State Government. It is urged by him that policy of the State Government is discerned from the rules of recruitment framed by the State Government governing recruitment of ministerial posts wherein SSLC is the qualification even for promotion to the cadre of First Division Assistant from the cadre of Second Division Assistant, therefore the University cannot operate the statute framed under the old Act prescribing degree as qualification for promotion to the cadre of Assistants as otherwise, it would be inconsistent with the policy of the Government. 11. In order to emphasise this contention, he has invited the attention of this Court to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.V. Dixit v. State of Karnataka and Others ILR 2004 Kar. 3802 (DB) to urge that policy of the Government can be discerned from the rules framed. 11. In order to emphasise this contention, he has invited the attention of this Court to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.V. Dixit v. State of Karnataka and Others ILR 2004 Kar. 3802 (DB) to urge that policy of the Government can be discerned from the rules framed. In this regard, inviting the attention of the Court to the provisional seniority list of officials determined in the cadre of Superintendents produced at Annexure-Q, dated 15-3-2011, Counsel for the petitioners points out that the University had rightly not insisted for degree as qualification for considering the case of a Junior Assistant for promotion to the cadre of Assistant, Senior Assistant and Superintendent; only after the order dated 17-10-2012 passed in W.P. No. 31065 of 2012 produced at Annexure-A, the University in the guise of enforcing the directions issued therein made a departure in understanding and applying the intent and purport of the minimum qualification of degree for promotion to the post of Assistants, Senior Assistants and Superintendents. It is urged by learned Counsel for petitioners that none of the promotee assistants were made parties to the said writ petition and the observations made in the said order leading to the direction issued to the University to review the promotions made on the basis of provisional seniority list and to effect appropriate promotions in accordance with the final seniority list by conforming to Statute 25.4 of the Bangalore University Statutes was not binding on the petitioners. In this regard, relief of declaration that the said order passed by this Court is not binding on the petitioners has been sought judgments of the Supreme Court are relied in this regard. 12. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.S. Parmar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others 1984 Supp. In this regard, relief of declaration that the said order passed by this Court is not binding on the petitioners has been sought judgments of the Supreme Court are relied in this regard. 12. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.S. Parmar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others 1984 Supp. SCC 1 to urge that in some what similar circumstance where rules specified minimum qualification for promotion from the post of Class 2 service to Class 1 service in Haryana Public Works Department, the Apex Court while interpreting the clause had made it clear that qualification prescribed for the purpose of promotion and the qualification prescribed for the purpose of direct recruitment have to be read separately and not cumulatively as otherwise it would lead to harming the intention of the rule making authority by holding that similar educational qualifications were required both for promotion and for direct recruitment. Attention of the Court is invited to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.R. Kothandaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (1994) 6 SCC 282 , to urge that Court has to bear in mind historical background while judgment the validity of the classification made of the different posts and the educational qualification prescribed for them. Observations made in para 16 of this judgment are emphasised to contend that restriction placed on promotion to the next higher cadre by imposing educational qualification cannot go to the extent of jeopardising the chances of promotion and stagnating them in the lower cadre which would affect their right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned Counsel for the respondent-University contends that so far as post of Assistant, Senior Assistant and Superintendent are concerned, University is not insisting for a degree as qualification for promotion, whereas, in respect of post of Assistant Registrar, candidate has to necessarily possess qualification of degree in order to he promoted. 13. Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned Counsel for the respondent-University contends that so far as post of Assistant, Senior Assistant and Superintendent are concerned, University is not insisting for a degree as qualification for promotion, whereas, in respect of post of Assistant Registrar, candidate has to necessarily possess qualification of degree in order to he promoted. It is also urged by him that memo dated 11-12-2015 has been filed along with copy of proceedings of the meeting dated 9-12-2015, wherein issue of interpretation of Statute 25.4 of the Bangalore University Statute and the stand of the University taken before this Court in various writ petitions filed has been discussed and it was resolved and decided to instruct the University Counsel to submit to this Court that the University would not insist for acquisition of degree as qualification for promotion to the cadre of Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant and from there to the higher cadres of Senior Assistant and Superintendent. It is also submitted by him that statutes framed under the New Act were being finalised and the same would be transmitted to the State Government for submission to the Chancellor for assent with specific recommendations. He also points out that as per sub-section (6) of Section 41 of the Act, State Government on receipt of the draft statute shall submit such draft statutes along with its comments and specific recommendation to the Chancellor within two months from the date of its receipt and the Chancellor may within two months of the date of receipt of the draft statute from the State Government assent or withhold his assent thereto or refer it to the Syndicate for further consideration. 14. It is pointed out by the Counsel for the University that as the University has already resolved to protect the interest of some of the promotees who have been indeed promoted to the next higher cadre though they did not possess requisite qualification of degree and as the University does not intend to revert them, there is no justification for the grievance made by the petitioners. It is also urged by him that insofar as post of Assistant Registrar is concerned, method of recruitment provided is either by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion by selection and appointment shall be made on the basis of merit and suitability in all respects to discharge the duties of the post with due regard to seniority from among persons selected for promotion and that qualification of degree prescribed as minimum qualification has to be strictly adhered. 15. Smt. Vaishali Hegde, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 4 to 13 has urged that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed because none of the persons placed above petitioners are made parties; that the University which did not take any stand before this Court in W.P. No. 31065 of 2012, disposed of on 17-10-2012 cannot now by filing a memo contend that they would not insist for degree as qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant, Senior Assistant and Superintendent; if such promotion were to be allowed, it would, apart from resulting in violating the prescribed qualification, tantamount to allowing persons having only SSLC qualification to become Superintendents and Assistant Registrars. She invites the attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 992 of 1990, disposed of on 2-12-1998 wherein it has been held that respondents therein who were not graduates were not eligible to be ranked above the graduates in the cadre of Assistant. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 23-11-1988 passed in W.P. No. 15566 of 1985 (H. Anjanappa v. Chancellor, Bangalore University and Others 1988 (3) Kar. L.J. 80 (DB): ILR 1989 Kar. 277 (DB)), wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, candidate must necessarily possess qualification of graduation along with other requisite qualification as prescribed in column (3) of Schedule appended to the Statute framed by the Bangalore University. 16. It is also urged by Smt. Vaishali Hegde that question of hearing petitioners while passing order in W.P. No. 31065 of 2012 by this Court did not arise as the challenge laid therein was only with regard to provisional seniority list and the direction issued by the Court was to consider the objections and review promotion. No adverse order against the interest of the petitioners herein was passed there. No adverse order against the interest of the petitioners herein was passed there. Therefore, relief sought in this regard, according to her, is misconceived. She has emphasised the mandate of the provisions contained in Statute 25.4 stating that in the wake of embargo for promotion until the qualification prescribed is acquired, petitioners cannot seek any relief for promotion to the higher post. It is also urged by her that policy of the State Government does not mean rules framed by the State Government. 17. Sri Raghavendra G. Gayathri, learned Counsel for respondents 14 to 19 points out that policy of the State is not contained in the rules, but would be spelt out from the policy adopted in the matter of reservation for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates or for that matter in favour of women, or regarding appointment on compassionate grounds, regularisation of daily wage employees, etc. It is also urged by him that policy of state cannot be extended to prescription of qualification in respect of various posts by the University, because the University can prescribe higher qualification for different posts as per the statute framed by it and it is not necessary that same qualification that has been prescribed by the State in its rules for the State Government employees in different cadres has to be prescribed by the University. In this regard, he has invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Others (1974) 1 SCC 19 , and the judgment in the case of P.U. Joshi and Others v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others (2003) 2 SCC 632. It is useful to extract the observations made in paragraph 10 of the said judgment : "We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. It is useful to extract the observations made in paragraph 10 of the said judgment : "We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." 18. Attention of the Court is also invited to the order dated 6-6-2005 passed in W.P. No. 35971 of 1999 confirmed in W.A. No. 2946 of 2005 and connected cases wherein while construing the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Deputy Registrar as per the schedule appended to the statute framed by the Bangalore University, this Court has held that qualification of Masters Degree coupled with academic or administrative experience of at least 10 years in any University or Government Department dealing with educational matters, was mandatory for being selected/promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar. 19. In the light of the above contentions, I have carefully examined the relevant provisions of the Act and the statutes particularly Statutes 25.2 and 25.4. It is evident that Statutes 25.2 and 25.4 along with schedule prescribe minimum qualification for various posts, particularly posts of Junior Assistant, Assistant, Senior Assistant, Superintendent and of Assistant Registrar. It is clear that specific qualification has been prescribed for these posts in the matter of promotion and direct recruitment. So far as post of Junior Assistant is concerned, pass in SSLC or equivalent examination with a certificate in junior typewriting is minimum qualification. While 75% of the posts of Junior Assistants could be filled by direct recruitment, 25% of the said posts are required to be filled up by promotion of Class IV officials including attenders who have passed SSLC and have put in a minimum of 5 years service and have passed a test prescribed by a Committee appointed by Syndicate. 20. So far as post of Assistant is concerned, both for promotion and direct recruitment, minimum qualification prescribed is degree of a recognised University. However, as regards promotion, 5 years experience and pass in departmental examination is an additional qualification. If at all the authorities of the University intended to prescribe degree as qualification only for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant, the same could have been made clear in the third column of the schedule pertaining to minimum qualification. Minimum qualification of degree prescribed is for holding the post of Assistant, be it by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion. Any other interpretation of the entry made in the schedule would be contrary to the intent and purport expressed therein. Minimum qualification of degree prescribed is for holding the post of Assistant, be it by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion. Any other interpretation of the entry made in the schedule would be contrary to the intent and purport expressed therein. When there is no scope for any other interpretation, question of venturing into discerning the intent of rule making authority by holding that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant, only experience of 5 years with a pass in departmental examination is sufficient and degree is unnecessary. This would result in this Court introducing a new rule in the place of existing one by the process of interpretation which is impermissible. 21. Indeed, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, this Court, on an earlier occasion, has examined the qualification of degree prescribed for the post of Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar and has held that such academic qualification prescribed for the said posts could not be found fault with. 22. Insofar as arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as per Act No. 29 of 2001, particularly in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 40 of the Act, the statutes framed by the University governing conditions of service of employees including the emoluments shall be in conformity with the policy of the State Government and that the policy of the State Government has been to provide promotional avenues to the post of Assistants/FDAs from the feeder cadre of SDAs without insisting for degree as qualification as has been evident from the Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment to the Ministerial Posts) Rules, 1978, it has to be slated that qualification prescribed by the State Government for being appointed to the posts of SDA and FDA in various departments of the State Government cannot be regarded as policy of the State Government to be mandatorily followed by the University while prescribing the qualification for filling up equivalent posts of Junior Assistants and Assistants in the establishment of University. University has power and jurisdiction to frame statutes regulating conditions of service of its employees. It can prescribe different qualification and sometimes better qualification for being recruited for different and equivalent posts under its establishment. Therefore, such a contention advanced cannot be accepted. 23. University has power and jurisdiction to frame statutes regulating conditions of service of its employees. It can prescribe different qualification and sometimes better qualification for being recruited for different and equivalent posts under its establishment. Therefore, such a contention advanced cannot be accepted. 23. It is true while prescribing qualification and providing avenues for promotion, the Competent Authority has to take note of the fact that employees in any particular cadre are not stagnated by denying opportunities for promotion to the higher cadres. Such an approach, if adopted would lead to serious heart burn in the employees who were so deprived and would also tantamount to violating their right for fair and equal treatment. Indeed, a strict interpretation of entry regarding minimum qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant may result in such stagnation to the post of Junior Assistant who might not have secured degree as academic qualification and perhaps for this reason, the University has taken some corrective action by providing promotions to the next higher cadre of Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant. However, I am not concerned with the correctness of the said approach adopted by the University. Fact remains that the University has failed to correct the anomaly for several years by framing appropriate statutes in exercise of powers under the New Act and has chosen to continue the existing statutes framed under the old Act. The grievance of the persons in the lower cadre has not been addressed. 24. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is right and justified in pointing out that though the University, at one point of time in the year 2004 forwarded the amended statutes for consideration to the State Government to be forwarded to the Chancellor along with its recommendation, the State Government, instead of examining the same and forwarding it to the Chancellor with its recommendation, returned the same to the University in the year 2013 nearly after 9 years. It is necessary to notice here that Section 41 of the Act deals with enactment of statutes and their making and it is the Syndicate of the University which is enjoined with the function of enacting amending and repealing the statutes in the manner provided in Section 41 of the Act. It is necessary to notice here that Section 41 of the Act deals with enactment of statutes and their making and it is the Syndicate of the University which is enjoined with the function of enacting amending and repealing the statutes in the manner provided in Section 41 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 41 of the Act states that every statute passed by the Syndicate shall be transmitted to the State Government for submission to the Chancellor for assent with its specific recommendations. Whereas, sub-section (6) of Section 41 of the Act states that the State Government shall on receipt of draft Statute submit such draft statutes along with its comments and specific recommendation to the Chancellor within two months from the date of its receipt and the Chancellor may within two months of the date of receipt of the draft statute from the State Government assent or withhold his assent thereto or refer it to the Syndicate for further consideration. Therefore, action of the State Government in keeping the draft statute from the year 2004 till 2013 without forwarding it to the Chancellor with its recommendation is rather strange. Indeed, the State Government has failed to explain the reason why it had kept the draft statutes with itself for nearly 9 years. Be that as it may, it is now pointed out by the Counsel for the University that steps are underway to immediately forward the draft statutes to the State Government by addressing the grievance of Junior Assistants who claim eligibility for promotion on the basis of their experience without any need to acquire qualification of degree. Suffice to observe that University shall expeditiously take action in this regard and the State Government, it is hoped, would discharge its function once draft statute is received strictly in accordance with sub-section (6) of Section 41 of the Act to ensure that the same was forwarded to the Chancellor wit lain the time frame prescribed therein for further needful action by the Chancellor. 25. 25. In this background, additional contentions urged by the Counsel for the petitioners on the strength of observations made in the judgment of the Apex Court in the T.R. Kothandaraman and Others v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 282 are matters that shall be kept in mind by the University, State Government and the Chancellor while taking necessary action on the draft statutes that are likely to be forwarded by the University. It is needless to observe that as held in paragraph 16 of the said judgment by the Apex Court while higher educational qualification can be the basis for barring promotion or for restricting the scope of promotion, such restriction to be placed cannot go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion and the extent of restriction has to be looked into keeping in mind the reasonableness of such restriction and the reasons that impel such restriction. 26. As regards contention urged by the petitioners stating that order passed in W.P. No. 31065 of 2012 deserves to be set aside insofar as it affects the interest of the petitioners, I am of the view that the said order does not, in any manner, affect the rights of the petitioners, inasmuch as it has referred to the legal position spelt out in Statute 25.4 of the Bangalore University Statutes and in that background, as directed, University has to consider the objections raised to the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Assistant, Senior Assistant and Superintendent and if need be review the promotions granted in accordance with the final seniority list in the background of the statute governing the same. Such observations and directions issued are not directed against any particular candidate. It is a general observation with regard to consideration of objections to the provisional seniority list and therefore, the relief sought in this regard to recall the order dated 17-10-2012 passed in W.P. No. 31065 of 2012 is misconceived. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, question of quashing final seniority list dated 25-10-2013 is also not called for. 27. It is a general observation with regard to consideration of objections to the provisional seniority list and therefore, the relief sought in this regard to recall the order dated 17-10-2012 passed in W.P. No. 31065 of 2012 is misconceived. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, question of quashing final seniority list dated 25-10-2013 is also not called for. 27. A serious apprehension is expressed by the learned Counsel for petitioners that before any further action is taken by the University to address their grievance in accordance with Section 41 of the Act, the authorities may demote the petitioners and other similarly placed to the lower cadre of Junior Assistant ignoring the fact that from 1989 onwards, many of the petitioners were promoted to the cadre of Assistant and have been thereafter given further promotion to the next higher cadre of Senior Assistant and in some cases to the next cadre of Superintendent. This is required to be addressed. 28. As already adverted to above, Counsel for the University has categorically stated and has indeed filed a memo before this Court stating that consistently they have not insisted for degree as qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant, Senior Assistant and Superintendent. He has also pointed out that in the amended statutes which is being forwarded to the State Government, this aspect has been addressed. In this view of the matter, I am sure the University will not resort to any such harsh action of demoting the petitioners to the lower cadre even before action is taken as per Section 41 of the Act in respect of draft statute which is being forwarded by the University to the State Government. 29. Sri Arun, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner lays great emphasis on the judgment in the case of T.R. Kothandaraman and Others v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 282 particularly the observations made in paragraphs 13, 15 and 16 to contend that though educational qualifications can form basis of classification, it could not be laid down as an invariable rule that whenever any classification is made on such basis, the same must be held to be valid irrespective of the nature and purpose of the classification or the quality and extent of the difference in the educational qualifications. He, therefore, points out that even as per the existing statute framed under 1976 Act, the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant had to be treated as minimum qualification prescribed in the schedule for promotion to the higher post of Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant and has to be read differently for promotion and for direct recruitment. He urges that while the requirement of degree can be insisted for direct recruitment such a requirement cannot be insisted for promotion. 30. In the judgment in the case of T.R. Kothandaraman and Others v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 282 , it is stated that even where classification was not acceptable to the Court on principle, it would, before pronouncing its judgment, bear in mind the historical background and while judging the validity of classification, the Court shall have to be conscious about the need for maintaining efficiency in service and also whether the required qualification is necessary for the discharge of duties in the higher post. It is in this background that the stand of the University in this case becomes very relevant inasmuch the University has come up with a specific stand that right from 1989 onwards promotions have been given to the higher cadre of Assistant to persons who had passed the departmental examinations and had put in requisite number of years of service in the cadre of junior Assistant though they did not have the qualification of degree. The University's stand discloses that it is making an attempt to ensure that such promotions are protected and there is absolutely no material placed before the Court that the University is trying to demote these persons who have been promoted long ago to the higher post. This stand of the University holds good not only with regard to the proposed amended statutes, but also in respect of old statutes because promotions have been indeed given when the statutes framed under old Act were in force. Therefore, after the State Government takes necessary action and if the Chancellor accords approval to the draft statute, the University has to proceed in the matter by taking necessary action in the matter in accordance with law. 31. Therefore, after the State Government takes necessary action and if the Chancellor accords approval to the draft statute, the University has to proceed in the matter by taking necessary action in the matter in accordance with law. 31. In the result and for the reasons set out herein above, the prayer made in the writ petitions for quashing the final seniority list and for declaration that minimum qualification prescribed as degree for promotion to the post of Assistant under schedule to Statute 25.2 as inconsistent with the policy of the State Government and for consequential declaration as sought in the writ petitions are rejected. However, a direct on is issued to the University by placing the submission of the Counsel for he University on instructions from the University on record to immediately take steps to forward the draft statutes to the State Government for sub mission to the Chancellor for his assent in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 41 of the Act within a period of two weeks from today. The State Government shall thereafter take necessary action in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 41 of the Act within the time frame prescribed therein in accordance with law for forwarding the same to the Chancellor. It is hoped that long standing grievance of the petitioners and many others similarly placed is addressed expeditiously.